Latest / Conservation Stories / Solving Texas’ Water Crisis: A Plan for the Future with Senator Charles Perry

Transcript

Solving Texas’ Water Crisis: A Plan for the Future with Senator Charles Perry · Conservation Stories

• 0:00
  Speaker A: Foreign.
• 0:16
  Speaker B: Welcome back, friends, for another episode of Conservation stories. I'm your host, Tillery Timmins Sims. And I'm so glad that you are here with me today because we are going to visit with our Senator, Charles Perry. Senator Perry is our state senator representing us in the Lubbock area in quite a ways. Senator, tell us what your district is and how far it goes.
• 0:39
  Speaker A: 41 counties. It was 51 for 10 years, but I lost 10 counties. I think geography wise, I'm pretty close to the same miles. But we go from basically Pampa Wellington up in that area down to Mason, which is really close to Austin, and then over to Abilene a little, little further east, but not quite as far it used to. And I lost all my western oil and gas counties. But it's a good district. I was out in it yesterday. Anson, Abilene and Hasbro. So it's now it's great rural people, great rural communities and just fun to get out when you get a chance. I told somebody the other day this is the first week I've been in my bed in Lubbock. Then I've been in hotel rooms.
• 1:20
  Speaker B: Oh my goodness.
• 1:21
  Speaker A: Been a little bit of a better week. It's been a busy, busy three years since last session. It's been crazy.
• 1:27
  Speaker B: Well, yes, because we usually you get a break, but not much of one.
• 1:32
  Speaker A: These last not much of a break. Now, you know, presidential politics here is busy. But I've, I've been strategically moving around the state and areas of the country for wire conversations and I committed to getting that across the line next session. And it looks like it's going to happen and it's been worth the effort, but it's been a large effort, I'll put it that way. Great getting rain today, though.
• 1:53
  Speaker B: I know, it's great. It is great. We've recently created a new partnership with NASA. So NASA has an AG focused organization or agency within their agency and we've just recently partnered with them and then they connected us with some water folks also. And my goodness, I, you know, just blown away by what they can do. And of course they're interested in what do we need that we don't have that they can develop for us. That's a really great opportunity. But I know you are focused on water and that's really what I, I'd love for us to talk about is water. And I know I've heard you speak several times now about identifying water sources. And you know, we of course, are also about stewarding what we have left. The little that we have left and how we can go about, you know, best doing that. So give us some ideas about what you're chasing.
• 2:49
  Speaker A: Yeah. So basically we have 254 counties and our current water plan that's been in existence since the first plan was around 2003 on its front end did not really provide a way to prevent irrigated agricultural production from depleting. It just kind of left that to the economics of pulling water out of the ground. And they have in the plan estimated 30% will be reduced in production because it couldn't afford to pull the water up from a deeper well. So I don't think that's necessary when we have vital, viable other options. So I took the water plant apart and looked at from a different lens as is it going to get us to where we want to be? Specifically, it addresses 50 or 10 years and that last one was 2022 and it goes out to 270. But in honesty, we have done. We've had more growth, different industry sectors and more people than it originally planned for. So realistically it's about 2050, I think is the outskirts of when our water plan needs to be fully impacted are in effect. And so looking at it from that lens and looking through the plan itself as to what will not happen, it missed its window. And I'll give you an example. 2020, we were supposed to be drinking from four different reservoirs that have not even started their federal 404 permit process, which is at a minimum 10, sometimes 15 years. And then when you start imminent domain conversations, property acquisitions and population density, that wasn't there when it was first put in the plan. There's multiple reservoirs we can't depend on. That was 4 million acre feet projected in the plan to cover. And if you honest assessment, pull the ones that you don't think can get done anymore, we're probably looking about a million and a half. So you lose, you know, almost two and a half million acre feet just in that conversation. So that's where I've got to. I've been working on this. I've always thought new supply is key. And here's the good news. We need about 10 to 12 million acre feet, which is pretty much double what we use today. We use about 13 million acre feet. We need it probably by 2050 at the latest. There's areas of the state that could use it yesterday. So I look at it, yes, that's what our need is. But most importantly, we actually have undeveloped water supplies to meet that need. And that's the encouraging Thing this is a solvable issue. It just means or it just requires commitment. From that lens, I need 10 to 12 million acre feet a year by 2050 at the latest. I found about 50 million acre feet a year. That's probably economically doable as far as actually pulling it into the supply systems. And Texas has the wealth to jumpstart it. And I think that's the key component that's been missing in our water planning. We have always left water plants to the local regions or local individuals, or local cities, local municipals. And so what we've encouraged there is because of funding, you reverse engineer what you can afford and not what you can need. And at the same time we went after low hanging fruit, low hanging fruit being groundwater. And we've just about depleted all the cheap water. There's plenty of water to do, but not any more cheap water. So the big concept here is let's take it from a local funding requirement and have some more coordinated oversight from planning perspective so that if CDA is looking at doing its water resources and is pulling from a