Journalism in the Public Interest

After a Powerful Lobbyist Intervenes, EPA Reverses Stance on Polluting Texas County’s Water

The EPA changed its stance on an aquifer exemption needed for a uranium mining project in Goliad County, Texas, after prominent Democratic lobbyist Heather Podesta made entreaties to one of its top administrators


Ranchers stand in support of an effort to stop uranium mining in Goliad County, Texas in 2007. The plan appeared to be dead on arrival until late 2011, when Uranium Energy hired lobbyist Heather Podesta. (AP Photo/The Advocate, Frank Tilley)

When Uranium Energy Corp. sought permission to launch a large-scale mining project in Goliad County, Texas, it seemed as if the Environmental Protection Agency would stand in its way.

To get the ore out of the ground, the company needed a permit to pollute a pristine supply of underground drinking water in an area already parched by drought.

Further, EPA scientists feared that radioactive contaminants would flow from the mining site into water wells used by nearby homes. Uranium Energy said the pollution would remain contained, but resisted doing the advanced scientific testing and modeling the government asked for to prove it.

The plan appeared to be dead on arrival until late 2011, when Uranium Energy hired Heather Podesta, a lobbyist and prolific Democratic fundraiser whose pull with the Obama administration prompted The Washington Post to name her the Capitol's latest "It girl."

Podesta -- the sister-in-law of John Podesta, who co-chaired President Obama's transition team -- appealed directly to the EPA's second in command, Bob Perciasepe, pressing the agency's highest-level administrators to get directly involved and bring the agency's local staff in Texas back to the table to reconsider their position, according to emails obtained by ProPublica through the Freedom of Information Act.

By the end of 2012, the EPA reversed its position in Goliad, approving an exemption allowing Uranium Energy to pollute the aquifer, though in a somewhat smaller area than was originally proposed.

An EPA spokesperson said companies routinely lobby the agency on regulatory issues and that Podesta's entreaties to Perciasepe, now the agency's acting administrator while Obama's nominee to head the EPA, Gina McCarthy, awaits confirmation, played no part in the agency's final decision.

"Bob's involvement was literally a part of what he does on a weekly or daily basis," the spokesperson said. "Lobbyists, etcetera, get in touch, he meets with them, he points them in the right direction."

Factors other than Podesta's efforts clearly weighed on the EPA as the Goliad case played out, including the agency's fraught relationship with Texas officials and the Obama administration's desire to demonstrate support for energy development.

Still, documents leave little doubt that Podesta, described by Corporate Board Member magazine as the number one person "you need to know in Obama's Washington," kept the Goliad County issue alive when the EPA's scientific analysis seemed to doom it to failure.

Podesta did not respond to multiple messages requesting a comment. A spokesman for Uranium Energy said the company would not respond to questions.

The EPA's then-acting director for the region that includes Texas maintains the Goliad exemption, which was issued last December, was carefully considered and based on science.

But Miguel Flores, who spearheaded the EPA's Goliad review until he retired at the end of 2011, said members of his team were dissatisfied with the agency's flip-flop, especially because critical modeling on the flow of contaminants still has not been done.

"We had worked long and hard on it," Flores said of the Goliad decision. "I think there was some level of disappointment."

The net result has left some area residents feeling abandoned.

"They gerrymandered the rules in order to get the aquifer exemption approved and gave the EPA an easy out," said Ginger Cook, who lives near the mine site in Goliad County and who is a plaintiff in lawsuits against the EPA and the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality. "So much for protecting the groundwater."

* * *

The original aquifer exemption boundaries for a mine in Goliad, Texas, as proposed by the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality. (Texas Commission on Environmental Quality)The Goliad County case is the latest in a string of hotly contested challenges the EPA has faced in recent years as officials try to balance the drive to tap new sources of energy with the need to preserve water for future use in a changing climate.

As ProPublica reported in December, the agency has used a little-known provision in the federal Safe Drinking Water Act to issue more than 1,500 exemptions allowing energy and mining companies to pollute aquifers, including many in the driest parts of the country.

Sometimes, as in Goliad, the EPA has arrived at decisions that seem to run counter to the stated goals of the program, which is to issue exemptions only in cases where it can be proven beyond a doubt that the affected waters will never be used.

