A flag flies from a residential house damaged in U.S.-Israeli strikes on Iran in eastern Tehran, March 12, 2026.Sobhan Farajvan/Pacific Press/LightRocket/Getty
US senators voted 52-47, largely along party lines,
against a war powers resolution on Wednesday afternoon that would have
stopped the Trump administration from continuing its illegal military
campaign against Iran without congressional approval.
EveryRepublican except Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul
opposed the resolution; all Democrats apart from Sen. John Fetterman of
Pennsylvania supported it. Sen. Jim Justice (R-W.Va.) did not vote.
The resolution “directs the President to remove the United States
Armed Forces from hostilities within or against Iran, unless explicitly
authorized by a declaration of war or a specific authorization for use
of military force.” Article 1 of the Constitution grants Congress—not
the president—the power to declare war, and the War Powers Act grants Congress the power to halt unauthorized military action by requiring troop withdrawal within 60 to 90 days.
“I’m here to call bullshit on the President of the United States.”
Sen. Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.), who sponsored the measure, said on the
Senate floor just before the vote. “Every moment that Donald Trump
leaves our heroes mired in the muck of this illegal war of choice in
Iran, he is showing that he cares more about saving his own face than
leading our troops.”
Duckworth is a veteran who lost both legs serving in the US Army
during the Iraq War. In her remarks on the Senate floor, she said the
Trump administration has not offered sufficient justification for
launching—and now escalating—the war.
“War is always tragic, but when it’s preventable, when it’s unjustified, it’s not just tragic—it’s a travesty,” Duckworth said.
The Democratic-led measure was widely anticipated to fail. As I wrote shortly before the Senate’s previous war powers vote in March, which ended in a 47-53 vote against—with
Sens. Paul and Fetterman being the same lawmakers to cross party
lines—even if the resolution passed, it would ultimately require a
two-thirds congressional majority to overturn Trump’s inevitable
presidential veto.
Many lawmakers thus approached the resolution as a way to drive home their stance on the war.
In that light, what we saw Wednesday was not reassuring: four such
resolutions have now failed since the start of the current war in
February, while more than 2,000 people have been killed in Iran,
according to the country’s health ministry—possibly many more, with figures not updated since April 3—and the US military has confirmed 13 combat-related deaths across the region.
Idaho Is Ground Zero of Republicans’ Escalating War on Trans People
Ten years ago, bathroom bans inspired boycotts and celebrity opposition. Where’s the national outrage now?
Kayla Bartkowski/Getty Images
In
a small corridor near the governor’s office at the Idaho State Capitol
earlier this month, state and local police officers stood in formation,
blocking the public from approaching a public restroom. Inside, two
state police officers had taken up a position beside two white pedestal
sinks, their uniforms a strange contrast to the white marble tiled
walls. One announced that those people remaining in the toilet stalls
were “trespassing.” Not long after, officers walked each person out of
the bathroom and into the corridor, cuffed their wrists behind their
backs, and took them away, some still chanting, “Trans rights are human
rights.”
Days earlier, Governor Brad Little had signed
into law the most punitive anti-trans bathroom bill in the United
States, banning “knowingly and willfully” entering a bathroom or
changing room “that is designated for use by the opposite biological sex of such person”—with
penalties including up to one year in jail for a first offense,
“essentially making it a misdemeanor for trans people to use the
bathroom that aligns with their identity,” said Scar Rulien, a board
member at Trans Affirm,
a statewide trans rights group. Subsequent offenses could result in
felony charges and up to five years in prison. “The bill doesn’t ban
illegal activity in a bathroom,” Rulien told me. “It makes a new crime
out of something.” The ban is not yet in effect. The arrests on April 3
were the culmination of a protest against the law—resulting
in six charges of misdemeanor trespass and two charges of resisting
arrest—but they were a preview of what trans Idahoans may soon face.
Laws
endangering transgender and nonbinary communities are now so common.
