OPINION: OPINION: New Mexico needs a strategic water supply for development of non-traditional water
Feb. 24—A 2014 study by the U.S. Government Accountability Office gave a wake-up call to U.S. water planners, highlighting that 45 states, including New Mexico, were on a trajectory to experience regional and state-wide fresh water supply shortages by 2024. In response, many states initiated improved water supply planning.
For the past few years, New Mexico has worked with water management agencies, academia, communities, and the public to study our water resources and future supply challenges. The results are sobering: New Mexico can expect a 25%-30% reduction in fresh water availability by 2070. This requires a major shift in water planning and infrastructure development, with more reliance on using nontraditional waters, such as municipal and industrial wastewater, and brackish and produced water.
The Environmental Protection Agency recognized that the development and use of nontraditional waters is important and in 2020, established a National Water Reuse Action Plan (WRAP) to assist states in conducting the research to demonstrate safe, fit-for-purpose treatment and reuse of five major waste waters: industrial, municipal, agricultural, produced water, and storm water.
New Mexico's 50-year Water Action Plan, developed in 2023, acknowledges that New Mexico has significant brackish groundwater and produced water resources that can be treated and used for designated uses to reduce future water shortfalls. The proposed Strategic Water Supply initiative is one of several important efforts identified in the 50-year water plan and focuses on creating funding to purchase treated brackish and produced water, encouraging construction of treatment plants, and providing water for new economic development initiatives. Two bills proposed in the NM Legislature will provide funding to establish and develop the Strategic Water Supply (House Bill 137 and Senate Bill 342).
In a February 10, 2025, Albuquerque Journal op-ed, Mariel Nanasi claimed that "the science needed to ensure safe reuse of produced water simply does not exist," that "current treatment technologies struggle to address the vast array of contaminants, let alone the new toxic byproducts that can form during treatment processes," and that "we lack the scientific knowledge to ensure its safety." However, those claims are not true.
Produced water has been treated, permitted, and safely discharged to the Susquehanna River in Pennsylvania since 2014. In California, brackish water and produced water have been treated and blended with surface water for over 25 years and permitted for agricultural irrigation in California's Central Valley. Wyoming permitted a produced water facility to treat and discharge coal bed methane-produced water for almost 10 years.
Since 2020, New Mexico State University has supported the EPA's research efforts on the health, safety, and environment toxicology of using treated produced water. NMSU's research has been done in cooperation with industry, academia, and state and federal agencies, and has included evaluation of over a dozen produced water treatment technologies. This includes sampling and state-of-the-art analysis of treated produced water for over 400 targeted chemical compounds and non-target analysis for thousands of potential trace chemicals along with risk and toxicology analysis on aquatic species, human cell lines, and vertebrate species.
The data and results have been peer-reviewed and are publicly available. Conclusions from full-scale produced water treatment plants and large-scale treatment demonstrations are clear and overwhelming: Produced and brackish water can be treated and safely put to beneficial use with no adverse impact on the public or environmental health and safety.
Creating and funding the Strategic Water Supply is an innovative approach to new water resource development through public/private funding. It should be supported by all New Mexicans, offering a bold vision of 'water stewardship,' supporting long-term economic growth and future water supply sustainability.
John D'Antonio is president of the New Mexico Desalination Association, and Mike Hightower is an association board member.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
4 hours ago
- Yahoo
Maine lawmakers move forward with changes to 2021 transmission line referendum
A Versant Power technician energizes a line at the Tremont, Maine substation. (Photo courtesy of Versant Power) Though initially divided, lawmakers decided to move forward with a proposal to modify the law born out of a 2021 referendum question requiring the Maine Legislature to approve any new high-impact transmission lines. Although some legislators who worked on the campaign argued the proposal would clarify the law, LD 810 initially fell short of passage in the House of Representatives. After the Senate voted to pass the bill last Wednesday, the House ultimately decided to change course and passed the bill Monday by a one-vote margin. 'I'm shocked that we are being faced with this bill so soon after the historic and controversial battle,' said Rep. Elizabeth Caruso (R-Caratunk) during the House discussion last week. Caruso recounted the efforts by volunteers to gather signatures for the referendum question and the overwhelming support from roughly 60% of voters. The ballot question drew passionate grassroots support and overcame over $60 million in opposition spending fueled mostly by international energy companies. Therefore, the proposal before the Legislature to reform the law 'opposes the will of the people and the vote,' Caruso said. Approving it would send a message to voters that citizens' initiatives 'are a joke,' she added. Rep. Melanie Sachs (D-Freeport) said she was one of those Mainers who stood outside L.L. Bean to collect signatures for the campaign and was proud to vote 'Yes.' Though she still supports that referendum, Sachs also backed LD 810 because it 'is clarifying, not repealing.' Rep. Chris Kessler (D-South Portland), who sponsored LD 810, said he was also among the voters who supported the referendum, but argued his bill is meant