Sources within the EPA say the agency has been quietly reevaluating its policy on aquifer exemptions, in large part because evolving geological sciences have shifted the understanding of the risks, and advancing technology and climate change have made water sources once deemed inaccessible more likely to be needed -- and used -- in the future.

The way in which the Goliad exemption was approved raises new questions about how the EPA decides which resources to sacrifice, and whether its decision-making is subject to outside influence.

By the end of this year, Uranium Energy will begin injecting an oxygen-enriched solution between 90 and 450 feet below the earth's surface into four layers of the Evangeline Aquifer. The solution will dissolve more than 5 million pounds of uranium deposits, freeing them to be sucked back out and processed for nuclear fuel. In the process, uranium, radium and other contaminants will be left floating behind in the aquifer.

The company initially submitted its plan, along with groundwater data to support its case, to the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, which approved it in 2010.

But only the EPA has the authority to exempt an aquifer from the protections in the Safe Drinking Water Act and federal regulators had problems with the Goliad project from the start.

Most aquifer exemptions approved by the EPA are in remote locations, but Goliad County residents draw water from at least 47 wells tapping the Evangeline Aquifer near the proposed Uranium Energy mine. Several wells were within a buffer zone set out around the pollution area.

Two geologic faults sliced through the site, potentially opening a pathway through which contaminants in one zone could transfer more easily to another, or move vertically back toward the surface.

Furthermore, groundwater experts say, the entire area is part of a recharge zone for the larger Gulf Coast Aquifer, which runs along the shoreline from Louisiana to Mexico. EPA scientists worried that the water would course through the ground, carrying contaminants from the mine zone toward Goliad residents' water wells.

"I and the staff were concerned," said Al Armendariz, who, as the former regional administrator, was Flores' boss and the highest level EPA official in the regional office covering Texas, Louisiana, Arkansas, Oklahoma and New Mexico until he left the EPA last April.

In May 2012, William Honker -- who replaced Flores as the acting director of the EPA's local Water Quality Protection Division -- asked Texas environmental officials to require Uranium Energy to conduct what it calls multiphase modeling of the flow of groundwater at the site, which would yield new data on the direction that contaminants would travel underground.

In his letter to Texas regulators, Honker also described the data provided by the mining company as insufficient to predict how contaminants would spread from the site over the long term.

"EPA believes there is a high likelihood that, following mining activities, residual waste from mining activities will not remain in the exempted area," he wrote to Zak Covar, executive director of the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality.

Mining companies try to confine contaminants by pressurizing the aquifer and forcing fluids to flow back towards the mine and away from populated areas. But records and interviews with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, which does not directly oversee mining in Texas but licenses similar sites in other states, show that pollution commonly seeps beyond exemption boundaries at uranium mining sites.

Documents show that both Texas officials and Uranium Energy resisted doing the additional research the EPA asked for, maintaining that the evidence already presented to the agency proved that the contaminants would not affect nearby homes, and that water within the exempted area was not currently being used by residents.

With the support of Texas officials, the company also argued that the EPA had issued such exemptions in the past and was re-interpreting its own rules to thwart the Goliad exemption without justification.

In a testy retort to Honker, Covar accused the EPA of being "swayed by the unsubstantiated allegations and fears" of Goliad County residents.

Officials in Goliad County urged the EPA to stand firm and couldn't understand why the state wouldn't want more testing.

"This is simple hydrology. They say 'Well, in our opinion that fault is confining,'" said Art Dohmann, president of the Goliad County Groundwater Conservation District, the local agency that establishes groundwater management plans under Texas' statewide Water Development Board. "Well, we all have opinions, the pump test will tell you the facts."

With the permit process at a standstill, EPA officials say by June 2012 they had decided not to allow the mine.

"We were prepared at that point to leave the issue right where it stood," said Sam Coleman, who temporarily took over Armendariz's job as the EPA's top regional official overseeing the permitting in Dallas, and is now the region's deputy administrator. "We could not approve the exemption."

