Funding for New Mexico in Focus is provided by viewers like you.

>>Nash: This week on New Mexico in Focus, an industry backed group, makes its case to expand the use of oil field wastewater in our state.

>>Matthias: The primary reason why I don't think we need to wait five years, and why we're pushing this now is because the experts, some of the global experts, some of the leading minds are Doctor Zhu and her team.

And they're saying, we can do this now.

>>Nash: And an old friend is here to help us ring in the Juneteenth holiday and mark the permanence of Albuquerque's African-American Advisory board.

New Mexico in Focus starts now.

Thanks for joining us this week I'm Nash Jones.

New Mexico is the second largest oil and gas producer in the country.

We're also an arid state in the midst of a water crisis.

And that combination sets the stage for a local debate that, maybe surprisingly, has gotten quite heated and garnered considerable attention.

Should New Mexico allow treated oil and gas wastewater to be used beyond the oil field?

Well, last month we brought you the perspective of an attorney representing a coalition of environmental groups who says no.

Tonight we hear from another lawyer, but this time one serving as the vice president of the group that's petitioned to make it happen.

Capital & Main reporter Jerry Redfern returns to lead that conversation for us.

Then we are going to continue our coverage of Pride Month with a look at New Mexico's Pride titleholder program, its 30 year history, and the impact that the program is made on its participants in the wider community.

But we begin on this Juneteenth holiday with a conversation about equity for African Americans in the city of Albuquerque.

From economics to health, cultural preservation to governmental representation, and a new effort to ensure black community voices are not just sometimes heard on policy decisions, but built into the system.

The African American Advisory Board began meeting last month after City Councilor Nichole Rogers, the first black woman to serve on the council, sponsored legislation to make it a permanent part of city government.

Rogers joins board member Patrick Barrett to tell us about the body and the work ahead, and to lead this conversation.

We've got a little blast from the past for you.

Gene Grant hosted this show for nearly two decades before I took the chair, and in many ways helped give it the stature it has today.

These days, Jean's day job is leading the state Office of African American Affairs for Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham.

But tonight I am handing the mic back to him for this one time special appearance.

Take it away, Gene.

>> Grant: Earlier this year, Albuquerque City Council voted unanimously to create a permanent African American advisory board out of what had been previously a temporary task force.

Councilor Rogers, you introduced the proposal.

Why was it important to make this transition?

And what changes now that it is a permanent board?

What's different now?

>> Rogers: Thank you.

Gene, thank you for having me.

And it's awesome to have you back at the table.

I think for me, having done that work when I worked for Mayor Keller and opening Office of Black Community Engagement, we formed the strategy team with the always the intention of having a permanent board and commission for the city of Albuquerque.

We were very intentional about doing work over a two year period to identify what those priority areas should be.

Really taking a look at data and making thoughtful choices about what we should focus on when we get there, and having black representation on City Council was also very important.

I didn't know at the time it would be me, right.

But I think that is it's always been a part of the of the dream and of the goal to solidify it with a in law.

And I think that's the difference.

As before, it was just a group together doing some work under an office.

And now it is a law existed in Albuquerque.

>> Grant: Exactly.

Patrick, good to see you.

Always good to see you.

Glad you're here.

Absolutely.

Now, the board is tasked with advising the city in five key areas.

And council, if you want to add to this to please feel free.

So what are those and how is that scope determined with those issue areas.

How do we get there?

>> Barrett: So I think the five areas is economics I think is housing.

The third one is >> Grant: Councilor, do you have >> Rogers: Economic mobility.

We want to talk about civic engagement.

How do we make sure we have voting access.

And we keep our access to voting, especially in the times that we have.

Now we have economic mobility, which includes things like housing and just making sure we have access to to resources like banking and different things like that.

The other one that's really important is Missing and Murdered Black Family.

After the Javon Givens case, it was clear we needed to advise the city on how to find our people so that we at least could make proper notifications, similar to the Missing and Murdered Indigenous People's Movement that started with the West Mesa murders, which we just had the anniversary of that.

And so taking a look at that as well.

And so those all came from the strategy team and looking at data and what was important to our community.

And I think the other one is cultural preservation.

>> Grant: That's right, that's right.

Health outcomes is also a big part of overall goal.

Certainly speak to that a little bit too.

That's important for the community.

>> Barrett: Oh most definitely.

If we look at black women's the black women's birth I mean child birth rates, it's astonishing.

And so I think a key part of that is really addressing health issues here in the community, but more importantly with black men as well.

So, you know, Brother Sioux suffer from prostate cancer, these different types of cancers.

So having a, you know, a specialized team to really address these issues at the city level, it's going to be outstanding.

>> Grant: Now the board held its first meeting last month of the month before.

Do you for you personally, Patrick, you've been around the community for so long.

You've been doing good work for so long.

What are your personal priorities that can tuck inside what we're trying to do here?

>> Barrett: I think one of my main priorities right now is looking at the black employment rate at the city.

I think that we really I really want to address that issue.

But more importantly, I really want to engage with young people.

I think that's another key aspect that we're going to be looking at, trying to appoint a young person to the board.

So overall, I'm really looking forward to working with the people on the board.

I work with a lot of them.

But more importantly, how do we work together as a collaborative to really move that needle?

>> Grant: You know, councilor, to be clear, as the name suggests, we just talked about this a second ago, the borders advisory in nature, certainly, but what's in place to convey recommendations to city leaders, but probably more importantly to that, I know for you to ensure that they're taken seriously, how do we make sure these ideas land where they're supposed to?

>> Rogers: Yes, absolutely.