particular groundwater source, but city C is looking at doing their own and not considering what city B is doing or A is doing, and all of a sudden you end up pulling from the same groundwater and you're depleting it unknowingly to the disadvantage of each other. And more importantly, you are spending taxpayer dollars in multiple inefficiencies. So we're going to implement this plan and here's the biggest policy shift in the state that I've got done our roads work in Texas, because back in 13 we committed to a constitutionally dedicated resource by voter approval to make sure there's always money in the system and coming to the system through the system to develop connectivity planning and make sure our roads connect and they work. And so as an example, we just approved $148 billion road package for the next 10 years last month or two. And that's how we do is 10 year road planning. And every session we take previous two out and we add two to it. So we just keep this revolving inventory of road work to be done or build outs or maintenance. But we were able to do that because we gave vendors security and payment predictability continuity, because there's always new money coming into the system that's not subject to our budget process every two years. And arguably politics, economy, those things can change that budget process. So you're asking me as a vendor to be build out 10, 20, 30 year projects and they're multi billion dollar cost to us and yet you want me to be dependent on whether every two years the legislature can pay me for that work. That was not going to be a winning model and we would not have roads that work. So that model is now going to be our water planning model. We're going to literally take a vote next November 25th that will dedicate a specific source of revenue that's fairly historically predictable and pretty much consistently going to be there so that going forward after 25 vendors can start these decades long projects. And locals are going to have the benefit of the state front loading a good chunk of that so that they're not asked by their councils. There's no city council that can come to their people and say hey, we need $25 more a month for you. We're going to build out our water infrastructure. And by the way, the first glass of water will be 20 or 30 years out. So you're going to be paying it for your grandkids. Pay it forward. Well, we don't live in a society that views pay it forward very well anymore. It's, it's kind of about what are you doing to me today? So if we rely on that and those local governments and there's really no local jurisdiction that can afford these multi billion dollar projects and have you know, political turnover every four years to deal with the funding of them so nothing gets done, right. This will take it out of the locals hands as far as requiring the funding and long term planning will be better coordinated. The state will front load it and then as water delivery comes online and the cities and the counties and the people benefit from that, they'll start reimbursing the state for that cost. But if we don't do it that way, number one, projects are too big, too expensive, too long and we won't get it done. Number two, this guarantees that people will have water sources 20, 30 year out. If you need water in 20 years and you're not water working on it today, right. It won't be there in 20 years. That's the problem with water. But I think that, that if I had to see where is the biggest philosophical shift that I've been able to. You know, nothing's predictable inside of the session. We come in in January 14 and 25 and all bets are off. But today I've traveled the state, met with multiple legislators. Abbott's on board, Patrick's on board. I assume the next speaker will definitely be on board. He's a kind of a previous water guy anyway, so. And the conversation I've had with his staff and people that surround him. It's absolutely on board. So state of Texas in November 25th will have an opportunity to set the water plant itself on steroids as far as starting and getting it done. If we do not commit to doing it while we have the money to do it, the better stays of Texas have been had. We have people and we have wells, individual wells owners that are drying up wells because the water's been wholesaled out from under them to bigger cities in the area legal to do their right to sell it. But you know, we're moving water around and calling it water supply. The truth manager Robin Peter to pay Paul and that's not new supply. This will be actual 10 to 12 million acre feet of new supply. That means when I'm done or when the plan's implemented there will be more water for Texans to access. Not moving it from one place to the other but literally more supply in the pipeline. So that's what I've been working on. It's been a labor of love. It's been fun. It's been tried. Since the 1940s, Texas has had a water plan issue typically following a drought. The difference is we now have 30 million people drinking from the taps. The need has finally materialized to reality for a large part of some of these people. And so now we don't get the option. You know, back in 1940 say well that's great but you know, we're only 5 million people or whatever the number was. We don't need that water supply today. So why do we want to invest in it today? Well we've rolled that forward to 2025 and literally I've traveled the state and there are places that don't have 10 year water supplies where there's places that don't issue permits for development. There's places that the refineries that they use don't know that they'll have water to continue to operate. $385 million a day economic impact. Just one industry segment on the coast that is is questioning whether or not there's going to be water available to keep it going. So that's where we're at. You know, we as people always procrastinate and we had the luxury of doing that for decades. But the, the pervial Kearney in the coal mine has been singing a little bit. Some of them have actually died. They're not singing anymore. Days are here. So this is we're going to do this and the cool thing is it's solvable. It really is one of those problems we can actually fix with commitment to resource and vision.