* * *

Lobbyist Heather Podesta at a reception at the Hay Adams Hotel, in Washington, D.C., in August 2009. (Linda Davidson/The Washington Post via Getty Images)Behind the scenes, however, Uranium Energy was pursuing another path to approval.

The company hired Podesta, whose firm eventually received $400,000 for her services, according to lobbying records filed with the U.S. Senate.

She reached out to Perciasepe, asking him to meet with Uranium Energy's executives because the EPA officials in Texas "did not approve" the aquifer exemption, emails obtained by ProPublica under FOIA show.

Perciasepe agreed, and met with company executives in December 2011.

"We greatly appreciate your assistance to bring Region 6 and UEC to the table to work through these issues," Podesta wrote in early 2012.

When EPA officials in Texas began to push Uranium Energy to do more modeling, Podesta complained to Perciasepe.

"Region 6 keeps changing the standards," she wrote in a Feb. 2, 2012 email.

"I'm looking into it," Perciasepe replied, a day later.

There is no indication that Perciasepe acted unethically in working with Podesta, but her involvement appears to have raised Uranium Energy's exemption request from a small-time regional concern to one that had the attention of the EPA's top staffers in Washington.

She wrote Perciasepe more than 25 times over an 11-month period, requesting meetings and phone calls, and at least once interrupting Perciasepe's weekend.

"Hiking. Will call later," Perciasepe wrote.

Podesta often struck an informal tone, sending emails with subject lines such as "are we having fun yet?" and "rumors...sigh."

In May, Podesta and her husband Tony, also an influential lobbyist, invited Perciasepe to their home for "a gathering of friends from the worlds of art and politics." (It was reported earlier this year that the Podestas have since separated.)

The EPA says such lobbying is routine -- not only by energy companies, but by environmental groups -- and that part of Perciasepe's job is to listen to all sides and facilitate a conversation. Even environmental advocates say they view this as a legitimate part of the rulemaking process.

At first, the pressure brought by Podesta didn't appear to have much of an effect.

In mid-2012, EPA staffers in Texas were still resolved to deny Uranium Energy's permit. Honker and others pushed the company and state regulators for additional scientific study.

In an email to Perciasepe, Podesta wrote that Uranium Energy was "frustrated" by the lack of clear direction and warned that Texas regulators might be considering a lawsuit against the agency because of the delay in granting approval. She urged him to bring the parties back to the table.

By early summer the sides began to discuss a compromise. Uranium Energy would provide some additional scientific data to the agency and it would shrink the size and depth of the part of the Evangeline Aquifer that it proposed to pollute, but it would not have to do the detailed analysis the EPA had wanted. The area exempted would be about 27 percent smaller, allowing a bigger buffer between the mine site and the homes drawing water from the aquifer.

Some of the testing data previously submitted by Uranium Energy showed that underground contaminants would flow south east from the mine site, toward homes in Goliad County. Under the compromise, the EPA allowed the company to exclude this data as "anomalous"; the remaining data showed contaminants would flow east, narrowly missing the homes.

In July, Podesta wrote to Perciasepe that "the progress made over the last few weeks would not have been possible without all of the time and effort you and your office have put into this project."

The residents of Goliad County sensed a shift in momentum. Dohmann pressed EPA staffers for an update. "We're no longer in the loop," he recalled them saying. "The decision has gone upstairs, and we don't have any idea what's going on."

When Goliad residents asked in August to attend a meeting between the EPA, Texas officials and Uranium Energy, Podesta wrote to Perciasepe that "we think it is odd to include the Groundwater District in the meeting."

Dohmann did meet with EPA officials that August in Dallas, but he found Coleman evasive and said the agency spent very little time reviewing the groundwater test data the Groundwater District had provided them.

"We could just tell that we were going through the motions, and that it had moved from a technical evaluation to a political decision," Dohmann said.

In interviews, Coleman and other EPA officials firmly rejected the notion that politics ever trumped science in considering the exemption. The revisions to Uranium Energy's plan reduced the risk to Goliad's water, making further modeling "not necessary," Coleman said.

In response to questions from ProPublica, Coleman sent a six-page document laying out how the scientific review process had quieted the EPA's original concerns.

But several experts who reviewed the document said it raised additional questions.