And I think that's exactly why we wrote into the legislation, that there's an annual report that needs to be sent to City Council in the form of an executive communication, which means there's a whole process that takes to go through the mayor's office to read through that report to before it comes to council.

And then all of the council's vote on that report.

Look at that report.

So it puts our issues on the forefront of our agenda, which has not been the case moving forward.

I think it also allows the Office of Black Community Engagement to also have a body of people to go to, to get advisement on what they're needing from that office and also city as a whole, including things like employment rates and just the things accessing city services and resources, even.

>> Grant: Exactly right.

What mechanisms exist, Patrick, to affect lasting change?

Is it us just showing up regularly?

Is it, as a councilor mentioned, putting things in statute and into law?

But there's got to be something beyond that, isn't there?

>> Barrett: I think the most important part I think the most important part is the civic engagement piece.

Right?

Really getting people involved, but more importantly, informative of how the process works, because I think a lot of people in our community just doesn't understand the process.

So I think the civic engagement is going to be a key piece.

But more importantly, how do we get everybody to the table?

I know that we're not all going to have the same ideals, right?

But I think when we when we think about the betterment of our community.

I think that's going to be the driving force behind this advisory committee.

>> Grant: Speaking of which, let's get to the structure of it.

17 board members or voting members, I should say that's actually a difference.

Sorry.

Now, who are some of the communities and perspectives representative represented in general terms?

>> Rogers: Yeah, so when we when we knew that the focus areas based on the strategy team, the idea was really to look at who was best poised to actually help in those areas.

Right.

So when we look at health outcomes, it was important that we had Nicole Bedford, who was the liaison for the black community from UNM hospital.

Right.

And so we really chose not orgs.

We looked at black serving orgs.

Right.

And there's a difference between black lead orgs and black serving organizations, right.

We have a lot of amazing organizations lists of 60 plus.

Right.

That absolutely are we want to serve right.

And that's why we have subcommittees for each of those groups.

So even if you're not a voting member, there are three community voting members spots that applications are still open.

And we would love for folks who want to be a voting member of the community that is a subject matter expert in any of the five areas we invite you to apply, and then there's still going to be spots for more community members, even if it's not voting seats on any of these subcommittee teams.

>> Grant: Is there a number attached to that?

>> Rogers: No, there's not a number attached to that, because this is this is what I know is we need all of us to be pushing in the same direction.

And it's not just these orgs, it's all of us.

So there is a place for everyone.

We need everyone.

The fifth area is cultural events, right?

And cultural preservation, which means we need folks to help plan Juneteenth plan Black History Month, Jackie Robinson Day this is the group that can advise all the others that want to host things for our community on how to do it, and actually honor our community and not cause harm, and unintentionally.

>> Grant: So there's a way to be involved.

There's no excuses.

Everybody there's there's there's a way of being involved.

>> Rogers: But I want to make one caveat to that, though.

We need people who are willing to do the work.

Okay?

So please don't just come if you want to sit around and have a meeting and talk.

We are doing work.

These are work, this is a working board.

And if we don't all stand up to do the work, then you're right.

We're not going to see the lasting change.

>> Grant: Exactly right.

Hey, Patrick, you are with the center for New Mexico Black Excellence.

Tell us a bit about your work and how your experience working with the black youth, especially in Black boys, informs your role on the board.

What do you bring to it?

>> Barrett: So our organization called the Mexico Center of Black Excellence, and we're running three campaigns currently.

The first one is chopping it up at the barber shop.

So it's a intergenerational mentorship, peer to peer mentorship.

Our second one is our Young Kings Rising, which is a group of young men and is a leadership development group.

But what so unique about this group is we're looking at it through Afrocentric lens and through a public health model.

The same, we also have one with our Young Queens Healing Circle, very, very similar.

But again, we're really emphasizing the Afrocentric, right.

Have, you know, letting them engage with the collective, not about the individual.

What can we do as a community?

So it's been really well, I really want to thank Councilor Rogers for really supporting our effort.

And so, you know, violence is real in our community.

And so as black men and boys, how do we heal from that trauma?

Right.

How do we give them the tools necessary to be better fathers?

So I'm just really thankful about, you know, being able to being a part of this group.

And I think we bring a really unique list to this, to this table because we're organizers.

Right.

And one of our main one of our main goals is how do we empower our community.

Right.

A lot of us are educated with the UNM, and I think that's what it's about, is really empowering our communities and teach our young men how to be respectful, respectful to young women right.

>> Grant: That'll be a good start.

Absolutely right there.

Counselor, at the council meeting, when the board was established, there was some community pushback about how board members were brought on, so to speak.

You know Ahdohny Routheni, around town, he's been around the Juneteenth executive director of the Juneteenth Renaissance Institute.

He questioned you, Counselor Rogers, saying, quote, who are you to determine who is black serving and who was black enough to be on this list?

End quote.

Have you had a chance to talk to Mr.. To him after this?

>> Rogers: We talked before and and even after.

And I think look, I'm never I never want to silence opposition voices.

I think that's the beauty of democracy is that you have you should feel comfortable coming in, even if it's an opposition.

I was grateful to see some of us in the chambers.

First of all, whether you're there to speak in for it or against it, I'm still happy to see us engaging in the process.

So I think and I think, yes, I think there's some feelings about that or specifically not being included.

And the good thing is, is it?

No, no piece of legislation is perfect.

And I said that that night is that we will take a year to learn, do our bylaws, do our structures, and then we will this board, not me.

I'm not on the board.

I don't I'm not a voting member.

Right.

This board will decide what those changes to the ordinance should be.