Dozens are introduced every legislative session in many states: banning bathroom use, prohibiting gender-affirming care for young people, forcing schools to out trans students, denying changes to government-issued identity documents. The onslaught from anti-trans lawmakers is now so constant that it may be hard to remember that just 10 years ago, it was not like this. Human Rights Campaign identified
55 anti-trans laws introduced across the United States, with three
passing, in 2015. The next year, when North Carolina passed an
anti-trans bathroom ban, there was national resistance by entities from civil rights groups to professional sports organizations and corporations. A narrative began to take hold: Republicans had gone too far, and such bans were costly, extreme, and politically reckless. As North Carolina news outlet The Assembly marked the anniversary of the bathroom ban, it reminded readers that the state’s attorney general called the bill “a national embarrassment” and that Trump, during his 2016 campaign, said North Carolina was “paying a big price” for the law.
Now,
in 2026, when Idaho’s legislature has passed the country’s most
comprehensive and most punitive bathroom ban, the national response
feels comparatively muted. There were no calls for boycotts from major
organizations, like the one from the NAACP in North Carolina. Bruce Springsteen did not cancel
shows. PayPal—a company co-founded by the gay neoreactionary Peter
Thiel—did not threaten to take its business out of state, as the company
had done
when it withdrew a planned expansion to Charlotte. Bathroom bans have
since proliferated, but very few threaten trans people with arrest as
Idaho has. While Florida, Kansas, and Utah have bathroom bans with some criminal penalties in some public bathrooms, Idaho has the only ban extending such penalties to any “place of public accommodation.” The bill was opposed
by a range of groups and interests, from Planned Parenthood Alliance
Advocates–Idaho to the Idaho Fraternal Order of Police. It was not even
the state’s first bathroom ban; the first was in 2023, targeting students, then it expanded
to colleges and universities in 2025, and now it has been expanded to
all bathrooms and for the first time criminalizes trans people
themselves. Legal challenges to both those bans have already been
brought by trans students in Idaho, represented by Lambda Legal. “We are
tremendously concerned about the new law that criminalizes transgender
people for ordinary restroom use,” said Kell Olson, counsel and
strategist at Lambda Legal, in a statement last week. “We are talking to
people across the state whose daily lives are being affected.”
Given
all this, it is unnerving to witness something like public acquiescence
despite Idahoans’ loud and persistent resistance to the bathroom ban,
just one among a host of other anti-trans laws passed this year in the state. As if to make the point for the public, Governor Little signed the bathroom ban into law on Transgender Day of Visibility, as trans Idahoans rallied
outside the Capitol. “We were in our own world,” said Rulien of Trans
Affirm, who had co-organized the rally. “We were in the moment.”
“The
law doesn’t go into effect until July 1, but the trans community is
already feeling the anxiety,” said Preston Pace, an activist and
co-founder of the group Trans Joy Boise.
The message had been sent: The state’s government was officially
excluding trans people from civic life. “We’re already starting to see
the public try to enforce these things, and getting aggressive with
people in public restrooms,” Pace told me by phone last week. In
hearings on the ban, state Senator Brandon Shippy claimed
the bill doesn’t target trans people because trans people are not
mentioned in the bill. “There is no oppressed community that we’re
dealing with here,” said Shippy, “because there is only male and
female.” He called the trans community a “myth.” When the opposition
claims it has no opposition, why would they entertain testimony at all?
Shippy said in 2025 that he had voted against that year’s bathroom ban because to do so would affirm that trans people existed.
The hearings, such as they were, were rushed affairs, with limited public comment. In one Senate committee, testimony was cut off
after only five people spoke (two in support, three against). “We see
this tactic happening a lot,” said Rulien. “Push them to the end of the
session so that they can justify not giving them an adequate hearing.”
Rulien testified against the bill, and as they told me (and told
the panel considering the bathroom ban bill), “this is the second time
I’ve testified against this exact same thing.” Both Pace and Rulien were
clear about what little they can expect from the legislature. “When we
go to the hearings, we go into them knowing they are going to pass
anyway,” said Pace. When they prepare what they’ll say about a bill,
Rulien told me, what advocates are asking themselves is, “How are we
going to frame our testimony so that when this goes to court, it can
potentially be overturned? Because that’s the only real reality for us
to win in these deep red states.”
This is not at all uncommon. In 2021, I met
a Texas middle schooler who had already testified against three
sessions’ worth of anti-trans bills that targeted her education and her
medical care. Any anti-trans strategy that Republicans introduce in one
state predictably spreads to another, and another. Idaho has been
dealing with this for a long time too: In 2020, it was the first state to adopt a blanket ban on trans women and girls participating in women’s sports.