As one part of the review process, Uranium Energy conducted a so-called pump test to see if contaminants could migrate vertically between geologic layers or through the more than 1,000 old test wells that dotted the landscape.

The results were negative, but it's typical to run larger numbers of tests rather than just one, said Mark Williams, a hydrologist at the University of Colorado at Boulder. "Probably more problematic is whether a single test is representative of the problem at hand," he said.

The document summarizing the EPA's review also cited Uranium Energy's data on the underground flow of contaminants, minus the "anomalous" data it had allowed the company to throw out.

But Dohmann said data collected by his agency was consistent with the discarded data, showing that groundwater at the mine site could move in several directions.

When sent a detailed list of additional questions to clarify the data and scientific basis for their decision, the EPA deferred to the Department of Justice, which declined to comment because of the pending litigation.

The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, after soliciting and receiving detailed questions from ProPublica, also declined to explain the scientific rationale for their approval, citing a pending lawsuit by Goliad residents against the agency.

On Dec. 4, the EPA issued the aquifer exemption to Uranium Energy. Days later, Podesta sent an appreciative email to Perciasepe.

"Thanks again for your leadership," she wrote. "We greatly appreciate all the time you invested in this project and hope it is the start of a closer working relationship between the industry and the agency."

Looks like The People of Goliad County, Texas have some decisions to make as it appears their own government sold them out.

this makes me so angry! once again a community looking for the simple protection of their future water source get sold out. where is the “protection”? how can clean water mean so little? how can people mean so little?

Philip de Louraille

March 13, 2013, 1:53 p.m.

Now that the EPA has given its permission, the residents should have their waters analyzed before the mining starts and do it every 3 months there after. If the water gets polluted, maybe the residents will have a bigger pull with the EPA to get the mining stopped?

Sheryl Hogan

March 13, 2013, 2 p.m.

This is shameless!  As an Obama supporter who expected better protection for our environment, I am furious. Everyone should contact The White House NOW!

Money talks….always.

This sentence is flat out wrong:

“Even environmental advocates say they view this as a legitimate part of the rulemaking process.”

This was not a “rulemaking process”. This was a permit process.

This kind of lobbying is “ex part” and flat out wrong during the pendency of a permit decision (and would be wrong in a rulemaking process as well).

What “environmental advocates” supporting this practice?  I’d really like to know.

Texas environmental agencies are a running joke.  Most of Texas’ agencies are bought and paid for by industry, so at least the EPA was there to take a stand.  But, it appears that the new EPA leadership is not interested in protecting the citizens of Goliad, or any other place that has resources these energy companies want to get their hands on. 

Rumor has it the Grand Canyon has a treasure trove of fissionable uranium.  How long before an exemption is granted for that under the new and improved Obama Administration?  Any takers for that bet?

While I’m here, let me ask another question:

How is it that Lisa Jackson always escapes accountability and criticism?

It is odd that Perciasepe , a career EPA employee, was doing the political dirty work and he certainly would not be meeting at this level without Jackson’s knowledge and support.

Typically, that political work is done by political appointees.

I think the investors in this are of interest. This just may be driven by this fact. Its international and the question comes to mind which countries stand to gain from the mining of the uranium i.e. who gets the spoils? Uranium for whom? Is it for domestic, sovereign use or will Hong Kong or even the Japanese be the recipients.

Lots of possible unanswered questions in this article.

Well my final comment is Obama no longer has to play to his domestic base so look out these next 4 yrs. While not an Obama supporter he will keep working from the political.His political capital will most likely be used in the global paybacks rather than domestically.

Its time for continuous picketing around the site until the environment is fully protected and the EPA returns to its original prohibition.
Many people should use the White House web site to express their ire.  A staff member at the White House will respond to each individuals letter.  If enough folks write it perhaps the President will direct the EPA to do the right thing.

Money must be protected, people are expendable and just a statistic.

Stephanie Palmer

March 13, 2013, 3:02 p.m.

I didn’t see anywhere in the article that Heather is a piece of crap who has no concern for anyone but herself. Why was that missing?

White House Contact info:

I hope the Presidential staff get thousands of messages.  You can also call or use snail mail.