And then that report, they'll tell us what those are and we can we can amend to either add orgs or there's orgs that didn't choose to be a part of it, like the MLK Commission made a decision not to necessarily be a part of it.

And that's okay.

That's okay.

We'll still keep them updated and do the work, and we'll have the opportunity at the end to recover back to the table and tweak it, which is what we should do as lawmakers.

It's not just make a law and forget about it.

We should tweak it and make it better for everybody.

>> Barrett: And I█d like to chime in as well I think that this process has been very, very transparent, very, very transparent.

And Nicole and other people on the team, we're here to do the work right.

And we're not trying to single out anybody.

And like she says, everybody's welcome.

But you're going to be you have to do some work.

Right.

And so we're willing to talk to anybody.

But I can say from being in this business a long time, this has been very transparent and everybody's on the same wavelength.

>> Rogers: So come on down, apply.

>> Grant: There's room for everybody.

>> Rogers: There's room for everybody.

>> Grant: I want a question for both of you all.

It's obviously we're sitting here taping this week.

Juneteenth is coming up in just a couple of days.

It's always exciting.

So many things in New Mexico are going on for Juneteenth.

It's so amazing.

So we're talking about this board being made permanent, of course, and which sets it more firmly in stone in city government.

Are folks going to see this on Juneteenth?

Is that going to be recognizable?

And I wonder if that brings any connections or what are the feelings for the both of you?

Yeah, coming to this place and here we are at Juneteenth and this was previously not I wouldn't call it a dream, but it was a really strong dream of yours to have this happen.

And here we are.

It's actually a reality.

How are you feeling about it?

>> Rogers: I'm just I'm grateful I'm grateful to all of the folks who showed up for two years and gave us their time.

We met every two weeks for two years, and we're here.

So I'm grateful to everybody.

Yeah, I'm grateful to everybody that gave us their time for that many.

And it was all the same works.

Patrick was a part of it.

Neema Pickett, who runs our Office of Black Community Engagement, read a lot of the same folks who are on the strategy team helping us do this.

So I'm honored.

And yes, we are going to we asked the board to bring us send us their bios so that we can have that displayed at Juneteenth at Civic Plaza, where, you know, getting organized so we can get a table and do all the things we need to get merch, and we need to get tablecloths and all those things so that we do this board.

I really want to set them up for success so that they can go out and be a part of the community.

We already are, right.

But also to to have an actual visible public facing, I want them to have social media.

I want them to have marketing.

We want them to have all of the resources of the city to do what we need to do as a community.

And that's the difference, is that we, the black community, you know, we had an office of one, and it's a powerful office of one.

Right?

But now we have all of us.

And I think I don't know who said the quote, when we're like this, it's not as powerful, but when we get together, it's much more powerful.

>> Grant: I█ll be in Las Cruces this weekend for the Juneteenth celebrations.

I'm really looking forward to it.

You think about 20 years ago, Patrick, what a difference between June.

Well, whatever Juneteenth started and now in Albuquerque.

Right.

You've seen it all.

>> Barrett: Matter of fact, I'm going to be in Farmington tomorrow for Juneteenth, going up, celebrating with some of our brothers and sisters up in Farmington.

So I'm glad what we're doing, because I think we're probably going to use this model to take it statewide, because we have people in different parts of the state that need our support.

So I think we need to go back and give back to our other brothers and sisters.

>> Grant: Well, we're committed at the Office of African American Affairs to help out with this process.

There's no doubt this is a turning point in the community.

I have to thank you, Councilor Rogers, from the community.

And let me say thanks into Patrick to you as well for all the things you've done over the years.

Thank you.

Really appreciate it.

Thank you both for being here.

>> Both: Thank you.

Thanks to Patrick Barrett and City Councilor Nichole Rogers for stopping by to talk about the work ahead for the African American Advisory Board.

And a huge special thanks to my predecessor in this host, chair, Gene Grant.

It was so nice to have him back to lead that discussion.

So here on in Focus, we have been following along closely with one of the hottest button issues of the year, a proposal to vastly expand how the oil and gas industry can use wastewater from its operations in our state.

Well, tonight we have a fascinating conversation about the push to jack up the allowable uses for so-called produced water.

But first, a little context.

So last May, the State Water Quality Control Commission adopted a rule that only allows treated wastewater to be used on oil and gas fields and in limited pilot projects.

But a trade association called the Water Access, Treatment and Reuse Alliance, shortened to the cleverly named “WATR” Alliance, wants the state to let all and gas companies use the stuff for construction, industrial and even agricultural purposes.

The idea has powerful friends, including Democratic Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham and plenty of critics to including several well-known environmental groups.

Well, last month, the Water Alliance and its supporters had a major victory.

The commission voted 7 to 4 to restart rulemaking that could pave the way for those expanded uses.

You have heard from the proposals opponents on this program, and tonight you'll hear straight from the WATR Alliance.

In conversation with Capital & Maine journalist and in Focus correspondent Jerry Redfern.

Attorney Matthias Sayer says that we need lots more produced water, and now.

Jerry: Thanks for joining us today.

>> Sayer: Yeah, thanks for having me.

>> Jerry: Yeah.

So we're going to just sort of jump right into this.

And I think the big question we should probably get out of the way up front is why are we also concerned about this waste water.

I mean, what's in it that has people so worried?

>> Sayer: Well, I think using the term wastewater is a good indicator of why we should be concerned.

Right.

When we're talking about a waste product and then potentially recycling or reusing that waste product.

Legitimate question should be answered about what's in the waste and what are the intended uses of that waste.

And so in the context of produced water and reusing treated produced water, there are there are chemical compounds in that water that we need to be worried about.