With
the Republicans’ supermajority in the legislature nearly guaranteeing
passage of anti-trans laws, the fight isn’t even really about those
lawmakers. It isn’t really about the law at all. “We go to show that
there are people that are fighting against this,” Pace explained, “and
to also show other people in the trans community that we are fighting
for you.”
In addition to local organizations such as Trans Affirm
and Trans Joy Boise, new media outlets in Idaho are now regularly
reporting on anti-trans legislative developments and community
resistance at the Capitol. Idaho activist and independent journalist
Jaewon Lee livestreamed the bathroom protest on their Boise Blackbirds
Instagram. When we spoke last week, Lee told me that he only really got
into activism after Trump’s reelection. “I’m noticing kind of a pecking
order here,” he told me, “where you have immigrants being targeted,
trans people being targeted.” Lee is a naturalized citizen, and at least
for now, they told me, being involved in activism feels safer than it
might be for immigrants without that status. “I felt an obligation to
get out there, and say, I’m somebody who is on that pecking order.” Lee
realized they weren’t alone in that, that they were seeing people who
said, as he put it, “We’re gonna show up wherever we can and do what
whatever we can, not only for the queer community but for the immigrant
community.” By now, they’ve been seeing “a lot of familiar faces coming
together.” Lee is one of the very few people who is keeping that record
in real time.
The same week as the bathroom arrests at the Capitol, a group of activists held a sit-in
in Governor Little’s office, requesting a meeting and demanding he veto
the bathroom ban, along with a bill that would force teachers to out
trans students to their parents. Lee noticed that the people there were
really active in the community, and were coming from different causes:
“We understand there’s a lot of overlap, and the things we are standing
up for in Idaho against white Christian nationalism right now.” At the
governor’s office sit-in, he saw many of the people involved were faith
leaders who wanted to confront Christian nationalism, as well. Preston
Pace was there too, but wasn’t one of those arrested. “Being in that
setting, surrounded mostly by allies, which consisted of a lot of older,
cis white church women,” they told me. “Having these people so willing
to not only stand up for our rights and protect us, and put themselves
between us and danger, was incredibly moving.”
One of those arrested, Nikson Mathews, spoke at a Trans Day of Visibility rally at the Capitol, telling
supporters how important it was to show up “in front of this building,
when, year after year, they continue to bring bills that try to remove
us from public space and remove us from our public lives.” When Mathews
offered testimony opposing the bathroom ban in the House, like Rulien,
it was far from the first time he had testified against a bathroom ban
in the state. “In the past five years, this body has passed 17 laws
targeting trans rights,” he said, noting that five were introduced this session. “When is it enough? When do we reach the point when it’s been enough?”
Republican
lawmakers were not content merely to file and pass as many of these
bills as they have. They also tried to keep opposition off the record,
voting to suppress a report by Democrats on the likely harms of a the forced outing bill—“a dangerous bill,” the ACLU of Idaho said
in a statement, “that would require trusted adults, such as teachers
and counselors, to monitor children for signs that they are not
conforming to gender stereotypes.” The Democrats’ report attempted to get on the record
objections that will be important when the law is enforced or
challenged, such as its lacking any “safety exception for children at
knowable risk of abuse, homelessness, or parental violence” and creating
“compelled speech obligations that conflict with professional ethical
and legal duties,” among other concerns. House Republicans “do not want
Idahoans to see the serious legal, constitutional, and practical
problems this bill creates,” said House Democratic leader Ilana Rubel.
In his testimony, Nikson Mathews pressed
the lawmakers to think through what the bathroom ban meant for trans
people, “what this law forces me to do,” he said. “It forces me to use
the women’s bathroom,” where people would see a bearded young man enter,
in apparent violation of the law. What if someone took enforcement into
their own hands, attacking a “man” in a “woman’s bathroom”?
“It’s
worth noting that based on existing Idaho code”—Mathews offered a sheaf
of printed pages—“if I were assaulted, that person would face a lighter
punishment than I would for using the men’s bathroom.” The law becomes
an instrument for creating public spaces where violence against trans
people is more likely, and where such violence is deemed less worthy of
punishment than a trans person’s mere presence. Mathews would thus be
left to choose, as he put it: “Do I feel like going to jail today? Or do
I feel like being attacked?” Given the experiences of trans people in
jails and prisons, the likelihood that someone arrested under this law
would also be attacked while in custody is also high, not to mention the
violence of the arrest itself.
