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
20 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Republican lawmakers introduce bill to keep stewardship grant program alive
Republicans on the Legislature's Joint Finance Committee rejected a funding request from the City of Ashland to build a new boat launch at Kreher Park. (City of Ashland) A pair of Republican lawmakers has introduced legislation that would re-authorize the Knowles-Nelson Stewardship Grant program, a popular program that allows the state Department of Natural Resources (DNR) to fund the purchase of public land and the upkeep of recreational areas. The decades-old program is set to expire next year and despite its bipartisan support among the state's voters, a subset of Republicans in the Legislature — largely from the northern part of the state — have become increasingly opposed to the program due to concerns that it stops land from being developed for commercial activities. Until a 6-1 decision by the Wisconsin Supreme Court last summer, members of the Legislature's powerful Joint Finance Committee had the ability to place anonymous holds on proposed grants through the program, which resulted in many projects being delayed or prevented altogether. Without that ability, Republicans who were already wary of the program became more opposed because of what they characterize as a lack of legislative oversight. Proponents of the program say the Legislature exercises oversight through the budget writing process when it allocates funding for the program. In recent years, the Knowles-Nelson Stewardship program has received $33 million annually in the state budget. In his budget request this year, Democratic Gov. Tony Evers proposed re-authorizing the program with a $100 million annual budget. Republicans stripped that provision out of the budget along with most of Evers' other proposals. Last week, Rep. Tony Kurtz (R-Wonewoc) and Sen. Patrick Testin (R-Stevens Point) introduced a bill that would keep the program alive with $28 million in annual funding. The bill would also create a major land acquisitions program for stewardship grant awards which would require the DNR to annually submit a list of all its proposed land acquisitions costing more than $1 million for that year. Those acquisitions would need to be approved by votes of the full Legislature. Additionally, the bill would create a sub-program to use stewardship grant funds for habitat restoration projects, require the DNR to prioritize projects that develop already existing public lands over new land acquisition, require local governments to match 20% of the state funding, get rid of the current 10-acre minimum size requirement and limit the state's contribution to 40% of the total cost if the sale of a piece of land is already closed when stewardship funds are applied for. In a co-sponsorship memo, Kurtz and Testin, who did not respond to requests for an interview about the bill, said the initial proposal is meant to be the start of negotiations, not the final version of the bill. 'It's important to note what we're proposing is not an agreed upon deal,' the memo states. 'It's a first offer to provide a starting place for negotiations on this important program. It's very likely the bill will continue to change during the legislative process, but it's important to put something forward to allow feedback, have open-minded conversations and ultimately find a good place to ensure the Knowles-Nelson Stewardship Program's legacy continues.' At a meeting with the Wisconsin chapter of the Audubon Society in April, Kurtz said the program was on 'life support' and he was trying to save it from dying but any bill would need to put some oversight on the DNR in order to receive enough Republican support. The opposition to the stewardship program from a subset of the Republican caucus in both chambers means the bill might require Democratic votes to pass the Legislature and reach Evers' desk. Sen. Jodi Habush Sinykin (D-Whitefish Bay) has spent months pushing for the program's reauthorization – often pointing to a stewardship grant project in her district that was subjected to an anonymous hold, the Cedar Gorge Clay Bluffs on Lake Michigan. She said the hold on that project angered a lot of her constituents of both parties. 'That really got people upset,' she told the Wisconsin Examiner. 'People would not at all want to see a reenactment in any fashion of that anonymous objection process.' Habush Sinykin said that she's closely watching the bill to make sure it protects a program that enjoys wide support outside of the Capitol building and will stir up significant opposition if it's allowed to die. 'Once people understand that this program is at risk, they are coming forward to express their opposition to any permanent damage to the program,' she said. 'And so what we are engaged in right now is this process to keep it going forward, and there is going to be ongoing negotiation, because the devil is in the details. We need to make sure that what is one step forward will not ultimately be two steps backward.' Charles Carlin, director of strategic initiatives for Gathering Waters, a non-profit aimed at land conservation across Wisconsin, said that Kurtz and Testin should be credited for working to get the conversation started and provisions in the bill like the habitat restoration program. But he added that there are still a lot of questions about how provisions such as the requirement for legislative approval will work. 'I think part of what they are trying to balance here is a recognition that this is an incredibly popular program with voters, while trying to balance that against the fact that there are a handful of legislators who are deeply skeptical of the DNR and deeply skeptical of additional investments in conservation,' he said. 'So I see that major land acquisitions component as a way for them to try and balance those competing interests. The way that that major land acquisitions program is currently described in the bill just leaves a lot of question marks.' The bill is set to receive a public hearing in the Assembly Committee on Forestry, Parks and Outdoor Recreation Wednesday at 11 a.m.