I wish I could say I’m surprised at the EPA but I’m not.  They’ve been pretty much worthless going back to Rocky Flats in Colorado in the 1970’s.  Under Reagan it got even worse.  Basically they have become just a bunch of political hacks.

Sometimes I get mad at the Republicans that want to abolish them and other times I think so what.  They’re not doing their job 75 per cent of the time anyway.

Another example of why Obama is the best Republican president we ever had.  I didn’t vote for him because I thought he would be a good president (he hasn’t been).  I voted for him because the alternative was infinitely worse.  Just once before I die I would like to be able to vote for the best man instead of the least worse man.

By the way I worked at EPA for a short time during the Reagan administration.  I watched all the good scientists walk out the door.

Walter D. Shutter, Jr.

March 13, 2013, 4:28 p.m.

Where is the other shoe?  That is, how much $$ did Heather Podesta et al contribute to Obama"s election effort in 2008? In 2012?

Voice your opinion, get involved, organize and form coalitions!  All these actions were deployed to support or oppose the mining project. It is important to remember that the right to petition is one of the fundamental freedoms of all Americans, including mining corporations.  Reading Podesta’s emails leaves the impression that she is very professional and understands how to present her client’s issues.  There are many shades of gray in the permitting process, it is not an outrage when one side happens to field a better team or deploys a successful strategy.

whats amazing is our GOVERNOR ALLOWS THIS KIND OF TREASON to happen because it’s good for business? and brings revenue in the state? which proves repiglicans don’t care about anyone’s health, other than their bank accounts? or their wives? or brothers & sisters?, hell with all of them we need a liberal governor so badly were dying here because of conservative greed

Good news for Oklahoma ranchers…they’ll be able to run advertising of the snarky sort: 

“You’ll Be Glad to Know that Oklahoma Cattle Drink Radiation-Free Water (even if that means that they won’t cook themselves)”

lollll…yeah, I was laughing when I wrote that…did you note my proposed soundbite doesn’t even mention Texas?

Doesn’t have to…one little advertising billboard or commercial that says something like that and word will get out about Texas’ permitting of groundwater pollution with radioactives and Poof! - nobody will buy Texas’ beef in America.

Let alone in European countries or nations like Japan.

Although come to think of it both the EPA and Texas have already started an international rumor that Texas’ beef is irradiated the wrong way.

That’s what this article and any and all other articles detailing this EPA action re Uranium Energy will do.

There’s no sign on ProPublica or anyplace else on the ‘net that says “To be read only by employees and shareholders of Uranium Energy”.

The EPA needs to explain why it changed its mind in the Goliad County case.  I think there is adequate circumstantial information to warrant a somewhat detailed explanation from the EPA.  As a citizen of the USA who depends on the integrity of our government watchdog organizations I and the rest. 

The information presented here does not convince me that the EPA has done anything wrong, but an EPA stonewall on providing a rational explanation for the flip flop, which should not be hard assuming they are following reasonable scientific/engineering processes in the decision, would go a long way toward raising further suspicions of impropriety.  And this should be a concern for our president who appoints the head of this organization.

Interesting comments,  I think much of Texas beef was slaughterd last summer due to the drought. Water is becoming such a valuable, scarce resource on this planet, this decision is truly unbelievable and disastrous! There are excellent suggestions here, people must speak up to Senators and Reps,  become involved.  The squeaky wheel does get oiled. with benefits better than money sometimes.

To me, there’s a somewhat more important question, lurking around this.  Are we talking about an isolated incident (or a series of them), or is this the groundwork for policy laundering?

Push over a few towns in Texas, and you convince the Texan legislature that it’s so complicated to follow the decisions from town to town, so they should pass a law to “harmonize” the decisions into a permissive law.  Then you go to neighboring states and point to how good Texas has been to the industry, and expand until it’s worth heading to the Hill.

To follow up on Betsy’s comments regarding the EPA, someone here once strongly recommended reading “Inconclusive by Design.”