Hours before Little signed the
bathroom ban on March 31, he signed a petty and mean-spirited law
banning Pride flags on government buildings. That day, Trans Affirm and
Trans Joy Boise were also recognized with a proclamation
by Boise’s Democratic mayor, Lauren McLean. The contrast is too obvious
to dwell on for long, but that night Boise City Hall was lit
magenta, blue, and violet to mark Trans Day of Visibility, even as its
Pride flag had been removed by state decree. Since then, “the mayor has
kind of maliciously complied,” Scar Rulien told me, “and they have put a
giant rainbow up,” inside and visible in the window. The City Hall
flagpoles are also now wrapped in Pride colors.
Idaho
Republicans are not stopping anytime soon, but the session is done for
the year, offering some time to regroup and ready for the next one. “I
know the reality of how red it is in Idaho, and at times, it is a losing
battle,” Pace told me. Pace is headed out of state soon—but not
for good, as many trans Idahoans have had to do. Pace is going to attend
law school, so they can return “and help continue the fight.”
A deep-injection well used for disposal of wastewater. Kern County,
in California’s San Joaquin Valley, is located over the Monterey Shale
and has seen a dramatic increase in oil drilling and hydraulic fracking
in recent years.
Citizens of the Planet/Education Images/Universal Images Group/Getty Images
The Oil Industry’s Latest Disaster: Trillions of Gallons of Buried Toxic Wastewater
This story is published in partnership with DeSmog, the climate investigations site.
A
cache of government documents dating back nearly a century casts serious doubt on the safety of the oil
and gas industry’s most common method for disposing of its annual
trillion gallons of toxic wastewater: injecting it deep underground.
Despite knowing by the early 1970s that injection wells were at best a makeshift solution, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) never followed its own determination that they should be “a
temporary means of disposal,” used only until “a more environmentally
acceptable means of disposal [becomes] available.”
The documents include scientific research, internal communications, and
talks given at a December 1971 industry and government symposium. And
they come from multiple federal agencies, including the EPA, the U.S.
Department of Energy, and the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS).
The documents show there may be little scientific merit to industry and
government claims that injection wells are a safe means of disposal —
putting drinking water and other mineral resources in communities across
the country at risk of contamination, and jeopardizing local economies
and public health.
The U.S. oil and gas industry produces 25.9 billion barrels of wastewater each year
(or 1.0878 trillion gallons), according to the most recent data
available, a 2022 report from the Groundwater Protection Council that
relies on 2021 data. That’s enough to form a line of waste barrels to
the moon and back 28 times.
This wastewater — variously referred to by the industry as “produced
water,” “brine,” “salt water,” or simply “water” — comes to the surface
naturally during extraction of oil and gas. Some 96 percent, 24.8
billion barrels, is disposed of by injecting it back underground.
In 2020, there were 181,431 injection wells
(referred to in some regions as saltwater disposal wells or SWDs) in
the United States, according to an EPA fact sheet — roughly 11 injection
wells for every Starbucks across the country. If you drove from New
York City to Los Angeles at 65 miles per hour and lined the highway with
them, you would pass an oil and gas wastewater injection well every
nine-tenths of a second.
These injection wells dispose of a complex brew of wastewater by
shooting it deep underground. According to one oil and gas industry
explanation of the wastewater disposal process, liquid waste is injected
underground at high pressure into an “injection layer,” a targeted
layer of rock containing a considerable amount of “pore space”: gaps
between the rock grains that compose it. This injection layer fills up
with the wastewater, while surrounding layers of impermeable rock act as
seals to prevent the waste from leaking out.
Editor’s picks
But oil and gas industry wastewater can contain toxic levels of salt,
carcinogenic substances, and heavy metals, and often far more than
enough of the radioactive element radium to be defined by the EPA as radioactive waste. Radium has been described by researchers as a bone-seeker
because it can mimic calcium and once inside the body may be
incorporated into bones — it’s what killed the early 20th century
factory workers known as the Radium Girls, who used a radium-based radioactive paint to make watches glow in the dark and kept their brushes firm by licking the tips.