Yahoo
20 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Democratic governors seek to roll back state-funded health care for undocumented immigrants
A trio of states with Democratic governors viewed as potential 2028 presidential candidates have taken steps in recent weeks to freeze or cut government-funded health care coverage for undocumented immigrants. Democratic Govs. Gavin Newsom of California, JB Pritzker of Illinois and Tim Walz of Minnesota have largely attributed the proposals to budget shortfalls stemming from original plans to expand health care to immigrants without legal status. But the moves also occur against the backdrop of broader debate within the Democratic Party over how to handle immigration, an issue that dragged it down in the last election and that President Donald Trump and the GOP have continued to try to capitalize on. The plans, which would scale back health care coverage for undocumented immigrants in the three Democratic-led states just years after it was expanded, have angered progressives and immigrant advocacy groups, who warn the party risks alienating its base — particularly as protests against Trump's deportation plans break out around the country. The latest development came in Minnesota on Tuesday, after both chambers of the Legislature passed a bill to end state-funded health care for undocumented adults. The bipartisan effort advanced through the Republican-controlled House and the Democratic-controlled Senate as part of attempts to balance the state budget. It now goes to Walz, who has said he'll sign it. The bill would end undocumented adults' eligibility for MinnesotaCare — the state-funded health insurance program for low-income residents — effectively reversing one of the signature policy wins Walz secured during a landmark legislative session in 2023, when Democrats were in full control of state government. Undocumented children would remain eligible to enroll in the program under the legislation. In California, Newsom unveiled a budget plan last month that would cut back on health care benefits for undocumented immigrants — a stark reversal from his promises of universal health care for all the state's residents, regardless of their immigration status. Newsom's plan in his 2025-26 budget has called for freezing enrollment for undocumented adults to receive the full scope of the state's Medicaid program, known as Medi-Cal. Newsom's office has said the changes would apply only to new applicants over age 19, that existing enrollees wouldn't be kicked off their plans and that the freeze, which would begin next year, wouldn't apply to people enrolled in limited plans. Newsom's proposed changes also included a new $100 monthly premium for adults 19 and older with 'unsatisfactory immigration status' beginning in 2027. His expansion of Medi-Cal has cost far more than his administration anticipated. Newsom has said the changes will help to balance the state's budget, which has run a multibillion-dollar shortfall that he has blamed on Trump's tariffs, as well as growing costs from higher enrollment in Medi-Cal. Meanwhile, Illinois remains on track by the end of the month to end a program — called Health Benefits for Immigrant Adults — that provides state-funded health care coverage for more than 30,000 low-income adults who are living in the state without documentation. Similarly, the program in Illinois was more expensive than expected when it was created in 2021. Pritzker's latest budget, which the Democratic-led Legislature passed last month, proposed eliminating it by July 1. While the moves would help those states recalibrate their budgets, a sweeping Trump-backed domestic policy bill moving through Congress proposes slashing Medicaid funding for states that provide health care coverage to undocumented immigrants. Trump also signed an executive order this year targeting undocumented immigrants' access to government assistance programs. In response to questions from NBC News, Newsom spokesperson Elana Ross reiterated his statement in his initial announcement of the changes last month that 'instead of rolling back the program — meaning cutting people off for basic care — we're capping it.' Pritzker's office said in an email that 'this year, passing a balanced budget required the difficult decision that reflects the reality of Trump and Republicans tanking our national economy and attempting to strip away healthcare.' A Walz spokesperson didn't respond to questions about Minnesota's plan, which was the result of a compromise after Republican lawmakers had pushed to end the entire MinnesotaCare program. 'No one got everything they wanted,' Walz said last month after he reached a tentative deal with Republicans on the budget, which was finalized in a special session this week. 'There were very difficult conversations about issues that were very dear to each of these caucuses. But at the end of the day, we were able to come to this agreement.' Immigrant advocacy groups have panned the moves, saying they risk further imperiling the broader health care system, and blasted Democrats for succumbing to Trump's attacks. 'We urge state leaders to build on their progress, rather than placing the health of their residents at risk,' said Tanya Broder, the senior counsel for health and economic justice policy at the National Immigration Law Center. 