• 12:23
  Speaker B: So where, tell us where this, this new source of water is coming from?
• 12:30
  Speaker A: So to be clear, the existing water plant does have things in it that will produce from existing water sources that are legitimate and perpetual in nature because they can recharge if it's groundwater. But when you adjust everything else out of the planet besides that, you're, you're, you know, back to that 10 to 12 million as a plan. So in that there's four opportunities for new water supply, marine desal on the coast where it makes sense we can bring some of that inland. I've got three decal plants that are in that plan that, that, that plan that'll be presented at least three. On the, on the Gulf side we have about 5.2 billion acre feet of brackish water. Interior Texas most areas have some source of brackish underneath them that is developed on worth it about 3.2 billion is estimated to be about 10,000 parts per million, which is not a problem anymore. We do that all the day long and we do seawater at 40,000 around the world always. So we have about 3, 2 to 5, 2 billion acre feet which is hundreds of years of water supply to go after in the oil and gas fields out in the Delaware Basin, Midland Basin out in our Permian play. In general, the bigger picture, we have about 25 million barrels of water a day comes up from the oil and gas production between the basins that are out there. 25 million barrels times 42 gallons. It's the hardest of the water to clean up. I've got six pilot projects that I'm aware of that are ongoing. Three private sector, three under Texas Tech's water consortium that has been implemented over the last two years with some legislation. We believe that in about two years we'll have met the time horizon necessary to check off some of the EPA and some of the Clean Water act stuff that we can prove out is legitimately safe and usable. Agriculture will have a new beneficial use. So that's about half million acre feet best case scenario with all that going on in the Delaware basin. So you take produced water, desal, marine desal, brackish, desal, and then fourthly, there are unpermitted river access water, surface water in Texas of about 800,000 to probably high end million gallons, I mean, I'm sorry, million acre feet a year that has not been permitted or appropriated. We're not going to take it as a state. We're going to offer A check to buy the water, not the water rights out of those unappropriated and move that to the areas where it could use it. These are historically very, very much can be listed as excess water. So we do have surface water on about a million acre feet inside of Texas, a little less. And then we do have a contiguous state or two that's offering to sell us water that we have had the appropriate conversations at the appropriate depth of political office to get those conversations to a legitimate position. So 2 million an acre feet is what I'm kind of looking at. But if. Here's the good news. If none of that happened, we've got enough brackish and enough other opportunities to move pipes and sources around to meet the needs. Every one of these pipes terminate in an existing distribution center. So for instance, we pull water from Meredith. That's potentially where the source could end up for our region. We've got Ivy, Thomas Spence down in the central Sangelo big country area. We've got Abilene that's got a reservoir too on the books that's not been developed. We've got a few in that region. But we may develop that when we go direct pipeline access. But they get water from PK too. So there's plenty of reservoirs already on tap that we can plug water supply into and not have to rebuild Distributions preference would be, if possible, where possible have aquifer storage and recovery so we're not losing evaporation and actually go direct into water supply lines that currently exist. So lots and lots of options. When we get the funding in place, I think we're going to find out that we're involved really pretty close to having a lot of this need met. That's just you know, before due to for no reason like other than lack of funding that they haven't been implemented. So I'm looking forward to what we've. The energy that's going to come out of this.
• 16:41
  Speaker B: Yeah. So question about. Are you. When you're looking at this, are you. Are you still thinking that we'll still be irrigating? I know we interviewed Robert Mace a few weeks ago and he said he thought we probably had about 30 years left of irrigation in our. In our area. What are your. What are your think. What are you thinking about that?