And so when we have a conversation about reusing this treated wastewater, we need to be very mindful of of the answers to those questions.

>> Jerry: So what what are those compounds?

I mean, the proposal that you've brought up before, the Water Quality Control Commission, notes 400 plus different chemical compounds.

There are pages of chemicals noted on there.

Are those all of the compounds that could show up in this?

Are there more?

What are they?

>> Sayer: Yeah, they're the list that you're talking about is the list that is included in the draft rule as an appendix.

That that draft rule, that list comes from work product generated from the New Mexico Produce Water Research Consortium, and they colloquially call it the NYPD's Plus list.

And that list was developed after on the back of of years of work and sampling of water from the Permian Basin, both the New Mexico and Texas side.

>> Jerry: So that list that goes on for pages, it has a ton of different chemicals in there, but none of those chemicals have actual amounts next to them, like it needs to be below this to be considered safe.

Why is that?

When when would that be added in, and why hasn't it been added in to this point?

>> Sayer: Yeah.

And there, you know, as I mentioned, there was there's work that has been done and work continuing to be done at both NMSU and other institutions, both in New Mexico and elsewhere.

And there are standards for for the bulk of the compounds in that list.

That being said, there are compounds on that list for which there is not a standard published either in the New Mexico regulatory framework or in the EPA framework.

>> Jerry: So this brings a, you know, a question for me talking about chemicals and treatment and things like that.

And it's a question around the word science.

And an awful lot of what we're talking about is new technology that comes from the, from the consortium developing new technologies to sort of polish the water, to make it clean, to be usable and different concerns.

But then there's also the science aspect of it.

And I think those two terms kind of get conflated.

And I want to sort of clear that air before we go a bit further.

And science, sort of the gold standard of science is peer review, where you take the technology that you've figured out and you open that technology up to third parties not influenced by or part of the group that did the research in the first place.

And you see if those people can reproduce what you've come up with, if they can reproduce the technology, if they can reproduce those results.

How many of the technologies that have been brought up to clean this water so far through the consortium or other groups have gone through this process, the peer review process and are like fully out the other side, you know, science stamp of approval.

>> Sayer: Yeah, I think it's an important question.

And to my first kind of response to that question is to clarify a little bit.

When we talk about technology to treat produced water, it is not so much that that there is new technology to treat this water, but it's a combination.

It's a treatment train.

So it's putting together the right treatment train, the right pieces of treatment in your train to address the chemicals that we know are in the water.

And in terms of, you know, which of these treatment trains have they been reproduced?

Have they?

Has there been peer review analysis of the ability of these treatment trains?

I don't have a number for you to say.

How many, you know, replications of a particular train, you know, have been attempted or executed, but with the numbers is, you know, it certainly has happened.

And then there is a body of peer review literature looking at the data that came from these different treatment trains treating this specific water, because that is relevant, right.

Produced water.

When we talk about produced water, it exists across the globe.

Anytime water comes up with oil and gas production we call that produce water.

But just like, you know, water in the Pecos as compared to water in the Susquehanna, those water qualities are going to be very different.

Produce water is very similar.

Produce water from the Permian Basin is very different from produced water in the Marcellus Basin in Pennsylvania.

>> Jerry: Sure but we're talking about rules here in New Mexico, and particularly out of the Permian, which is producing 97% of the produced water in the state.

So I think that's what we're kind of looking at here.

Right.

And to that point, just backing up a bit, last year in a story, I talked with a peju scientist at New Mexico State who was sort of lead scientist on a lot of this work being done.

She refers to it as science.

And she was saying, if everybody looks for the peer reviewed publications, I think we still need some time, especially related to all these ongoing studies, as you were just talking about.

So wouldn't just pacing this a bit, I mean, slowing this, this process down a bit, give time for all that peer reviewed work to come in?

So you could say, look, we've done the work.

We've got these new trains, the trains check out.

Not only do they check out we have third parties that say these new trains check out.

Wouldn't that be a way to actually get rid of a lot of the issues you're bumping into at this point on the public sphere?

>> Sayer: Yeah.

Well, I think there's there's two answers to that question, or at least two ways to examine the question.

First, you know, if you spend a lot of time with doctors, you and her team, what becomes very clear is that the state of the science, the body of research examining the data that's been produced, is, is conclusive that we can do this in ways that are protective of human health in the environment.

Today.

>> Jerry: I did say that I agree >> Sayer: However, what becomes hard is to distill that down into a sentence, right?

You can't distill the the body of research into a sentence or a paragraph.

And that's what has been attempted to be done in so many ways and in so many times right now in front of the Water Quality Control Commission.

Right.

And so what we think is appropriate is a hearing.

And through the course of that hearing, put all of this body of research in front of them and show how that science supports the framework that's been proposed in the draft rule.

Ultimately, it's not my opinion, your opinion, or even Doctor Shuo█s opinion that matters.

It'll be the commission reviewing the testimony from the experts to say what we think based on the state of the science as of today, that X is appropriate.

Maybe not X plus Y, maybe it's just X, maybe it is X plus Y. But it's a decision for the consortium to make or the commission to make.

>> Jerry: Right?

Well, okay.

I get back to this idea though.

If you had the time to do the basic science, get it through that peer review process as she brought up herself.

Yes.

The research that she has done, she's very she's very confident in I, she certainly has said this repeatedly to all sorts of people, not just to me, not just to you.

And I believe it.

I believe she believes what she sees.

Right.

But that's still not quite the idea that you give it to a third party to check it out, you know, check your work, check their math.

And I and I still don't see why you wouldn't let that process play out first.