to clean up the unintended consequences of the new law. Sen. Nicole Grohoski (D-Hancock), who worked on the referendum campaign, said while it is important to offer constituents legislative approval as a backstop on transmission lines proposed by private corporations, the current statute creates higher scrutiny for lines proposed by the Legislature than those from the private corporations. More specifically, the bill seeks to clarify that when the Legislature is seeking to develop a new transmission line, that project should not need to come back to the Legislature for approval after the Public Utilities Commission's review process. During committee hearings, the Office of Public Advocate, Maine State Chamber of Commerce and multiple environmental organizations agreed the duplicative process can deter developers, drive up costs for ratepayers and stand in the way of meeting climate goals. However, Sen. Matt Harrington (R-York) argued in favor of the current model because it gives the Legislature another opportunity to weigh in on a line after a route has been determined. This could be important because constituents could have issues with a line's route that wouldn't be known at the time of initial approval. SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Yahoo
4 hours ago
- Yahoo
Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick's push to ban THC in Texas draws rare backlash from the right
Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick was clear from the start. Weeks before this year's legislative session began, and before he announced any other priorities, the Republican Senate leader said he wanted lawmakers to ban, at any cost, products that contain the psychoactive compound in weed. His target was the multibillion-dollar hemp industry that had sprouted up thanks to a loophole in a 2019 state law that legalized products providing a similar high to marijuana. Patrick justified his conviction by contending that retailers had abused that loophole to sell products with dangerous amounts of tetrahydrocannabinol, or THC. He accused the retailers of preying on the state's young people with shops posted near schools and marketing aimed at children. 'I couldn't, in good conscience, leave here knowing if we don't do something about it in the next two years — how many kids get sick?' Patrick said in March, talking about his willingness to force a special legislative session by blocking must-pass legislation from making it through the Texas Senate. And ultimately, Patrick got his way — and an explosion of backlash. As pressure mounts on the governor to veto a THC ban sent to his desk, Patrick finds himself in the unfamiliar position of taking flak from conservative activists and media personalities outside the Capitol, many of whom typically march in political lockstep with a man who has long been a darling of the right and done more than perhaps any other elected official to drive Texas rightward. After spearheading the THC ban, Patrick has been accused by some on the right of creating a nanny state and giving Mexican drug cartels a business opportunity to fill demand in the black market. He has been labeled a booze lobby shill for beer distributors who stand to benefit. A hardline conservative state lawmaker who voted against the ban said it contradicted 'the Texas mantra of being pro-business, pro-farmer and pro-veteran.' A Patrick spokesperson did not respond to requests for comment. 'This is stupid,' Dana Loesch, the former National Rifle Association spokesperson who is now the host of a nationally syndicated conservative talk radio show, wrote on social media in response to Patrick's argument that the ban would keep THC away from children. 'It's like the gun ban argument with a different variable. Kids aren't buying it anymore than any other controlled product (alcohol, cigarettes, et al) and if they are, do your job as a parent and parent instead of idiotically expanding government.' Before the blowback erupted from inside his house, Patrick courted Republicans in both chambers of the Legislature to pass Senate Bill 3. The law bans products containing THC — and would eradicate the state's $8 billion hemp industry and its estimated 50,000 jobs if it survives Gov. Greg Abbott's veto pen and expected legal challenges. Abbott, whose office has been inundated with calls to veto SB 3, has not revealed his intentions for the proposed law. The governor could sign SB 3 into law, veto it or do nothing and let it become law without his signature. Proponents of the ban have argued it is needed to rein in a wild west industry that's selling products with dangerously high levels of THC and without proper oversight. Patrick has argued it would be unrealistic to regulate the industry under tighter guardrails — as hemp business leaders and others proposed — because doing so would require an impossible amount of manpower. Lawmakers also passed a bill to expand the state's medical marijuana program by offering more products and adding more qualifying conditions, an olive branch extension to vets and THC users with chronic conditions who opposed the retail ban. Patrick said the medical expansion 'will help those in true need of relief.' But he and his allies have remained steadfast behind the THC ban, even amid pushback from the right. 'Retailers across Texas have exploited a state agriculture law to sell life-threatening, unregulated forms of tetrahydrocannabinol to Texans,' said Sen. Charles Perry, the Lubbock Republican who carried SB 3, when the upper chamber approved the bill. 'These rogue retailers are selling THC products containing several times more THC content than marijuana purchased from a drug dealer off the street. These dangerous products must not be allowed to permeate our communities and endanger Texas children.' Criticism on the right has come from veterans who say they use the products as alternatives to opioid painkillers to help with a variety of ails, industry leaders who say the Republican-controlled state is turning its back on small businesses, and conservative politicos who have no shortage of arrows they have been aiming at Patrick. 