• 17:02
  Speaker A: Well, I saw Robert Mason meeting that you were there too. That was a very interesting. Yeah, it was. And you know, I did not have those plans in front of me when I did mine. But interesting enough, my plan and their plan didn't change much which tells Me, the problem was the same and the solutions haven't changed. So. So that was interesting. Now, you know, here's the deal. I think the question on that's not quite as black and white. Obviously, we're losing irrigated production for multiple reasons. Wells are getting deep economics of with the crop they're selling. It's not justifiable to pull it up deeper. Some areas have gone dry. Some of them are shelf. So when we say area, I think we have to be a little more specific. There are certain areas that are already out of water for irrigated crops. There are some areas that it's still affordable, but not long term. So it's 30 years the number. I think that's reasonable to expect for some areas. There's some areas that you know can do it. In the valley is a good example of another irrigated crop zone in Texas that can't do it. And they didn't have a lot of groundwater. It was based on surface water and it's not there right now. So all that to say is in our area 30 years or 60 years, or is it 20 years? I think depends on where you're sitting. So the idea of the supply plan here is to subplant municipal use that pull water from the aquifer, Ogalawa specifically with new supply, therefore leaving, you know, our region. If you go middle and Odessa, Lubbock, Amarillo, Mineral, just don't pull up from the ogle laga. But if you, if you start supplanting city supplies with new supplies, you leave more in the Ogalaga and it does recharge really, really, really slow. But if you leave more in there for irrigator production over time, I think you at least stabilize the draw. And then additional to that, at some point, if this plan goes to fruition and we get our basics covered across the state, there will be opportunities to have conversations about recharge. The Ogalaga is a challenge because it's more of a mountain range. Topography of the ogle is really interesting. On the bottom side, I've got maps and I need to go back and get them out. But there are going to be certain areas where I think over time, if we get this infrastructure built out and new supplies developed, we could literally probably possibly recharge some of these areas that just to keep basic use in and irrigated crops on a deal. Now, I do think that agriculture with a new water supply. Let's just talk about the Permian and Delaware basins where we're doing beneficial use on the produced water today, if that thing bears out as we know it can and probably will, we may see a whole new industry for agriculture that's honestly a little more easier. It'll be aquaponics in nature. It'll be big under roof growing facilities that, where the environmentals are no longer a huge concern, where you can grow a whole lot more with less space and less water. So. But if you can get that water component kind of fixed, you may open up a whole new enterprise in the desert for land. That's a good point. Growing man. Yeah, that's actually, this is actually one of the largest economic development tools that we will garner in this because we have cheap dirt, great quality life, great work ethic, great values that people in urban areas. I have 35 corridors that if there was water availability their companies would have probably chosen. Maybe not in my lifetime, but I would say 20, 30 years out. If we get the water supply, develop like we can and will, we may see a huge interest in opening up commerce in West Texas. Oil and gas.
• 21:00
  Speaker B: Yeah. So a couple of questions on produced water. So when you're counting the amount of gallons of water, is that what is being produced in Texas? Because I know that we're, we are bringing in a lot of that water from New Mexico into Texas and I know they are. There's legislation that will be I guess voted on this, this next session in New Mexico that's going to create a market for produced water in New Mexico where. So they're, I mean I was in a meeting yesterday and I heard them say, you know, we're going to have a place for you to sell this in New Mexico so you won't have to send it to Texas. And so is that going to impact the gallons that you're, that you're counting?
• 21:49
  Speaker A: So, so I'm not counting anything being imported into Texas. Okay.
• 21:54
  Speaker B: You're just counting what's being produced in Texas. Okay.
• 21:59
  Speaker A: From the well. Okay. Now the, the problem with bringing more water in to inject in Texas has create seismic system machine. So that's not a viable deal. And it was obviously the landowner that had the injection wells opportunity and right to do it. But that's all being begin to be shut down on a regulatory level and needs to be until we can figure out how to address that. Well, you address it by shooting a whole lot less volume into the ground. And this produce water initiative, you recover today's technology. We believe that we would get about a 50% recovery. That's significant if you're not having to inject 50% of what you are today. Secondly, we blew with new technologies always coming online. New process the small modular reactor out of Abilene, the nuclear reactor.
• 22:48
  Speaker B: Just going to ask about that provides.
• 22:49
  Speaker A: A whole different level of DSAP conversation for both membrane issue and more importantly, you can actually suck all the moisture out of those discharge elements. Get it into a very compact small cube that has some commercial value, possibly, but develop a dump system that is clay lined or whatever it needs to be to not leach into anything. So there's just so much coming up and on Perfect Storm that SMR can mitigate. But assuming that didn't come online, we need to address our produced water issue in our oil and gas industries. And the idea that they can move it to Mexico is false because the reason New Mexico is sending it to us is because their government said no more injection.
• 23:35
  Speaker B: Well, right.
• 23:35
  Speaker A: All this conversation. Now there has been conversations internally that if we're going to take produced water, in which I don't think we should be now if we take it in and it becomes another source for cleanup and their water may not be as hard in those places over there through this produced water process. Awesome, right? We just took a problem from our neighbor that's creating problem for us probably anyway and convert it to a new source. That's correct. But we are having conversations that imported produced water need to be charged a significant state regulatory fee because as a state we've got to deal with the seismicity issue. So I don't know where that lands. I haven't seen any legislation. I've just heard talk about that.