Five women known as the “Radium Girls,” after settling their
lawsuit against their employer, U.S. Radium Corp., in Newark, New
Jersey, 1928
Underwood Archives/Getty Images
“These contaminants pose serious threats to human health,” says Amy
Mall, director of the fossil fuels team at the Natural Resources Defense
Council (NRDC). “Every day in the U.S., the oil and gas industry
generates billions of gallons of this dangerous wastewater.”
Related Content
Other industries also use injection wells to dispose of dangerous waste, such as the pharmaceutical and steel industries, slaughterhouses, and pesticide manufacturers.
While the USGS has linked injection wells to damaging earthquakes, both
the oil and gas industry and government regulators claim they are safe
to use for wastewater disposal. But these historic documents suggest
that they have long known otherwise.
Deep-well injection is “a technology of avoiding problems, not solving
them in any real sense,” stated Stanley Greenfield, the EPA Assistant
Administrator for Research and Monitoring, in a 1971 talk at the
“Underground Waste Management and Environmental Implications” symposium
in Houston, Texas. “We really do not know what happens to the wastes
down there,” Greenfield said. “We just hope.”
A Hundred Years of Alarm Bells
Wastewater has plagued the petroleum industry since its earliest days
in western Pennsylvania 150 years ago. For its first century, drillers
directed wastewater into pits dug beside the well, or intentionally
dumped it into ditches, streams, swamps, or bayous. In one instance in
1920s Mississippi, wastewater was stored in a wood-sided swimming pool
for children.
The first allusion to disposal by underground injection appeared in a
1929 report from the U.S. Department of the Interior: “The disposal of
oil-field brines by returning them to a subsurface formation, from the
information thus far obtained, appears to be feasible in isolated
instances.” However, the next lines warned: “Not only is there danger
that the water will migrate to fresh-water sands and pollute a potable
water supply, but also there is an ever-present possibility that this
water may endanger present or future oil production.”
By the mid-20th century, the industry realized that injecting
wastewater could be useful in another way: for pushing hard-to-reach oil
lingering in some rock formations up to the surface. This technique,
called waterflooding or enhanced oil recovery, generated a significant fraction of the oil produced in the U.S. from the 1950s through the early 1990s.
With the passage in 1972 of the Clean Water Act, industries were forced
to stop dumping their wastes into rivers, where it poisoned wildlife,
fouled fresh water supplies, and caused ugly slicks that occasionally
caught fire. This directly drove massive growth in underground disposal,
a transition captured in the EPA documents of the era.
“Little attention was given this technique until the 1960s,” stated a 1974 EPA report
on injection wells, “when the diminishing capabilities of surface
waters to receive effluents, without violation of standards, made
disposal and storage of liquid wastes by deep well injection
increasingly more attractive.”
In 1950, there were just four industrial injection wells in the United
States, and in 1967 there were 110. That number would increase more than
1,000-fold in the coming decades, despite the concerns of some
prominent early critics. In October 1970, David Dominick, the
commissioner of the Federal Water Quality Administration (which would be
merged into the EPA two months later), warned that injection was a
short-term fix to be used with caution and “only until better methods of
disposal are developed.”
Late the following year, in December 1971, some of the 50-odd speakers
at the four-day “Underground Waste Management and Environmental
Implications” symposium in Houston expressed optimism about injection
wells. Vincent McKelvey, a USGS research director and the symposium’s
keynote speaker, said he believed the subterranean earth represented “an
underutilized resource with a great potential for contribution to
national needs.”
Many more at the event, which was organized by the American Association
of Petroleum Geologists and the USGS, were not so sure. In hindsight,
the reservations they shared during the symposium are accurate
predictions of injection well problems to come.
One Utah geologist warned that injecting chemical-filled waste deep
into the earth could affect the strength of rocks and how they interact
with one another. “The result could be earthquakes,” he said, that would
create fractures which could channel waste out of the injection zone. A
Department of Energy researcher said the disposal of radioactive liquid
wastes, even in low concentrations, posed “a particularly vexing
problem.”
A Wyoming law professor offered “not a cheerful” message: “If you goop
up someone’s water supply with your gunk; if you render unusable a
valuable resource a neighboring landowner might have recovered; or if
you ‘grease’ the rocks, cause an earthquake, and shake down his house —
the law will make you pay.”