I'll tack something on to this as well.

And I might not seem at first to be comparable, but I think in a way it is.

And it's the way that the methane rules were brought up for all and gas production where they came about, because the state brought together players from oil and gas, brought together environmental groups, brought together citizen groups, and everybody sat down and well in several rooms over the course of a long period of time.

And they hammered it all out in advance before bringing it up before rulemaking.

Right.

Why don't we wait for that science to be done?

And or why didn't we start with a process where you bring everybody together first and figure out figure out where the problems are and then hammer it out from there?

>> Sayer: Yeah, it's I think it's a good comparison, but I think there's an important distinction here in terms of what we're talking about.

And this is what I mentioned.

There's two different ways to look at that question.

The first is what I said earlier.

The second is it's a conversation about social license and negotiating social license.

And I think when you when you think about and talk about the Methane Advisory Group, that really was a negotiation of social license between the different stakeholders.

>> Jerry: Have to pause you there.

What does social what do you mean here when you're talking about social license and negotiating social license and then go ahead.

>> Sayer: Yeah I mean I suppose my definition of social license would be trust from the community.

Right.

And the community to appreciate that, that what is being proposed and ultimately, if adopted by a regulatory body, is something that that communities and the average New Mexican can trust in.

And that is a hard thing to negotiate.

I think that that's a harder thing to negotiate than the actual technical merit of the rule itself.

>> Jerry: Well, that's that's kind of what we're talking about here, really, isn't it?

We have this wide divide between, say, environmental groups and the water, the water alliance and what you're trying to do.

And I guess I'm wondering why maybe this was the governor's job, to get everybody into a room and beat their heads.

>> Sayer: Yeah I think it is a fair question about who should manage, who should negotiate social license.

And I think in the context of this petition, it it is a complicated issue.

And I think you could probably always say we could and should do more as it pertains to negotiating social license.

Water is something that matters to all of us.

We're all water stakeholders.

And so anytime someone has a question about the quality of the water that's being delivered to them, whether it's for irrigation purposes or for potable uses, which is not something we're proposing with this rule.

But legitimate questions should be asked about the quality of that water.

And we've seen across the country, but the West in particular, over the last few decades, where new water recycle projects are proposed and the social license piece always proves to be the most challenging piece because we are, for good reason, sensitive about the water that we're putting into our bodies or our homes or our fields.

>>Raymond: As a title holder for pride, people see your face and they come to you.

You're going to have to know your resources.

You're going to have to know where to find things.

I mean, people are going to see you as a face of an organization.

And when they're in times of need.

They're going to come to that organization for help.

And being that you're the face, you're out there, nobody knows who the board is.

I can ask if anybody can name my board members.

They can't, but they can name my titleholders.

>>Nash: Catch in Focus reporter Cailley Chella█s inside look at LGBTQ pride titleholders in about 15 minutes.

But first, let's get our hands a little dirtier with oil and gas wastewater.

When we left off, WATR Alliance Vice President Matthias Sayer was acknowledging the persistent questions about whether so-called produced water is safe to use outside the oil fields.

Well, we pick things back up with correspondent Jerry Redfern asking another question that's been on a lot of people's minds as this rule making process plays out.

>> Jerry: You know, I should have perhaps brought this up -- originally speaking of the Water Alliance, your group, etc.. I think there's a good question about what is the Water Alliance?

Who are you?

When I talked with Jennifer Bradford, President your compatriot over there at the Water Alliance for story last year, again about this issue, she was unwilling to say who the members were.

She said there were 250 people in the group, 250 groups in the group, 250 groups and people in the group, something like that.

But who are you?

What's going on there?

>> Sayer: And I'm going to use the phrase I just used.

We're a collection of water stakeholders, and I can tell you some of the different -- stakeholder groups who are involved in the Water Alliance, and some of them you know about.

there's been a lot of publication and discussion about the fact that the membership of the Water Alliance includes oil and gas producers.

They are water stakeholders.

And then in the case of produced water, there are large water stakeholder, but they█re not the only members of the Water Alliance We have technology companies, we have water treatment companies, some of which are large multinational water treatment companies, smaller water midstream companies whose job it is to move water.

We have some local government entities who are members of the alliance.

We have traditional water resource managers who are water members of the Alliance.

So, it's a relatively diverse group of water stakeholders.

>> Jerry: I will just point out again, though, that's not like a public list.

I can't really go back, in fact, check you on this in some way, can I?

>> Sayer: It's not a public list and I haven't looked at our website recently to see what we include on there but -- >> Jerry: It█s you and Jennifer, the Secretary and then the Board members?

>> Sayer: Yeah -- Yeah, so it's -- for reasons -- sorry, go ahead.

>> Jerry: Well, I was going to say, speaking of one of the Board members and sort of the background of why we█re here, I think the group is called B3 Insight.

It's one of the groups, and it was the Vice President from that -- has been pretty vocal in the past year talking about, you know, the real -- well, he's not speaking necessarily for the Water Alliance, but for him and his group.

Real reason we're here and we're doing this is because the incredible amounts of produced water coming out of the Permian Basin, the increasing amount of produced water coming out of the Permian Basin is running the risk of actually restricting oil production, oil and gas production from the biggest basin in the United States, right?

And this is something that was echoed by -- more than echoed, by the Dallas Fed -- The Federal Bank last year came out with a study of more than 100 oil and gas executives, 75% of whom said within the next five years, the biggest brake on oil and gas production, without question, is getting rid of produced water which is still kind of an astounding number.

And we're actually at four years now because it came out almost a year ago.

Isn't that really what we're looking at here?