• 24:31
  Speaker B: Out here on the Texas plains. Water is everything. And there's a resource that's as vital as it is fragile. Our Playa Lakes. These lakes are nature's reservoir, catching rainwater to recharge our aquifer and provide lifelines for wildlife. But now they need our help. In collaboration with the Texas Fly Lakes Conservation Initiative and the Cargill Global Water Challenge, Sarah has started the Our Legacy Is Tomorrow's Water initiative to inspire and work with landowners to restore and protect our Playa lakes. Each Playa we save helps secure a sustainable water future for the generations that will be coming after us. Whether it's improving soil health, restoring habitats or recharging groundwater, we are committed to making a difference. Together we can build a legacy that we can all be proud of. To learn how you can join in, visit the Playa Lakes Restoration Initiative page on the SARA website. Let's keep Texas water flowing strong for the future. Visit serra-conservation. Yeah yeah. So and that's what I think they are saying is you know, instead of they know they've got to stop sending it, they know they've got to do something with it, you know and I know that you know one of these, you know, maybe mid size cleaning up these things, this is a decal and cleaning process that they've you know, come up with because there are several companies, you know, just within the last year that have said okay, we, we can do it. Is it cost effective? No. Does it matter? No. 12 to $20 million per, you know, one of those units to clean this stuff up. So and I think that's to like Hobbs is getting ready to get in some data centers and they're, that's what they're going to be doing that produced water instead of you know, sending it over. They're, they're looking at, you know, you can put something in here to clean up this produced water and it can go straight to this data center. So I think what you're talking about New Mexico is also looking at the same thing as like this is we gotta figure out how to make a market for this.
• 26:44
  Speaker A: Yeah. In New Mexico to their credit and the Texas Produced Water Consortium has coordinated with them. They have some really good research, done a lot of legwork on ground already traveled. So we partnered well with them. They, they got pretty hot on the, on the consortium idea for reduced water. And then politically I think the funding or politically they just decided to back off of it. But they're still existence. But we are partnering well and they have a lot of scientific data. We are basically at a point that we know for sure today that we could actually develop potable water from juice water. But we have to have the EPA and, and I'm support of this right that we have to have enough growing seasons under our belt to test the soil point to it doesn't have an accumulation of hot toxic or bad chemicals. So that's where we're at. We could do it today scientifically. We know the technology exists. We just have to give it the time to test out the soil if we're going to use it for agriculture. We're actually, actually going down the path of how much salt can a dairy, cattle or cow drink at what level of brackish becomes okay for the animals to drink but not humans? And when does it run milk or when does it hurt harm quality of meat. So we're, we're full bore. We're at every level and I think two, three years we've got a Viable source of water for multiple uses. And we've addressed one of the oil and gas is industry's biggest challenges. So it's a win win. We know we can do it. The SMR technology should be deployed if everything stays on pace and funding occurs at the levels it needs to as soon as it can. We believe 2030 we may have an opportunity for a commercially viable small module reactor in the Delaware basin which does multiple things. It's 100 megawatt reactor for power. It's 250 megawatts for thermal purposes. And it's that heat element that provides the dis benefit for our D cells. But it also would give about 5 megawatts for the D cell. It doesn't take much and that would leave 95 megawatts for oil and gas industry which is said we are gigawatts of power in need over the next decade. So it really checks the box and, and there's other benefits to that. Cancer research, medical acetose that comes from the byproducts. It's walkway safe. It's not the old vapor big dog. It's a different model.
• 29:18
  Speaker B: Yes, it's completely different. Yes.
• 29:20
  Speaker A: It's, it's the same technology. The 50s just really updated efficiencies.
• 29:25
  Speaker B: Yeah. And it is really, it is really safe and I, I know people still has a really bad. People still are afraid of it but it really is very safe. But so what. One of the things that I've been hearing right Rumors of is that there's some innovation that could end the need for water fracking. But that doesn't really end. That doesn't really mean that we are going to be less produced water though. Because when you're fracking I think a lot of people are like just what I'm hearing is we're going to end, we're going to frack without water. Well that's really where the water is coming out with the oil. So I mean I think people are confusing those two things.