USGS hydrologist Robert Stallman conjectured — with some accuracy, as
it has turned out — that the consequences of injecting large amounts of
liquid waste underground would include pollution of groundwater and
surface water, changes to the permeability of rocks, cave-ins,
earthquakes, and contamination of underground oil and gas deposits.
Homeowner and environmental scientist Lisa Griggs looks at
one of many cracks in her home that she believes are directly caused by
ongoing earthquakes in Guthrie, Oklahoma, on Jan. 26, 2015.
Linda Davidson/The Washington Post/Getty Images
No one at the conference critiqued the practice of injection as meticulously as a USGS hydrologist named John Ferris.
“The term ‘impermeable’ is never an absolute. All rocks are permeable
to some degree,” Ferris told the symposium. Wastewater would inevitably
escape the injection zone, he continued, and “engulf everything in its
inexorable migration toward the discharge boundaries of the flow
system,” such as a water well, a spring, or an old oil or gas well.
While the advancing front of waste might initially cause wells and
springs to surge with freshwater, the contamination “would become
apparent at ever-increasing distances from the injection site,” he
concluded.
“Where will the waste reside 100 years from now?” asked Orlo Childs, a
Texas petroleum geologist, in his closing remarks. “We may just be
opening up a Pandora’s box.”
“It is clear,” said Theodore Cook of the American Association of
Petroleum Geologists, in his forward to a roundup of the symposium’s
presentations in 1972, “that this method is not the final answer to
society’s waste problems.”
‘Industry Attacked the Rules’
Initially, at least, the EPA seemed to heed these warnings. In a 1974 policy proposal,
the agency echoed David Dominick’s concerns, stating in an internal
memo that they considered “waste disposal by [deep] well injection to be
a temporary means of disposal” until “a more environmentally acceptable
means of disposal” became available.
In June 1980, the EPA began regulating injection wells under the
Underground Injection Control (UIC) program. While this meant there
would be federal oversight, the rules transformed a disposal technique
once critiqued by the agency and with questionable scientific merits,
into one that was now enabled by the country’s top environmental
regulator. Immediately the EPA faced multiple lawsuits by industries,
including oil and gas, mining, and steel, which complained underground
waste injection regulations would cost them billions.
“Industry attacked the rules on the grounds that they were too complex
and too costly,” observed a 1981 Oil & Gas Journal article.
The resulting settlement did away with some of the testing requirements
related to injection wells, and reduced the number and frequency of the
reports that industry must file. Industry also made a concerted and
largely successful effort to wrest regulatory control of injection wells
from the EPA and give it to states. The EPA has since given 33 states
permission to regulate injection wells themselves, including Ohio,
Texas, and Oklahoma.
“I think at best they had a back-of-the-envelope calculation as to the
capacity of these formations to take this waste, at worst it was just a
rubber stamp,” says Ted Auch, a researcher with the oil and gas watchdog
Fieldnotes who has spent over a decade investigating the extent and
impact of oil and gas industry waste production.
The 1980s nonetheless saw some critical government injection well
research, despite eight years of generally pro-industry and
anti-environmental protection policies under President Ronald Reagan.
A 1987 report from the EPA’s Kerr Environmental Research Lab in Ada,
Oklahoma, found that “hazardous wastes are complex mixtures of
materials” and “subsurface environments often take many years to reach
chemical and biological equilibrium.” This made it “difficult to predict
exactly the action or fate of wastes after their injection,” if not
“nearly impossible.”
Another 1987 report, prepared jointly by the EPA and the Department of
Energy and published by the National Institute for Petroleum and Energy
Research, in Bartlesville, Oklahoma, warned of several ways waste might
escape the rock layer it had been injected into and move through the
earth to contaminate groundwater, which is typically held in rock
formations much closer to the surface. Waste, the report stated, could
fracture rocks deep in the earth, “whereby a communication channel
allows the injected waste to migrate to a fresh water aquifer.” The
injection well itself could corrode, enabling “waste to escape and
migrate.” Further, older oil and gas wells could provide “an escape
route whereby the waste can enter an overlying potable ground water
aquifer.”