Isn't that really a huge driver of your whole push, the whole reason of the Water Alliance?

>> Sayer: Yes, and no, I will say, when we first started this effort, I actually worked for the state of New Mexico.

I was with the Energy, Minerals and Natural Resources department working on issues related to water, and worked with the Environmental Protection Agency, you know, for better or for worse, I was working for the state of New Mexico at the time, and the now, current Secretary of the Environment Department, Jim Kenney, worked for the EPA.

And this was at a point in time when constraints on production were nowhere on anyone's horizon.

But what was on our horizon was water scarcity.

And we saw the volume of water coming up out of the ground and then being disposed of.

And that was a robust volume of water, right?

Sufficient a supply that we thought, we should look at the regulatory framework, and the technical frameworks and the state of the science as it pertains to produced water and ask the question, is this a water source we should be pursuing for beneficial reuse in the state of New Mexico, yes or no?

And so we did work to look at and answer that question.

We put together a white paper between the EPA and the state of New Mexico -- >> Jerry: Just a quick question.

When was that?

When did you come up with that?

>> Sayer: That was in 2017-2018.

So, the white paper was published in 2018.

Then in early 2019, we had the Produced Water Act which tried to close some of the gaps that we identified in the white paper.

And then the Produce Water Research Consortium was stood up in 2019. focusing on the technical questions and closing some of those gaps as well.

And at that time -- again, the question was, can we use this water resource?

Over the last 2 or 3 years, it's become more of a logistical problem.

The volume of water exceeds and is starting to exceed the solutions for management.

And so it has become a relevant point of the inquiry where we will face production curtailment if we don't manage the water solution or the water problem.

I will say -- the bulk of the water today that's produced in New Mexico does move across the state lines and is disposed of in Texas.

And so if New Mexico does not do anything with with produce water, and if we don't want to reuse the water, what█ll happen is that the bulk of New Mexico water will again continue moving to Texas, and Texas will either dispose of it as it presently is or reuse portions of it as it's currently on trajectory to do.

>> Jerry: The big question, I think really gets back to what happens when there's an accident?

What happens when this process falls apart?

Yes, there is a great deal of technology that's coming up.

There is a great deal of technology that█s coming up that looks very promising.

Let's say that in a year or two year, five years, whenever it is, we get through all the science.

Everybody approves it.

This stuff starts getting used.

What happens when the inevitable happens?

Accidents happen.

That's just the nature of the business.

So, who's on the hook when -- a company sells, produced -- treated produced water, treated wastewater to a pecan farmer somewhere around Lea or Eddy County, and he ends up spraying that on his crops.

And then they go, “whoops, sorry that shouldn't have happened.” What's the legal framework for dealing with an accident like that?

>> Sayer: Yeah -- >> Jerry: Because that is something I think you have to be setting up now with these rules, right?

>> Sayer: Yeah, agreed.

So, if we assume the rule that we drafted and is sitting in front of the commission, if we assume that rule in its present form or a form similar to its present form or adopted, and this permitted activity, we're taking place.

So we're assuming it's a permitted activity under the rule as is presently written, the permitted entity would be the responsible party.

And there are some presumptions built into the rule again, that the operator is the responsible party.

So that would be risk and liability that would be shouldered by the the operator, the permitted entity.

>> Jerry: The operator being the oil and gas company that brought it up in the first place, or the company that's -- selling the treated produced water -- >> Sayer: It would be the permanent entity.

So, whichever entity obtained the permit to treat and distribute that water.

And there are there are provisions built into the rule which require financial assurance on the front end -- for estimated cost of closure and management post closure, as well as -- costs associated with remediation type activity.

>> Jerry: The big question I have in all of -- that's another big question I have in all of this.

Is who's going to pay for it?

Where is the money going to come from?

We've talked about James Kenney.

You brought him up previously that you'd worked with him.

And for every legislative session I█ve seen with him in there talking about the Environment Department, he█s saying you cannot keep giving us new jobs to do without dramatically increasing the funding to cover these jobs that we suddenly have to do.

And this is like a recurring theme.

The amount of stuff that the environment department already has to do is pretty astronomical.

This has been an issue for the Oil Conservation Division as well.

That does not appear to be receiving the amount of money to do the job that they're tasked with doing in the greater scheme of things, but debatable by allowing a lot of people.

But there you have it.

Where is the money going to come from to set up this whole new -- would it be a department -- at the Environment Department?

Would it be a bureau?

Who's going to be paying for that?

Where is that money going to come from?

I didn't see those numbers in the proposa you'd put forth for the new rule.

>> Sayer: Yeah, and there has been discussion of that, both with the Environment Department and inquiry from the Water Quality Control Commission as well.

And it's a live issue, and we see some of it playing out in the context of the rulemaking, not the produce water rulemaking, but the rulemaking that's pending right now before the Water Quality Control Commission as it pertains to the surface discharge rule, where a new fee structure is being proposed and contemplated, there is a fee structure component of our rule as well, the draft rule and and a necessary piece of that conversation and about fees is the very issue you raise.

And so we've had a lot of discussion with the Water Protection Bureau at the Environment Department about appropriate fees for a program like this.

Now, it's not its own department.

It would be work within the Water Protection Bureau.

And so that is something that will need to be figured out.

It is a piece of the rule.

The answer is what's the right dollar figure in that fee structure?

And appreciating that that was not the last question.

Maybe close to the last question.

One thing I do want to just really stress as it pertains to this rule, is that if an applicant were to -- if the rule were adopted and an applicant were to submit an application for a permit and receive a permit, the permit would not allow them to go do anything -- tomorrow -- whether they could not go discharge tomorrow at the full capacity that they were requesting.