• 30:06
  Speaker A: That's right. You, you have an initial water supply for frac. You, you put it. It's not, you know, people always point to them as there is huge water. Usually they use water but they don't use it near the bottom of our irrigated crops and municipal use. Really, really small in the food chain. That water would be something that could be replaced with CO2 injections or some of those new concepts and technologies. The water we come, the water I'm talking about comes up with the dinosaur bones. It's, it's coming up out of the formations where the oil and gas is, it's about on average, I'm told anywhere from four to six barrels of water per one barrel of oil.
• 30:46
  Speaker B: Yeah.
• 30:46
  Speaker A: So it's, I think it's, I think.
• 30:48
  Speaker B: It'S up to seven now.
• 30:50
  Speaker A: Yeah, you know, it depends on the play. I used to use six or seven and I got in trouble for that because if, if it's a real thick, if the dinosaurs had ate a lot, I guess there's more stuff.
• 31:02
  Speaker B: Right.
• 31:02
  Speaker A: But, but still it's a large amount of water. It's, it's, it's 10, 14 million barrels a day on the Delaware.
• 31:09
  Speaker B: Yeah. So yeah. And they're saying like they anticipate the innovation is changing so quickly that they think, you know, within the next five to eight years it'll like it's going to quadruple, you know, how much they can get out is going to just.
• 31:25
  Speaker A: It'S just there's about 20, last time I saw it, there's about 20 geographical geological formations that produce oil and it will take hundreds of years to tap every one of those. And so when people tell me we're going to run out of oil and gas play, they haven't looked at the geology that says a lot different.
• 31:47
  Speaker B: Well, and that's just changed. I mean the innovation has changed that, you know, because you know, as being somebody in the oil and gas industry, even 10 years ago we were going and now we're like, yeah, you know, this isn't a problem.
• 32:02
  Speaker A: Let me, yeah. And then let me throw one other aspect of getting the water right. Everything's water. So you got to have air, right? About four minutes you got have water. That's best five days probably. And but if you get this water deal right, then there's a whole new world that we already in, in a pretty decent way, hydrogen. And the world has determined that the new source of energy for clean energy going forward is hydrogen splitting that atoms. But it takes water. And so when we get this water supply right, specifically on the refinery and I've got three hydrogen projects in Senate District 28 because of the salt dome formations. But it needs water. But you get that component right, then you start talking about possibly a different source of energy for everything we use. Not we're never going to replace our combustion engines. Let me put it this way. If we have an administration like the previous one that is now on the way out, get successful and try to replace it, our quality of life goes to zero and there's more horrible lives thing. But I would Say the hydrogen component, part of the reason it's never really gotten started is it's a water hog. And so when we get our supplies right, we will open ourselves up as a Texas economy to be a leader in lng, be a leader in oil and gas, to be a leader in hydrogen, to believe in renewables. And we have just garnered the entire market on the energy capital world, no matter what energy you're talking about. And there will be billions of capital come to this state today that's not here already. And that puts us, we're will be seventh largest economy by the end of next year. And so that brings a challenge, but it also isn't where we'll stop if we get this water deal right. That's the only thing between us and no limit economically is we've got to have a water supply that people can point to and say we're good. And today we can say probably. But it's going to take an effort to make sure we can answer that question of farmability.
• 34:10
  Speaker B: Well, and the thing I, the thing I like about the position I feel like that we're in now and we, you know, spend a lot of time visiting with the I hate this word sustainability people. I think, oh, we have a friend, actually it's the guy that runs the New Mexico Produce Water Consortium, Mike Hightower, who says nobody can define sustainability. Stewardship is a verb and it makes you responsible. And I really just, I love that.