'What lives were destroyed by low grade THC shops, Dan? Can you name one?' Kenny Webster, a Houston conservative talk radio host, posted on social media. 'Just one. Go ahead.' Some recent scrutiny was driven by a news conference Patrick called to push back on criticism of the ban, even after it had already cleared both chambers and was on its way to Abbott's desk. Flanked by senators and law enforcement officials, Patrick stood in front of a variety of THC products laid out on a table and made his case. The lieutenant governor said he wanted to encourage the news media to write about the dangers of THC. He also said he had 'total confidence in the governor. … I'm not worried about the governor understanding it. I'm worried about you all understanding it.' At one point Patrick lobbed a bag of edibles at a reporter. He later asked another reporter if he was 'crazy' for inquiring about the move to limit adults' access to the products. 'If he was trying to make a case for a THC ban, I can't think of a more bizarre and counterproductive spectacle than yesterday's press conference,' said Rolando Garcia, a member of the State Republican Executive Committee who routinely criticizes GOP lawmakers for perceived breaches of conservative orthodoxy. 'We have a mad king surrounded by courtiers and yes men afraid to tell him he's making a fool of himself.' Some opponents of the total ban have vowed retribution against Patrick, who is running for reelection in 2026 armed with an endorsement from President Donald Trump and more than $33 million in his campaign coffers. Those factors — and Patrick's long history of promoting policies that most primary voters see as higher priorities than preserving THC access — mean it is unlikely the blowback will cost Patrick much, according to political observers. 'It's hard to imagine given Patrick's position and where he is now that somehow this is going to be in and of itself the source of some fundamental political threat,' said Jim Henson, director of the Texas Politics Project at the University of Texas at Austin. 'Honestly I think we're not used to seeing Dan Patrick criticized very much from within his own party and so it's really sticking out, and that's fair.' Meanwhile, another member of the SREC, Morgan Eakin, on social media questioned Patrick's conservative bona fides by pointing to when Patrick came under fire from his own party over gun rights. As the Legislature in 2021 contemplated letting most Texans carry a handgun without a license or training, Patrick at first said the Senate did not have the votes to pass the measure. Lawmakers ultimately passed the bill, often referred to by Republicans as constitutional carry because of their belief that it is an American's constitutional right to pack heat without involving the government. 'We have to ask ourselves how so many were gaslit into believing the Senate and Dan Patrick were consistently more in line with basic constitutional principles and that [former House Speaker Dade Phelan] and the House were unequivocally liberal,' Eakin wrote. Phelan, a Beaumont Republican who clashed with Patrick during his time as speaker, weighed in on SB 3 Monday, writing on social media that 'Texans do not want a total ban.' 'They do want a reasonable, regulated hemp market free of dangerous products — especially those advertised and sold to minors,' Phelan, who voted for the bill, wrote. 'The gas station garbage must go while Texans enjoy the freedom they expect from conservative governance.' Despite the blowback, Patrick remains a champion of conservative policies and key player in GOP victories. This session alone, state lawmakers passed stiffer bail laws, required that most sheriffs work with federal immigration authorities and approved measures allowing time for prayer in public schools and requiring classrooms to display the Ten Commandments. Patrick has rarely taken much heat from his own party. One notable instance was also related to guns after a pair of mass shootings. In 2019, a gunman wanting to quell an 'invasion' of Hispanic immigrants went to a Walmart in El Paso, where he opened fire and murdered 23 people and wounded 22 others. Shortly after that attack, a gunman terrorized Midland and Odessa with a shooting spree that resulted in the deaths of eight people. Patrick said it was high time the state required background checks on gun sales between strangers. "Someone in the Republican Party has to take the lead on this," he said at the time, adding that he was 'willing to take an arrow' for the stance. The backlash, once again, was swift. His conservatism was called into question and some on the right even painted him as a bigger threat to guns than Democrat Beto O'Rourke, who had infamously said during a presidential debate the same year, 'Hell yes, we are going to take your AR-15.' Patrick withstood the pushback. And lawmakers never approved legislation he called for regulating private stranger-to-stranger gun sales. Since allowing permitless carry in 2021, lawmakers have expanded access to firearms, including with a bill this year to legalize sawed-off shotguns, among other victories for gun rights advocates. The lack of fallout from Patrick's push to regulate private gun sales may offer a clue about how the SB 3 situation will shake out. Patrick received 77% of the 2022 GOP primary vote against only token opposition, and he was easily reelected in November. Disclosure: University of Texas at Austin has been a financial supporter of The Texas Tribune, a nonprofit, nonpartisan news organization that is funded in part by donations from members, foundations and corporate sponsors. Financial supporters play no role in the Tribune's journalism. Find a complete list of them here. Big news: 20 more speakers join the TribFest lineup! New additions include Margaret Spellings, former U.S. secretary of education and CEO of the Bipartisan Policy Center; Michael Curry, former presiding bishop and primate of The Episcopal Church; Beto O'Rourke, former U.S. Representative, D-El Paso; Joe Lonsdale, entrepreneur, founder and managing partner at 8VC; and Katie Phang, journalist and trial lawyer. Get tickets. TribFest 2025 is presented by JPMorganChase.