'Particularly as extremist politicians scapegoat and target immigrants, we are counting on state officials to do the right thing and hold the line. 'As states increasingly have recognized, a community's health and well-being depend on ensuring that everyone has access to health care. Immigrants pay billions of dollars in federal, state and local taxes, yet many are excluded from critical health care programs,' she added. 'Terminating state coverage for immigrants will compromise our collective health, as well as the health care infrastructure that serves all of us.' Some progressives questioned whether the moves were part of a broader strategy by the three governors to move to the right on the broader issue of immigration, which polling has shown still remains one of Trump's strongest issues. They said they could face a backlash from their base by departing from positions on supporting immigrant communities and expanding health care. 'It really feeds into the conservative narrative that undocumented immigrants are a drain on our communities,' said Jennifer Driver, a senior director at the State Innovation Exchange, a progressive legislative policy group. 'This assumption that by moving more to the middle or to the right that you're going to recruit some people back — I think it's a miscalculation. 'The frustration that you're seeing in the Democratic base is due to this kind of this waffling, this kind of idea that 'OK, yes, we are progressive — but only in some moments,'' Driver added. Other strategists suggested it remained too early to gauge whether a broader shift was in play as governors and other lawmakers positioned themselves for potential 2028 White House bids, and they emphasized that the threats blue states face from Trump are serious. 'The Trump administration is squeezing the hell out of states,' said Jeff Blodgett, a Minnesota-based Democratic strategist who was a campaign manager for the late Sen. Paul Wellstone and the state director for both of Barack Obama's presidential campaigns. 'There's just a lot of concern about current and future budgets given what the federal government is doing to states.' This article was originally published on
Yahoo
20 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Citi Field's casino team lobbying against Bally's ahead of key Council vote
NEW YORK — A bid to build a casino in the Bronx became the subject of dueling lobbying efforts Tuesday, hours ahead of Bally's last shot to overcome a key hurdle in the City Council. The proposal for a casino at the former Trump golf course at Ferry Point — now called Bally's Golf Links — needs an added layer of approval from the state Legislature since the site is classified as public parkland. Before Albany lawmakers can take up that measure, the Council must pass a resolution permitting the move. Bally's last shot to secure that so-called home rule message before the end of Albany's legislative session is during the Council meeting Wednesday. Cue the eleventh-hour drama. As the Bronx bidder tried to whip votes in favor of the resolution, and over the objections of the local lawmaker representing the area, the team behind a competing casino bid backed by Mets owner Steve Cohen embarked on a lobbying effort of its own, according to several people familiar with the calls. 'Their large army of lobbyists is going very hard,' said one Council member familiar with the matter who requested anonymity to speak freely. Council Member Kristy Marmorato, who represents the area, presents a major challenge for Bally's: She is resisting its plans for a gaming facility in her district, according to people familiar with her position. That's made the company's effort to win over some of her fellow lawmakers more difficult, as they'd be breaching unwritten protocol by overriding a colleague on a local matter, the people said. Marmorato did not return requests for comment. Karl Rickett, a spokesperson for Metropolitan Park — the name of Cohen's proposed complex at Citi Field, which would include a casino — declined to comment. Meanwhile, other Council members have expressed reservations that if Bally's won a casino license, it would have to pay $115 million to the Trump Organization, per the companies' purchase agreement reported by the New York Times. Bally's is one of eight bidders competing for one of three New York City-area casino licenses. The field has narrowed in recent months as other bidders — including Related Companies, which had planned a gaming facility at Hudson Yards — have scrapped casino plans amid political headwinds. Late into Tuesday evening, the Council still lacked enough votes to approve the home rule for Bally's, according to multiple people familiar with the matter. That could change by the time the Council is scheduled to vote on Wednesday, and Bally's team was working Tuesday to turn around its fortunes. The state legislative session ends on Thursday, and casino applications are due to the state by June 27. The home rule resolution would simply allow the state Legislature to act, rather than automatically guaranteeing the allowance of a casino on the site. Bally's needs a separate city land use approval to compete in the state-led licensing process. The Metropolitan Park proposal recently won its required state parkland measure, known as alienation, in Albany. A Bally's spokesperson did not return a request for comment on its competitor's lobbying push.
