CHEYENNE, Wy. - The Wyoming Oil and Gas Conservation Commission voted unanimously Tuesday to deny Aethon Energy's request for an exemption allowing them to dispose millions of barrels of oil and gas wastewater into a portion of the Madison Aquifer. The aquifer underlies Montana, Nebraska, North and South Dakota, Wyoming and parts of Canada.

Amber Wilson, environmental quality advocate with the Wyoming Outdoor Council, welcomed the decision and says future requests deserve careful review.

"But they are really risky." she says. "You're injecting contaminants down into the ground – and as black and white as some people tend to make underground sound, it's not very black and white. And so, you want to be really careful about where you inject those things."

The commission's geologists opposed injections at a hearing last November, citing evidence that Madison could be a future source of drinking water.

The decision is seen as a setback for the Moneta Divide Project in Fremont and Natrona counties. Aethon has a state-of-the-art water treatment facility, but the company says that option is too expensive in the current economic environment.

The move reverses a decision three years ago to allow the project, when commissioners voted against the advice of the commission's geologists. Tom Drean and Mark Doelger voted against the injections because the operator admitted the contamination would spread beyond the exempted area.

Wilson says in the long term, it makes sense to protect clean, drinkable water.

"Science points pretty strongly to the fact Wyoming, and the West in general, is facing a drier future," says Wilson. "And writing off any potential source of groundwater sounds like a pretty big mistake."

If approved by the Bureau of Land Management, the Moneta Divide Project would clear the way for more than 4,000 oil and gas wells in central Wyoming. The agency expects to release its draft environmental impact statement later this year.



get more stories like this via email

As the Trump administration considers a major overhaul of the nation's leading disaster relief agency, a new poll finds the majority of Americans think the government should help affected communities in Wyoming and across the U.S.

The May poll from Pew Research Center showed more than 75% of Americans said it is a good idea for the government to set stricter building standards for new constructions in places at high risk of extreme weather, including floods, major wildfires and droughts. And it found 64% think government should provide financial assistance for communities to rebuild after an event.

Brian Kennedy, senior researcher at the center, said support for the ideas crosses party lines.

"Large shares of Democrats and Republicans say that it's a good idea to set stricter building standards in these communities," Kennedy reported. "Similarly, majorities say it's a good idea for the government to provide financial assistance for people in high-risk areas to rebuild."

Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem is considering renaming or reforming the Federal Emergency Management Agency, after she ended the Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities program in April.

According to the National Centers for Environmental Information, there were 27 climate disasters in the U.S. which each caused at least $1 billion in damages last year, making it the fourth-costliest year on record.

Survey respondents were more split on other approaches. Half of Democrats agreed the government should help cover the rising cost of homeowners insurance in those places, while fewer than a third of Republicans agreed. Regardless of party affiliation, Kennedy noted most people who have experienced extreme weather connect it to climate change.

"When we look at this data and what we've seen over the past several years is the broad patterns in that you see large shares of Americans say, 'Hey, climate change has contributed at least a little,'" Kennedy observed.

He added the questions are relatively new ones for Americans to be considering and he expects to have more data in the future.


get more stories like this via email

As Michigan aims to support 2 million electric vehicles by 2030, the new "Equitable EV Action Plan Framework" could help local leaders with the transition.

The framework was developed by the University of California-Berkeley's Center for Law, Energy and the Environment, and partners -- including the nonprofit advocacy group Michigan Clean Cities. The plan outlines steps local governments can take to build EV infrastructure and improve accessibility, particularly in underserved communities.

Jeffrey Hoang, communications and engagement associate for Michigan Clean Cities, shared insights about the plan in a recent Clean Fuels Michigan webinar.

"The focus of this framework is ensuring that community voice and impact is prioritized with these plans," Hoang explained. "To actually receive public input on where EV charges, EVSC should be placed within the city. So, actually going out to residents and just asking."

The framework recommends first identifying key agencies and staff involved, then those agencies can decide which action steps matter most for their community and how they should be prioritized. Still, many EV critics contend affordability is a big issue for everyday families, even with tax credits.

Backers said the plan helps cities plan for an EV future, not just for personal vehicles but rideshare services, e-bikes and e-scooters. It recommended outreach and funding strategies for transit projects along with examples of successful pilot programs.

Hoang added the framework can be viewed as a resource, connecting people to other helpful resources.

"There's so much knowledge and great experience and expertise throughout the industry," Hoang observed. "It provides quick access, you know just a quick 'control-F,' search for whatever kind of resource that you might need."

The framework highlighted the need for collaboration among local departments, such as planning, transportation and public works to ensure EV access is implemented effectively and equitably.

A critical decision now rests with Gov. Ron DeSantis, as Florida coastal communities and shellfish farmers urge him to sign a bill permanently banning oil drilling near the Apalachicola River. They see the river as a lifeline for the state's aquaculture industry - and a fragile ecosystem.

House Bill 1143, which passed the Legislature with a single "no" vote in the Senate, would block drilling within 10 miles of the Apalachicola National Estuarine Research Reserve.

Adrianne Johnson, executive director of the Florida Shellfish Aquaculture Association, warned that the region's economy and environment hang in the balance.

"That area is really unique; 75% of our oyster farmers operate across Franklin, Wakulla and Gulf counties, so those three counties that are downriver from the proposed oil drilling site," she said. "So, protecting that water is absolutely critical to the livelihood of our farmers."

Despite a court win stopping one drilling project in Calhoun County, she said unprotected sites still threaten Apalachicola's fragile recovery. Aquaculture in the area sustains an oyster industry that once supplied 90% of Florida's wild harvest before its collapse.

The Apalachicola River watershed supports Florida's emerging shellfish industry, which filters water, creates habitats and sustains rural coastal economies. Johnson said even the threat of oil contamination, such as what happened during the 2010 BP spill, could devastate the region.

"We are confident that the governor is supportive of our rural coastal communities," she said. "Under his governorship, the state has invested millions of dollars into restoring Apalachicola Bay. So really, this bill aligns with those values."

Under Florida's "7-Day Rule," DeSantis must decide on the Apalachicola drilling ban by next Wednesday. The bill automatically becomes law if he chooses not to either sign or veto it.


get more stories like this via email