Chicago Tribune
5 hours ago
- Chicago Tribune
Edward Cross: Global demand for energy is rising. There's no better place to produce it than America
We look around the world today, and ongoing conflicts remind us that secure, reliable access to energy is at the core of our nation's energy security, as well as the security of America's allies. But our energy security should never be taken for granted, and we need policies that ensure we can meet our energy needs tomorrow, not just today. With escalating tensions in the Middle East, Ukraine and other areas around the world, we cannot emphasize enough the commanding presence of American oil and natural gas in the global market and the energy security benefits it provides. Despite the noise from doomsday scenarios, the reality is that oil and natural gas will be needed for decades to come — not just years. Because global demand for energy is rising, there's no better place to produce it than here in America. We produce the most reliable, affordable energy in the world under the strongest environmental standards. American oil and natural gas will continue to be cornerstones of the energy mix for generations to come. Let's reflect on why U.S. energy leadership is so crucial. We look around the world today, and ongoing conflicts remind us that secure, reliable access to energy is at the core of our nation's security — as well as the security of America's allies. Yet, despite war and ongoing geopolitical tensions in the Middle East and Europe, we are not in an energy crisis. Why? Because of the resilience and innovation of nearly 11 million American workers supported by the oil and gas industry. These men and women ramped up production when the world needed it most, even in the face of challenging policies from Washington. Their efforts kept the lights on around the world — something every state and federal policymaker should commend. With wars in multiple energy-producing regions and threats to shipping in places such as the Red Sea, the stakes are high. It's a stark reminder of the poor energy policy decisions made in the 1960s and '70s, leading to the 1973 oil crisis, with skyrocketing prices and economic turmoil. In this moment, let's learn from those mistakes — not repeat them. We simply must, because as we approach 2050, the global population is projected to reach 10 billion. With energy demand set to increase, we need energy from all sources. Thus, it has never been more important for America to emerge as the runaway top supplier of oil and natural gas. From 2015 to 2022, methane emissions from U.S. oil and natural gas production went down 37%, while production increased 40%, according to Environmental Protection Agency data. Production up and emissions down: That is what the oil and gas industry strives for. The American oil and gas industry is in for the long haul. Let's be clear. There is no more critical industry today than American oil and natural gas. However, some argue that the world no longer needs oil and natural gas and that we can move past them entirely. Others push for policies that restrict access to abundant sources of oil and natural gas, make us dependent on China for critical minerals, limit consumer choices and threaten the very infrastructure that keeps our energy system running. These policies are misguided. They discourage investment in energy projects and impose unrealistic timelines and mandates. What Americans need are choices, not mandates, and honesty about the consequences of losing our energy advantage or sowing the seeds of a new energy crisis. Here's some energy reality for those folks. Even with the most optimistic projections for renewables, nearly half of all global energy will still come from oil and natural gas in 2050 — roughly where it is today. The question is whether that energy will come from America, with our commitment to environmental stewardship, or from nations that do not share our values. President Donald Trump's administration faces important decisions to secure America's energy advantage at a time of rising geopolitical volatility around the world. We must focus on protecting consumer choice, expanding access to our vast energy resources, and advancing sensible energy and tax policy. These are not just popular positions — they're essential. American energy leadership is our insurance policy against volatility and a pillar of our national security. It's the result of decades of bipartisan commitment, with every president from Jimmy Carter to Trump calling for greater American energy independence. You don't have to read a newspaper or watch cable news to know that given the state of the world, there has never been a more critical time for strong U.S. energy production and the policies that support it. Affordable, reliable energy from U.S. oil and natural gas is not just an economic necessity — it's also a matter of national security. Let's embrace this moment for U.S. oil and natural gas, take pride in our achievements and forge ahead with the determination to leave a legacy of strength and security for generations to come.