Right?

And this is an important piece of Dr.

Zhou█r work.

When she says, we want to see some additional data here or there, they're always going to want to see additional data.

And we think that's important.

So, the first -- year of any applicants permit would be essentially a phase in period.

Or during that year you demonstrate that you can do this at a larger scale than a pilot scale, produce data that says, we can do this.

We can meet these permit terms and conditions.

And only once you've demonstrated that would you then be able to move into your full requested volume of production and operation.

>> Jerry: You know, this makes me think, once again, sort of circling all the way back to the beginning.

We have questions about how are we going to figure out the funding.

We have questions here.

Well, that's not a question.

You're pointing out that even if this all passes in the future, the idea would be that there's a long runway before a company is going to be able to turn this water around to have whatever permitted use that might be.

And at this point, to we don't even know when the hearings are going to begin with.

The Water Quality Control Commission to begin looking at these proposed rules once again, which is now going to be the third time in.

I guess the third time in the last couple of years.

Yeah.

So we had this whole rule -- making process that ended last May, where the Water Quality Control Commission said, okay, we're not going to do this now, and we're going to hold off until 2030 and we'll revisit it again then to see where the science, etc., the technology lies.

If there is still so much up in the air, and if there is still so much pushback against what you're doing, why the rush to push it right now?

Why not still wait for 2030 and get all your ducks lined up and then just hit it then?

>> Sayer: Yeah, well, I think some of the uncertainty you're pointing to is, is mild uncertainty.

Like what is the appropriate cost or fee structure.

That's an open question that can be answered relatively succinctly and quickly.

It's being asked and answered right now in the rulemaking that's in front of the Commission on another topic.

So, I don't think that's a reason to wait five years.

But the primary reason why I don't think we need to wait five years and why we're pushing this now is because the the experts, some of the global experts, some of the leading minds are Dr.

Zhou and her team.

And they're saying, we can do this now.

And if we lived in a place where -- if we lived in Minnesota, where our water supplies were not scarce, then Dr.

Zhou█s use the research would be intriguing at best.

But given where we live, given the fact that over the next 50 years we'll experience a 25% reduction in our fresh water availability.

We think that it's imperative that we move now on nontraditional water resources.

Right now we produce around 7 million barrels a day in New Mexico, have produced water somewhere between a third to two thirds of that is transported to Texas for management.

We know Texas is moving forward with reuse applications they█re, right now, advancing a rulemaking for surface application on soil as well.

So, what█ll happen if New Mexico does nothing with this?

We'll continue to move that water to Texas, and Texas will put the water to beneficial use.

So, if we wait five years, there's a high likelihood that there'll be very little produced water remaining in New Mexico that's not otherwise spoken for in Texas.

>> Jerry: I'm a little hesitant to ever say Texas is doing something great.

But I hear your point.

One last -- real quick, almost slightly more than a yes or no question.

Why?

Or is it possible?

Why wouldn't you have just said, instead of saying, we want all of these possibilities for treated produced water, why don't you say industry?

We're going to treat it.

We want to have this opening, and then we'll come back later and say we'll look at it for other agricultural or other uses.

Why not just start glass production, cement work, you know, chip manufacturing, AI data centers?

Why not start with that and then leave the other stuff?

>> Sayer: Yeah, and -- that's a really good question and a really good point.

The quickest answer, your question is because the science says that we can do more.

It may now -- it's necessarily more challenging to navigate social license when you're asking to do something that has multiple exposure pathways.

And we appreciate that the proposed rule has these different permit classes class A, B, C, and D. And a class A permit is the type you're talking about with little to no exposure pathways.

And it may be that ultimately that's what the commission says they want to do right now.

We think that the science says more can be done.

And so we'd like to put the full body in front of the commission and let them decide what they think is appropriate.

>> Jerry: Okay.

Mathias, thanks a ton.

This was great.

>> Sayer: Yeah, thanks Jerry.

Appreciate it.

>>Nash: We really appreciate Matthias Sayer for a deeply nuanced and informative conversation about what to do with all that oil and gas, wastewater.

And, you know, there's no one better in the state for an interview like that than Jerry Redfern.

So thanks to him for the curiosity and the tough questions.

We end tonight with another story celebrating Pride Month.

If you missed our two part history lesson on Albuquerque Pride last week, you can still catch that on YouTube or on the PBS app.

But for decades, New Mexico Pride titleholders have served as ambassadors, advocates and performers for the LGBTQ community, and this year marks two historic milestones for the organization.

50 years and 30.

Keep those numbers in mind as in Focus reporter Cailley Chella brings you a look at the evolution of the New Mexico Pride pageant system, from the battles of the early 2000s to a new generation of youth leaders finding their voices.

Here's Cailley.

>> Cailley: It's a big anniversary for Albuquerque Pride.

Yes, 50 years of the parade, but also 30 years of title holders.

Now, you may be asking yourself, Cailley, what is the title holder?

Well, come with me.

I'll tell you.

>> Lopez: As a title holder for pride.

People see your face and they come to you.

You're going to have to know your resources.

You're going to have to know where to find things.

I mean, people are going to see you as a face of an organization.

And when they're in times of need, they're going to come to that organization for help.

And being that you're the face, you're out there.

Nobody knows who the board is.

I can ask if anybody can name my board members.

They can't, but they can name my titleholders.

>> Cailley: Now president of Albuquerque Pride, Sierra Lopez also served as Miss New Mexico 2023.

>> Lopez: When I did become a title of pride.

It was just an amazing experience.