• 34:41
  Speaker A: But here's, here's, here's some things to think about. I know for a fact that when we get the supply right, the economy gets better. When the economy does better, it provides more resources for research and development. And nobody. I don't, I don't believe. Right left greeny, non greeny. Environment is not. Nobody is not interested in can we do better with what we have. And money is usually the first initiative to get research done to do better with what we have. So there will be a whole host of things that come out of getting the water right. I keep saying it, I sound like a broken. But that's the only thing that between us and future unknowns of huge economic benefits. And when you get that kind of dollars, you can do research to say, you know, maybe, just maybe we can grow X with this much water now because we've deployed X to make that happen, whatever X is. So I just see this as Texas's initiative to decide what is our path. If we do nothing, we're probably not going to get much more economic loads. We've got private equity Groups that are now asking that question, if we build that facility in Texas, be it where it is, whatever it is, will you have water to support my factory and my people? And so if we can address that with an affirmative yes, that will bring business, commerce, better jobs, our youthful stay, hopefully in this rural areas out here. And then we can actually start researching more and more opportunities to frack with less water to what is a less fossil fuels engine that actually works and doesn't require you to extend your trip and actually cause more environment problem on the front end than on the back end. So we will actually start a whole new revelation and renovation, opportunity, revolution and renovation of what else is next. And when you're splitting atoms and you're splitting hydrogen water to get hydrogen and gas, I mean, when you start in those technologies, there's no telling when you get to a point where maybe you actually do crack that nut of coal, you know, where you're cold fuel, where you really have no heat component, which is what destroys mechanics and everything. So it is just wide open. But in my humble opinion, and I tell people I've been a CPA for 40 years, I'm not an emotional guy. The numbers just tell me what they are. It is where we're at if we do it. I just think it's the key to unlocking anything and everything that our wildest dreams could imagine and we will develop. So I will say it this way. Conservation is critical. We always need to be good stewards and we can always find better ways to be conservationists. But at some point, you can't ignore the fact that we're adding 1200 people to the taps every day. And somebody asked me in a town hall in Anson yesterday, well, don't you think we need to quit encouraging people to come? And I was like, how do you, you know, barring this putting up a wall and say, you know, show me your papers, east, west of, they're coming for the right reasons and if you're not growing, you're dying. So I don't think that's a viable opportunity. Not when you can say, no, we can fix this.
• 37:59
  Speaker B: You know what, what we heard when we were at the Texan by Nature summit is people, planet, profits that they, they can coexist and that they're not mutually exclusive. You know, that we can. We say it like, you know, we want all of these things to flourish and you need all those things. They're dependent on each other. So now, so let me, let me change directions for just a minute to energy waste. So we just recently ran a campaign with Environmental Milestone Environmental Services to raise recognition to the lack of updated regulations on our energy waste. And so what we understand was that last year there was an agreement. A lot of the oil and gas companies want these regulations to be updated because it, it frankly makes them look bad when there's no good regulations. And so they then people just assume that they're, you know, drop into the lowest common denominator. But then apparently there was some pressure from a few companies, mid sized companies and we can't afford it or whatever. And so they lopped it all out and took it back to where it was in the 80s. And so we were raising awareness, you know, asking people to comment. What do you, what do you want? Here's, here's, you know, here's a template if you want to say this, but you need to put your comments forward. You know, do you want this to be done? And so I went out and looked at, at some places and frankly I didn't really think it was that bad anymore, you know what I mean? Until I went out and looked and. Because I remember what it was like on my granddad's land and the mess and the mess that was left. And landowners, savvy landowners are, are going to do a good job, you know, in contracts those surface owners are. But you know, like we have a landowner that he bought a piece of land and there's just, you know, puddles, little, little tiny lakes for lack of better word of oil that just keeps coming up, you know, and things that are leaking. So I visited with a contact in a small oil and gas company instead. Is this a financial burden for you? And he said it's not, it's not the finances because apparently it's 1% of the budget. It is the fact that it takes so long to already get a permit from the railroad Commission that if you add another permit that we have to get, it's just, it's just going to take longer. So what, what, what can we do about that? I mean, like I know that, I know the legislature is aware of it because apparently, apparently Railroad commission has been told to do something about this in the last few sessions. And what, what are your thoughts on this?
• 40:54
  Speaker A: I drafted the bill that rose the attention to get these regulations.
• 40:58
  Speaker B: I thought it was you. Yes.
• 40:59
  Speaker A: Yeah, and I had those conversations. First of all, railroad commission does a pretty good job and they're very interested in making sure what we dream is safe. But bureaucracy is what it is. But they did move permitting along. So I'm I would, I'm not going to push back because I didn't talk to the gentleman. I would tell you, I guess it's depending on the type of permit, but we issue permits pretty quickly at the Railroad Commission. We've put a lot of money in technologies for online access or permitting and reviews and things. So there has been a huge emphasis of resource to guarantee permitting timely and quickly. And to my knowledge from the industries that people that I have talked to that is working like training now the discharge or the this particular issue, if that's a different Permit now, Rule 8 along with several other statutes have been squeaked and to your conversation I did hear of last year that it was the independents and small guys said this is going to bankrupt us. Not that it's because it takes too long to get the permit, but I will. I'm still on that. There was a there. So Rule 8 from my basic understanding is a legacy statute that took decades to get it to where it was at. And any reforms or changes to it, you meet a whole lot of oppositions. Not because people want to make it better, but because they just know that a tweak here, a tweak there can have huge unintended consequences for industry or consumers. So I've just said this way, we're on it, we're aware of it, we're trying to work through it. Railroad commission has asked for things to tweak on some level. But if it's just a sheer permitting, which that's the first I've heard of permitting issues in the last. I mean, I think it depends on the permit. You know, there's discharge permits, there's drilling permits. And I think probably on the drilling side is probably where they're very efficient. I'm open to having those conversations as far as it is the small guys that feel the financial pinch of more requirements. But I'd say it this way, we don't have an option not to make sure that what we're doing is not one clean and environmentally safe.
