AUSTIN - The Railroad Commission rescinding an approval letter for proposed injection wells did not deprive the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality of its jurisdiction to grant the permit application, the Texas Supreme Court ruled on Friday.
Injection-control wells manage industrial waste by injecting it thousands of feet underground, which could potentially harm important subsurface resources, such as drinking water and petroleum.
According to the high court’s opinion, TexCom Gulf Disposal sought to develop a commercial-waste-disposal facility on a 27-acre site in Montgomery County, near the city of Conroe. The selected site had one nonoperative injection well already constructed. In 2005, TexCom applied to TCEQ for permits to operate the existing well and construct up to three additional wells, which would dispose of nonhazardous industrial wastewater, hauled to the facility from across the region.
Class I Injection wells undergo an extensive permitting process with the TCEQ, and a permit application cannot start unless accompanied by a letter from the RRC concluding that the proposed wells “will not endanger or injure any known oil or gas reservoir,” the opinion states.
“In this case, RRC issued such a letter but then rescinded it after six years of administrative hearings, around the same time TCEQ issued its final order granting the permit application,” the opinion states. “We conclude that the rescission did not deprive TCEQ of jurisdiction, and that on the facts of this case, TCEQ did not violate the Texas Administrative Procedure Act by declining to reopen the administrative record for further proceedings.
“We overrule petitioners’ remaining challenges to TCEQ’s order and affirm the judgment of the court of appeals.”
TCEQ has jurisdiction over wells that dispose of industrial and municipal waste, while RRC has jurisdiction over wells that dispose of oil-and-gas waste. Class I wells, the type at issue here, fall under TCEQ’s jurisdiction. But the Injection Well Act still requires RRC involvement in the permitting process for Class I wells, the opinion states.
“We hold that this evidence, which is supported in the record, is substantial,” the opinion states. “While conflicting evidence exists, it is not for a court to ‘substitute its judgment for the judgment of the state agency on the weight of the evidence on questions committed to agency discretion’. This migration finding, combined with the injection zone’s geological suitability, is sufficient to support TCEQ’s ultimate finding that the wells would be protective of water.”
Case No. 19-1104