D  e  s  e  r  t     E  x  p  o  s  u  r  e     March 2005

Otero Mesa—What Now?

With drilling going forward, what will the real environmental impact be? And what can ordinary citizens do about it?

Would you believe that this is my third attempt to write about the Otero Mesa issue concerning oil and gas drilling! I try to compose a column at least four to eight weeks before it is printed so that my editor has plenty of time to do his thing, but with each new article on the topic, I've had to do a rewrite. Goshdoggitfriggamaruggit!

Scenic Otero Mesa. Photo courtesy Stephen Capra, New Mexico Wilderness Alliance.

For my own self, I've vacillated back and forth on the issue, finally concluding that both sides have exaggerated their viewpoints and claims.

On my first defunct column I endeavored to put forth the pros and cons of drilling for oil and gas, and, of course, that all became obsolete when on Jan. 24 the BLM finalized their decision to allow drilling.

The good news, if we can call it that, is that the BLM will severely limit drilling to "only" 141 wells for the life of the plan. In the first official statement, the BLM was ambiguous at best, when the agency spoke of how much of an area will be affected out of the 2.1 million acres of the Otero Mesa. On one hand, the agency stated that it would allow "limited and regulated oil and gas drilling" on all but 124,000 "protected" acres. Yet Ed Roberson, with the Las Cruces BLM office, stated that only 900 acres would be affected and "that is a very small footprint" (Sun-News article, Jan. 24).

I thought to myself, "Which one is it, 900 or 2 million acres?"

Then, an op-ed piece in the Jan. 27 Sun-News came out, clarifying the agency's position. Linda Rundell, who is the state director of the BLM, said, "The BLM is launching one of the most restrictive oil and gas programs ever implemented on public lands."

Rundell claimed the project will entail "carefully monitored activity leading to a maximum surface disturbance of only 1,589 acres in the short term, and 860 acres in the long term." There may be up to 141 exploratory wells with a maximum of 84 producing wells. The result? Less than one10th of one percent of the planning area would be disturbed by oil and gas development."

I reread that entire article carefully, and a yellow-flag word popped up: "surface." Nothing in the editorial addressed the issue of pollution to the vast underground water supply and how it would be infected, er, affected.
For my own self, I have no problems with the surface impact, having hunted many times in eastern New Mexico amidst the active oil fields there. Wildlife in the form of antelope, deer, predators, songbirds, quail and abundant waterfowl was flourishing amongst the active oil wells, and the vegetation was thriving as well. Drill pads and roads seemed to have negligible impact either, and in many cases, these were healing over. So drilling on 860 acres "seems" of little consequence, surface-wise.

But the greater concern that is shared by myself, Governor Richardson, environmentalists, ranchers, hunters and conservationists is: What about the water?!!!

Recently I attended a seminar put on by Oscar Simpson, the president of the hunter-conservationist New Mexico Wildlife Federation, and he expostulated on the dangers that drilling would have on the underground water supply. Simpson produced many photos of leaking, neglected oil and gas wells that are actively and currently seeping across and into the ground—and hence into the water—with little "seeming" effort by oil companies to correct the situation.
When asked, Simpson qualified that two agencies have the responsibilities for enforcing environmental cleanup—the BLM and the New Mexico Oil and Conservation Division in the Energy, Minerals & Natural Resources Department. The seminar implied that both agencies "seem" reticent in enforcing anything but superficial cleanup.

Again, I see double-speak: The governor says that he's against drilling and pollution but yet his own department does little to enforce cleanup! Hmmmmm?
But as I said before, the drilling issue is a done deal, so what can the public do from here on out?

Admittedly, the bureaucrats don't listen to Joe Public. They already have made up their minds and then they inform us of their decisions via public meetings where they give us the illusion that we do indeed have input.

Government agencies may not listen, but politicians do. Even with the finality of Otero drilling, the public can still do two things: First, we can be watchdogs at each and every drill-site to make sure that violations to the environment do not occur. That means when and if I go to the Mesa on an antelope hunt, I take a camera and binoculars along.

Second, we can report and inform public officials in the form of local representatives, the governor's office, federal congresspersons, senators and the president, of what we have seen and insist something be done. We can inform and involve the media, especially television news, to become active in reporting violations concerning pollution.

In other words, become a thorn in the flesh that won't go away. After all, "the squeaky wheel still gets the most grease."

Cynic that I am, I still believe that strict regulation, safeguards, enforcement and public "watchdoggism" can protect the water supply of the Mesa along with surface areas, and maybe just maybe, we can have our Mesa and the oil too—the best of both worlds.

As always, keep the sun forever at your back, the wind forever in your face and may the Forever God bless you always.

Larry Lightner writes Ramblin' Outdoors monthly for Desert Exposure.

Back to top of page.