Oil companies have been the biggest users of aquifer exemptions by far. Most are held by smaller, independent companies, but Chevron, America's second-largest oil company, holds at least 28 aquifer exemptions. Exxon holds at least 14. In Wyoming, the Canadian oil giant EnCana, currently embroiled in an investigation of water contamination related to fracking in the town of Pavillion, has been allowed to inject into aquifers at 38 sites.
Once an exemption is issued, it's all but permanent; none have ever been reversed. Permits dictate how much material companies can inject and where, but impose little or no obligations to protect the surrounding water if it has been exempted. The EPA and state environmental agencies require applicants to assess the quality of reservoirs and to do some basic modeling to show where contaminants should end up. But in most cases there is no obligation, for example, to track what has been put into the earth or — except in the case of the uranium mines — to monitor where it does end up.
The biggest problem now, experts say, is that the EPA's criteria for evaluating applications are outdated. The rules — last revised nearly three decades ago — haven't adapted to improving water treatment technology and don't reflect the changing value and scarcity of fresh water.
Aquifers once considered unusable can now be processed for drinking water at a reasonable price.
The law defines an underground source of drinking water as any water that has less than 10,000 parts per million of what are called Total Dissolved Solids, a standard measure of water quality, but historically, water with more than 3,000 TDS has been dismissed as too poor for drinking. It also has been taken for granted that, in most places, the deeper the aquifer — say, below about 2,000 feet — the higher the TDS and the less salvageable the water.
Yet today, Texas towns are treating water that has as high as 4,000 TDS and a Wyoming town is pumping from 8,500 feet deep, thousands of feet below aquifers that the EPA has determined were too far underground to ever produce useable water.
"You can just about treat anything nowadays," said Jorge Arroyo, an engineer and director of innovative water technologies at the Texas Water Development Board, which advises the state on groundwater management. Arroyo said he was unaware that so many Texas aquifers had been exempted, and that it would be feasible to treat many of them. Regarding the exemptions, he said, "With the advent of technology to treat some of this water, I think this is a prudent time to reconsider whether we allow them."
Now, as commercial crops wilt in the dry heat and winds rip the dust loose from American prairies, questions are mounting about whether the EPA should continue to grant exemptions going forward.
"Unless someone can build a clear case that this water cannot be used — we need to keep our groundwater clean," said Al Armendariz, a former regional administrator for the EPA's South Central region who now works with the Sierra Club. "We shouldn't be exempting aquifers unless we have no other choice. We should only exempt the aquifer if we are sure we are never going to use the water again."
Still, skeptics say fewer exemptions are unlikely, despite rising concern about them within the EPA, as the demand for space underground continues to grow. Long-term plans to slow climate change and clean up coal by sequestering carbon dioxide underground, for example, could further endanger aquifers, causing chemical reactions that lead to water contamination.
"Everyone wants clean water and everyone wants clean energy," said Richard Healy, a geologist with the U.S. Geological Survey whose work is focused on the nexus of energy production and water. "Energy development can occur very quickly because there is a lot of money involved. Environmental studies take longer."
See what we're tweeting about
12 Comments
Add CommentIn many areas, communities cannot get water from wells because it causes subsidence, so all of their drinking water comes from surface sources. For decades these waters have been polluted by numerous industries, agriculture and even the waste discharge of other communities upstream. Farmers continue to drench our water with fertilizer, herbicides and pesticides
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFederal officials have given these entities permission to pollute water in many places across the country...
And now all the focus seems solely on energy companies.
Well, if aquifers can't afford campaign or SuperPac contributions, what do you expect.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOn top of that, I've never seen an aquifer hire a congressional slug as a lobbyist, so what do you expect?
The EPA is misnomer and an empty shell. They have long been a rubber stamp for any kind of environmental assault so long as someone profits from it. EPA has fought to have their authority diminished and have had to be prosecuted to force them to do their job. Counting on the EPA to protect the environment is like counting on republicans to protect lower income families. Well call up the lawyers because this isn't going to be fixed any other way.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI don't see any proof of contamination of potable aquifers in the article. Only a presumption that they will be contaminated. Why is that assumed?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'm the author of the article. To clarify -- There are no assumptions here about contamination, and these are not cases of "risk" of contamination. These are cases in which the EPA has set up a process and overseen the ongoing injection of pollutants. The site permits list the contaminants being injected, the volume, the flow rate, and the aquifer formation receiving them. When the SDWA designates a USDW - an underground source of drinking water -- it has by definition defined it as potable and a viable source.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI personally like a bit of fracking fluids, pesticides, herbicides, fungicides, and fertilizers in my drinking water. Especially in the morning. It gives me that extra boost of energy I need to make it through the day. What doesn't kill you makes you stronger. Yea, it might kill a kid or older person, but who cares about them anyways.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDestroying tomorrow to cash in today... why is this perverse, self-cannibalizing behavior still tolerated in the United States? How do the dynamics of greed, cronyism, corruption and influence-peddling make destruction of our fresh water supply acceptable? One suggestion: Require insurance coverage on all fracking operations to place in escrow an environmental trust fund sufficient to repair any environmental damage from operations, regardless of cause. Counter greed with responsibility.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe issue not being addressed is that the people who want to dispose of their industrial waste in the underground aquifers do not want to pay to clean up their waste. Instead, they want to pass the cost of cleanup to others, namely the public.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCapitalism at it's best.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo much for the governments interest in its people. You guys are right, we are freakin corporate slaves and always will be because no good man can take the political job without the intent of their own greed.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEPA is pathetic and powerless! As long as power and fuel companies are allowed to pay off politicians, this bending over of America will absolutely continue. Make lobbyests illegal in Washington. Make it illegal for politicians to go on "vacations" on the lobbyest's dime. Make the idiots in Congress (opposite of progress) do their own research and actually have their constiuant's best interest in mind for once. But..... probably not.... in America!!!!!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWant to see what's in store for poor and underrepresented peoples?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisList to a snake. Grover Norquist. He's running a coup on the U.S. He has never been elected to sh:t.