It was totally different than what I was used to.

And, you know, it's just nice to just show up and just be there and just make people happy.

And that that's what I liked about it the most.

>> Cailley: But it's not all tiaras and titles.

Jason Duboi Johnson served as a title holder just over 20 years ago, a time when the rights we now take for granted were still a distant dream.

>> Johnson: So I was Mr.. New Mexico Pride 2004 2005.

I was the second one in our in our pride history.

I have the right to get married.

When I started this stuff, I did not have a way to get her and I were veteran.

I served the country that didn't want me to serve.

I started my service in 1982.

Right.

And that's before you could be gay and service opening.

>> Cailley: Beyond legal hurdles Being a title holder meant facing public scrutiny and outright bigotry.

>> Johnson: Pride was okay.

It was the state fair.

It was the last time that we have ever entered the state fair in the parade.

So we're starting down the path.

Parents are turning their kids around.

They're booing out loud.

It was so painful.

It took weeks to get over.

Took weeks.

Look, we're talking about 20 some years later, and it still impacts me today.

>> Cailley: Still, Johnson says his experience with New Mexico Pride has been a powerful, long lasting one.

He still volunteers his time with the title holders of today.

>> Johnson: I made it a personal goal to assist the youth titleholders.

I went ahead and called.

I actually texted him on.

I gave them my name and I'm like, you need anything?

Anywhere.

You have any questions, please contact me.

We'll figure it out.

We'll figure it out together.

You are not alone in this at all whatsoever.

>> And it's not just day of.

We gay all year son.

>> Cailley: Sierra Lopez also plays a mentor role with this year's title holders.

>> Lopez: Mr.

New Mexico.

Pride 2026 Cain Rico.

Steele Stratton is my drag kid.

He just had a longing for a community.

He did tell us about, you know, like I, you know, this is who I am.

And I don't know, people like me.

And I feel alone.

That's sad.

You know, I remember when I was 13 years old, I snuck out of my house to attend my first pride because I did not know anybody like myself.

And that feeling just hit me.

And I said, you know what?

You know what?

A chosen family is?

Chosen family are those who we chose to be with us.

You know, our people.

You're part of my chosen family.

>> Cailley: Stratton is one part of a full youth court this year.

Something that hasn't happened since 2018.

>> Stratton: At first, I didn't really fully know what that meant because, like, at first, I can't say that I wasn't thinking about getting up on a stage and do all that, but then getting to find so much more about how this is about the community being a face for Albuquerque Pride and showing up to be there for everyone.

Less about the title and more about the people that like I get the privilege to serve.

>> This is the best king ever.

>> Cailley: Today, the 30th anniversary also brings a court that reflects the diversity of the community in new ways.

>> Michael: Albuquerque Pride is celebrating.

30 years of its pride Pageant.

So I'm the 30th Mister New Mexico Pride.

I'm also the second black person to hold this title, so that feels really great.

And additional piece of representation that wasn't there before.

I also just happened to be a trans person as well.

So it's really important for me to be visible in this way, because I know that there is somebody out there that will see me and therefore will see themselves and feel like they have a place at the table within our community.

And really, that's what this is all about.

>> Cailley: While the pageant is a celebration, the organization itself has struggled.

>> Lopez: Fundraising has not been easy.

We have had major, major title sponsors pull out major corporate sponsorships.

Anheuser-Busch, Bud Light and Budweiser.

Major sponsors love selling their products.

The LGBTQ community.

They put on commercials, but they pulled out.

They pulled out last year.

>> Cailley: We did reach out to Anheuser-Busch for comment, but we didn't hear back.

>> Lopez: We cannot rely on corporations.

We cannot rely on sponsorships.

And if we take a look back at things and how they were before we did it without any corporate support.

I mean, we were there before Trump when it was almost illegal to be gay.

Actually, when it was illegal to be gay.

And we did it and we still did it because we didn't care and we built community.

>> Cailley: Titleholders are also asked to fundraise for a cause of their choice every year.

>> Lopez: People have given to other organizations classic transgender resource center in New Mexico.

You know, they get to pick a cause that's close to them, doesn't have to be within our community.

>> Cailley: But this year, for what Sierra Lopez believes is the first time one titleholder chose to fundraise for Albuquerque Pride.

>> Lopez: And the reason why they're doing that is a huge sentiment, because prior organizations across the nation are hurting.

>> Cailley: It may be a small gesture, but it matters because decades of title holding can't impact the future if the organization isn't around to carry the mission forward.

>> Johnson: I think it's incredible that there's 30 years of us.

It's it makes you it makes you feel like you're standing in a hall of icons.

Right?

That we actually survive 30 years of tradition.

Because not all nonprofits survive.

>> Cailley: Despite the challenges, the legacy that comes from three decades of title holders remains a source of hope for those coming next.

>> Lopez: 30 years I mean, I talked about being 50 years of pride.

We're celebrating a 50 year anniversary this year, 50 years of building community, 50 years of resistance.

Come be titleholder, 31.

We need you.

Our communities need you.

>> Cailley: Whether through drag community service or advocacy, the New Mexico Pride title holders show us all that visibility and community are the first steps toward safety and acceptance for New Mexico.

In focus.

I█m Cailley Chella, reporting.

>>Nash: Thanks so much to Cailley for taking us to Pride Fest, and congratulations to this year's titleholders.

A huge thanks to everyone who contributed to the show tonight with a special shout out to NMPBS legend Gene Grant for stopping by for New Mexico PBS, I'm Nash Jones.

Until next week, stay focused.

Funding for New Mexico in Focus is provided by viewers like you.