Since the early 2000s, when new technologies spurred the fracking boom,
drillers have been able to tap into once-inaccessible rock formations
for oil and gas, often located close to communities — and sometimes, as
in the Denver-Julesburg formation in Colorado, or the Marcellus and
Utica Shale formations in Pennsylvania and Ohio, right in the middle of
them. In addition to the flood of wastewater that these wells create,
with elevated levels of naturally-occurring salts, carcinogens, metals,
and radioactivity, there’s a second waste stream unique to fracking:
flowback, the toxic regurgitation of sand and chemicals shot down a well
in the fracking process.
These fracking chemicals are specifically designed to generate cracks
in rock, and to lubricate and fracture formations, in order to get at
the oil or gas they hold. It’s entirely unknown how these chemicals
react, and interact, in the high pressure, high temperature subterranean
environment of the injection zone, says Anthony Ingraffea, an
engineering professor emeritus at Cornell University who has spent his
career studying the oilfield.
This ever-growing tsunami of oil and gas wastewater has to go
somewhere, and most of it will continue to go to injection wells. “One
might be tempted to believe that well construction designs, materials,
and techniques on wells constructed decades ago were vastly different
than those of today,” says Ingraffea. “This is false.”
America’s top environmental regulator vigorously defends reliance on injection wells, stating on its website that they have “prove[n] to be a safe and inexpensive option for the disposal of unwanted and often hazardous byproducts.”
In response to questions about the agency’s historic concerns about the
long-term use of injection wells, EPA Press Secretary Brigit Hirsch
says that the agency “is committed to supporting American energy
companies and industry that are seeking permits for underground
injection of fluids associated with oil and natural gas production,” in
order to “[advance] progress on pillars of its Powering the Great
American Comeback initiative.”
Early Warnings Realized
After 90 years of using injection wells to bury wastewater, including the past 13 years
as the world’s biggest producer of oil and gas, the United States has a
profound pollution crisis. The oil and gas industry and its regulators
are facing a long-stalled reckoning on injection wells in both the
courts, and the court of public opinion.
In May 2022, a rural Ohio oil and gas operator named Bob Lane filed a
lawsuit in the Washington County Court of Common Pleas against area
injection well operators, alleging that these companies “infiltrated,
flooded, contaminated, polluted” his oil and gas wells and property with
waste containing hazardous materials “known or reasonably anticipated
to be human carcinogens,” and “harming the commercial viability” of his
“oil and gas reservoirs.” Defendants in the case include Tallgrass
Operations, a Colorado-based energy infrastructure company, and DeepRock
Disposal Solutions, a company formerly owned by Ohio state senator Brian Chavez, who chairs the Ohio Senate Energy Committee. The case is now before the Ohio Supreme Court and being followed closely by regional attorneys.
“We want to respect the process of the ongoing litigation, so we will
not comment on it at this time,” says Tallgrass spokesperson John
Brown.
Brown says his company adheres to Ohio Department of Natural Resources
(ODNR) rules and that its injected wastewater is contained within its
permitted injection zone and does not impact drinking water. “It’s
important to note that underground injection is a long-established and
proven method of disposal for many U.S. industries,” says Brown, “and
that it plays an essential role in supporting the low-cost, reliable
energy systems that are critical to millions of Ohio families and
communities across the country.”
DeepRock has not replied to questions.
ODNR spokesperson Karina Cheung says the agency has suspended
operations at six injection wells that present “an imminent danger to
the health and safety of the public and is likely to result in immediate
substantial damage to the natural resources of the state.” A 2023 ODNR
report called this leakage “potentially catastrophic” and warned of
“extensive environmental damage and/or aquifer contamination,” admitting
that Ohio’s long history of oil and gas drilling has left “numerous
penetrations that may serve as pathways for fluid to migrate.” In
November, Buckeye Environmental Network, an Ohio advocacy group, filed a lawsuit
in Ohio’s Tenth District Court of Appeals against ODNR for permitting a
pair of injection wells operated by DeepRock that would be within two
miles of a zone meant to protect the source of drinking water for
Marietta, Washington County’s largest city.
“I can think of nothing more important than to protect the city’s
water,” says Marietta City Council President Susan Vessels. “There is no
just looking the other way, I want to help our city avoid an
environmental catastrophe, which I believe is eventually going to happen
if we continue down this path.” In October, the council passed a
resolution urging Ohio state legislators to introduce legislation
imposing a three-year moratorium on new injection wells in Washington
County.