• 43:11
  Speaker B: They're just, I mean, I mean there's land, you know, central. Nothing's grown for 70 years, you know, and some of these are on the edges of playas.
• 43:20
  Speaker A: Yeah.
• 43:21
  Speaker B: You know, so some of this is.
• 43:23
  Speaker A: A challenge because every time those become aware to the the commission they go back and research history and history is either really, really good and they can identify the well owner at the time or operator. And it may be a big if it's a Chevron or somebody that's currently existence, they come right out and they deal with it and address it and fix it. If it's an independent that no longer is in business and there's no resource to attach to to get it to be fixed, then it becomes a quote, orphan well kind of conversation. And that's a very broad term. It means very different things to depending on different wells. So I want to be careful with that. But in effect, it's who's, who's on first now? Well, the state is technically that's not their well. But it is an environmental issue we need to deal with. The feds and the state have put tremendous amounts of money to the point of they have put so much money in the pipeline, they did not have enough vendor, I. E. Service contractors to go out and use all the money at once. So we are aware, we keep funding, we add to it and that's where, where some of the conversations about a produced water fee would go towards helping these, some of these wells. So we're looking at those options. It's not, it's not under the radar. It's on the radar. We'll continue to go down that. But you think about the oil and gas history in Texas for the.
• 44:41
  Speaker B: Oh, no, I know that's, that's what I do. I'm a landman.
• 44:44
  Speaker A: I don't know how many, I don't know how many. I don't know how many of these wells exist. I hear antidotes. I don't know how many of them are truly an environmental problem. I don't know how many of them are actually old water wells. Well had no carbon activity at all.
• 44:57
  Speaker B: Right. And that's, that's one of the, one of the things that, you know, one of the complaints that I have heard is that like, well, you know, sometimes they turn into a water well and then the railroad commission doesn't have to do anything with them, but they were actually drilled, permitted to drill as an oil well, but they didn't get oil. But now waters there. So it's a water well. And so now. So there's a lot of them that are stuck in that limbo as well. But Senator, thank you. This has been really interesting and well.
• 45:24
  Speaker A: I hope so appreciate it. I talk, you know, somebody told me water's boring. And I said, yeah, it's boring long term and expensive. Those are not things people want to deal with. But I said somebody's got to deal with them. I tell you, I'll leave you with this. We're in the best place in the world to be able to solve this. This issue. Texas does big things, has done big things in the past. The fortunate thing is we can fix this too. It can be the next big thing. But I tell people, water's life. Everything after that's quality. I can lose my lights today and not be happy about it. If I lose my water today in about five days, I probably aren't gonna. It ain't gonna matter where the light. So we've gotta get it right. We're working on grid. We'll be good. But we are in a great place to address, in my opinion, probably the last remaining infrastructure item that we have not addressed appropriately. We will do that next session. So I appreciate it. Thank you for that.
• 46:15
  Speaker B: Thank you.
• 46:16
  Speaker A: People questioning what I said today. Then you just let me know.
• 46:18
  Speaker B: Okay? Yeah, I appreciate you're always open and willing to meet with people. And I will just say anyone who thinks water is boring has never lived out in the country when your well went out.
• 46:29
  Speaker A: That's right.
• 46:30
  Speaker B: The only time it's only boring when it comes out.
• 46:33
  Speaker A: When it doesn't come out in a hatred. Yeah. Having lived in a house trailer. And when the, when, when the color north winds blow that first time and that little, little bitty copper line freezes and you can't get water, well, just go look no further than Yuri.
• 46:47
  Speaker B: No, exactly. Exactly.
• 46:49
  Speaker A: It was the water loss.
• 46:50
  Speaker B: Yes.
• 46:51
  Speaker A: That got people in trouble. So.
• 46:53
  Speaker B: Yeah.
• 46:53
  Speaker A: All right, man. Thank you.
• 46:54
  Speaker B: Appreciate it. Thanks again, folks, for joining us for this episode of Conservation Stories. And if you would do us a favor and like and share this podcast and especially Senator Perry's, everybody's going to be interested in hearing what he has to say about water. And we will see you again on another episode.