The New York Times wants readers to believe that a localized well issue near Marietta, Ohio proves America’s entire produced-water management system is failing. But that conclusion isn’t supported by evidence.
A recent article claims produced water from oil and natural gas development is “spurting to the surface” and could soon threaten drinking water for 32,000 people. The situation deserves serious investigation, and Ohio regulators are doing exactly that. But rather than explain what is known – and what is not – the Times uses a site-specific issue to suggest that produced-water disposal itself is inherently unsafe.
It is a familiar playbook. As EID has previously explained, critics often string together isolated incidents and alarming comparisons to suggest the nation’s produced-water system is broadly unsafe, despite decades of safe operation.
Here is what readers should know:
CLAIM: Brine “could soon contaminate the drinking water source for 32,000 people.”
FACT: Drinking-water testing in Marietta and surrounding communities has found no evidence of brine contamination.
The Times leads readers through predictions that produced water could “destroy the city” and leave residents “done” if radioactive material reaches the local water system.
But the article later acknowledges an essential fact:
“Drinking-water tests in Marietta and surrounding areas show no signs of brine.”
Ohio regulators determined that fluids and elevated pressure found in several older oil and natural gas wells were connected to nearby injection activity. Four injection wells have since ceased operations.
That is evidence of a localized issue requiring regulatory attention. It is not evidence that Marietta’s drinking water has been contaminated or that contamination is imminent.
The article presents no evidence that produced water has reached Marietta’s drinking-water aquifer or public water system. It cites no monitoring data showing brine migrating toward municipal drinking-water supplies and identifies no pathway connecting the affected wells to residents’ taps. Instead, it elevates what could happen over what testing and the evidence currently shows.
CLAIM: Waste sent near Marietta had radium-226 levels “ranging from 428 to 1,800 times” EPA’s drinking-water standard.
FACT: Comparing untreated produced water with drinking-water standards does not demonstrate contamination or public exposure.
The authors repeatedly call the material “radioactive fracking wastewater,” but give readers little explanation of what produced water is or how it is managed.
Produced water is water brought to the surface during oil and natural gas production. It includes naturally occurring underground water as well as water associated with drilling and hydraulic fracturing. Because produced water can contain salts, minerals and naturally occurring radioactive materials, it is carefully managed through regulated disposal, treatment, recycling and reuse.
It is not drinking water.
The radium figures cited in the article came from Pennsylvania records associated with production sites that sent water to Ohio. The article does not report those concentrations in Marietta’s aquifer, municipal water system or the fluids found in the affected production wells.
By comparing untreated produced water with a standard intended for water people drink, the Times creates the impression of public exposure without showing that exposure has occurred.
Drinking-water standards are designed for water people consume every day – not for untreated industrial fluids thousands of feet underground that are never intended for human contact. Simply comparing those two numbers says nothing about whether anyone has actually been exposed. Current testing shows they have not.
CLAIM: Ohio is a wastewater destination because it is “easier to drill injection wells” there than in states “where there’s federal oversight.”
FACT: Ohio’s injection-well program operates under the federal Safe Drinking Water Act and EPA-approved authority.
The article’s framing suggests Ohio’s state-run program allows injection wells to operate without meaningful federal safeguards.
That is inaccurate.
Class II injection wells are regulated through the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Underground Injection Control program, which was established under the Safe Drinking Water Act to protect underground drinking-water sources.
Like many major oil- and natural gas-producing states, Ohio has received primary enforcement authority from the EPA to administer the program. State primacy does not eliminate federal requirements; EPA approves state programs only after determining they meet or exceed federal requirements for protecting underground sources of drinking water. And in fact, Ohio’s inspection schedule exceeds the federal minimum.
Since gaining primacy, Ohio has consistently been recognized for having rules more stringent than those set by the federal government. For example, federal regulations require one well inspection each year and a demonstration of mechanical integrity at least once every five years. In contrast, Ohio’s Class II injection well program includes unannounced inspections approximately every 10–12 weeks, along with continuous monitoring of critical operating parameters and periodic mechanical integrity testing to ensure wells function safely and protect underground sources of drinking water.
It’s also important context that Ohio accepts produced water from neighboring states because it has the appropriate geology, permitted disposal capacity, and an EPA-approved regulatory program. That does not make the state a regulatory loophole: it reflects decades of infrastructure development and geology suitable for underground disposal.
Ohio regulators’ response to the Marietta situation also undercuts the article’s broader narrative. After connecting the reported pressures and fluids to nearby injection operations, regulators halted activity at four wells.
Those shutdowns are not evidence of a regulatory vacuum. They show an oversight system identifying a site-specific problem and taking action.
CLAIM: The Marietta situation shows produced water injected underground “doesn’t always stay there.”
FACT: Problems involving a small number of wells do not demonstrate that Ohio’s produced-water system is broadly failing.
Ohio has permitted more than 240 produced-water disposal wells that manage approximately 1.4 billion gallons annually. Yet the Times never explains how often migration occurs, how many wells have experienced comparable conditions, or whether the geology and extensive network of older wells around Marietta make this situation unique.
Instead, the article moves from four shutdowns in Washington County to separate incidents in Oklahoma and Texas to create the impression of a systemic national problem.
Scale matters. EPA estimates that approximately 180,000 Class II wells operate across the country and manage more than two billion gallons of fluid each day. Against that backdrop, four shut-down wells requiring regulatory intervention do not, by themselves, demonstrate systemic failure. Localized issues should be investigated and corrected, but they should not be presented as representative without evidence that they are.
The piece also gives readers little sense of how produced-water management continues to evolve. Injection remains an important tool, but operators increasingly recycle and reuse produced water in new operations, reducing freshwater demand and the amount requiring disposal.
The Bottom Line
The Times takes a localized issue that Ohio regulators are actively addressing and uses it to advance a much broader produced-water scare story.
Its article buries the absence of drinking-water contamination, compares untreated produced water with drinking-water standards without showing public exposure, and mischaracterizes an EPA-approved state program as lacking federal oversight.
The conditions near Marietta deserve continued investigation, transparent oversight and appropriate enforcement. But they do not justify turning one site-specific incident into a sweeping indictment of a highly regulated produced-water management system that has safely operated for decades.
The post What the New York Times Gets Wrong About Ohio’s Produced Water appeared first on .
This post appeared first on Energy In Depth.