An injection well pumps wastewater into the ground in Coyle, Oklahoma, on Jan. 24, 2016.
J Pat Carter/Getty Images
Meanwhile, in Oklahoma, a stunning expose
co-published in October by ProPublica and the Oklahoma-based newsroom
Frontier documented a “growing number of purges,” where oil field
wastewater has been injected at “excessively high pressure” and cracked
rock deep underground, freeing it to travel uncontrolled for miles,
sometimes returning to the surface via abandoned wells. In one instance,
a spew of brine from a defunct well contaminated a watering hole for
livestock, killing at least 28 cows.
The story features Danny Ray, a whistle-blowing former state regulator
and long-time petroleum engineer, who is worried that given Oklahoma’s
vast number of unplugged oil and gas wells, the state is ripe for more
of these sorts of disasters. However, the Oklahoma Corporation
Commission, the state’s oil and gas regulator, discounted Ray’s
concerns, saying in a statement that it remains “committed to protecting
Oklahoma and supporting the state’s largest industry to perform its
role in a safe and economic manner.”
“These goals are not mutually exclusive,” according to the agency.
In West Texas, Bloomberg
reported in September, a growing number of the state’s over 2,000
defunct oil and gas wells — locals call them “zombie wells” — are
spouting unpredictable geysers of fracking waste. One blowout in Crane
County shot wastewater
100 feet high into the air in 2022, releasing around 24 million gallons
of toxic fluids before it was capped about two weeks later.
A spokesperson with the Railroad Commission of Texas, the state’s oil
and gas regulator, told Bloomberg that it had instituted a set of
protective new rules regarding oil and gas wastewater injection wells,
but recognized “the physical limitations of the disposal reservoirs” as
well as the risks to oil production and fresh water.
Just last month, Inside Climate News reported on a new lawsuit filed by a Crane County landowner claiming “catastrophic impacts” from injection well blowouts.
The impacts of injection well leakage and blowouts have become visible
from space. In a 2024 study using satellite observations, published in
the journal Geophysical Research Letters, a team of Southern Methodist University scientists
found that so much wastewater has been injected underground that it has
raised land in one area of the Permian Basin by 16 inches in just two
years, and created a high-pressurized underground lake that will lead to
more sky-high wastewater gushers. “We have established a significant
link between wastewater injection and oil well blowouts in the Permian
Basin,” the authors wrote.
Once “a little cottage industry of mom and pops,” injection wells have
become “a much bigger business,” says Kurt Knewitz, a consultant who
runs an injection well information site called BuySWD.com. A case in point, says Knewitz, is Pilot Water Solutions,
which operates injection wells in Texas and is a division of Berkshire
Hathaway Inc.’s Pilot Travel Centers, the multinational energy and
logistics company owned by Warren Buffet.
“You look at the Permian Basin and you think it’s a huge oil play, but
it produces three to four times as much produced water as oil,” says
Knewitz. “So the Permian is really a produced water play that on the
side produces some oil and gas.”
Still, the industry has not acknowledged the toxic reality on the
ground, and continues to defend its favorite waste disposal practice. A
recent report from the American Petroleum Institute (API), the nation’s
largest oil and gas lobby, states that injection wells are “safe and
environmentally reliable” and “serve a vital role by supporting the
responsible and sustainable development of O&G resources.”
The API did not respond to specific questions regarding the merits of
early critiques of injection wells, or whether they remain valid today.
“Our industry is committed to the responsible management of produced
water,” spokesperson Charlotte Law said in the group’s response.
“Operators continuously invest in advanced treatment technologies,
recycling, and reuse practices to minimize freshwater use, protect
ecosystems, and ensure safe operations.”
The USGS and DOE did not respond to questions for this story.
Trending Stories
Advocacy groups that have spent decades tracking the EPA’s oil and gas
waste rules point out that the U.S. fracking industry’s business model
depends on operators being able to get rid of waste cheaply.
“The inadequate regulation and enforcement of waste disposal wells
across the country represents a financial giveaway to the oil and gas
industry,” says the NRDC’s Mall, with NRDC. “Experts have known for
generations this method threatens the environment.”