It’s a report on how the EPA and related agencies mishandled the Superfund sites, and goes through the statistical tricks you can still see them use to avoid finding any connections.  For example, health surveys will exclude people who are too sick to participate and people who moved away due to health problems, which obviously biases and shrinks the sample.  It’s a fairly quick read, and I’d definitely recommend taking the couple of hours.

@Ray French:

I hear you, and I agree. However, how much money do the people of Goliad have compared to Uranium Energy? My gripe is that Ms. Podesta actually has better access to the officials at the EPA than any citizen, and she is merely a gun for hire going to the highest bidder.  Under those conditions, Goliad doesn’t stand a chance, nor any ordinary citizen.  Plus, I think there was a prior comment that pointed out Podesta’s lobbying was outside the normal rulemaking/comment process.


I hear you.  Is it just me, or does this pattern look familiar?  Where else in the world have I seen small towns getting pushed over?  Oh yeah, China.

Sickofthe creeps

March 14, 2013, 11:39 a.m.

Due to a 1983 law givt employees can be sued directly if they ignored a known hazard.  Seems like a great suit to me!

I would include the lobbyist in it too.  Quasi government agent/contractor.

Theodorus Nitz

March 14, 2013, 1:16 p.m.

On the face of it, this is an interesting and disturbing story. One that cries out for real reporting and follow-up. It would have been nice if you’d included some more compelling information. For example, you cited NRC interview and data about underground chemical migration during similar operations, yet you give no detail. Even citing the number of situations in NRC’s records that are anomalous to this situation would have been valuable. Additionally, you quote Ginger Cook as stating, “They gerrymandered the rules…” But you provide not a single example. It’s all well and good to investigate, but you need to a do a better job of documenting your findings if you want to make a case for your arguments. I’m no fan of the behind-the-scenes influence of well connected gadflies like Podesta, who trade on their connections and help businesses circumvent what should be open deliberations where questions of public health and safety are involved. Unless all you are trying to do is point a finger and leave the heavy lifting to someone else to investigate this type of abuse, you have to do a better job.

Abrahm Lustgarten

March 14, 2013, 2:06 p.m.

As the author of this article I’d like to address several of the concerns raised by Theodore Nitz.

This article is a part of a series of articles. As it states at the top of the page, with links, you will find several other stories about aquifer exemptions and uranium mines, including this one: , which elaborates on the information about the NRC and links to an NRC document which substantiates the statement that excursions are common.

Regarding the assertion of gerrymandering the rules, you’ll find in this story links to two maps, a 2008 and a 20012 version of the exemption boundary, which demonstrates how the agreement the EPA reached involved a shifting of the physical boundaries of the mine site in order to make the technicalities work under the current law, which is what Ginger Cook is describing and what is the main adjustment to the permitting case described in the story.

In terms of documenting the findings, again, I would encourage you to explore the links in this article, which lead to primary source information from both the EPA and the state of Texas which should answer all of your remaining questions.

Soon Texas will have no ground water to drink or pollute. Then what?

Fedswont Saveyou

March 14, 2013, 4:07 p.m.

Theodorus, I do agree in part with your comments—I wish these articles were heavily footnoted to better educate the public.  In answer to some of your questions, good information on uranium ISL mining sites can be found at  You can follow the links at that site to get detailed information on many ISL mining sites around the country.  A USGS report on ISL impacts in Texas, concluding generally that a return to background groundwater conditions was rarely if ever achieved at the studied sites, is available at  Independent reports on Texas ISL mining can be found at Report_Complete_Sept_30.pdf and at  An excellent (though probably some would say biased) NRDC report from last year is available at

Power & Profit take Precedence over People.

Perhaps, instead of Democrats and Republicans fighting against each other, American citizens should fight our political establishment.

News sources (and I do mean “news” and not “opinion”) like Propublica serve the public interest.  Virtually all of the national media serves the left-wing and right-wing extremists.  As such, America no longer practices the “rule of law” but the “rule of the jungle”.

@Philip de Louraille, I really value your productive suggestion. I wonder if there’s a grass roots way to *help* Goliad residents get their water regularly tested… Maybe with university assistance from Houston or San Antonio?

@Mr.  Ed, who posed the question Soon Texas will have no ground water to drink or pollute. Then what?

History suggests that a scarce/valuable resource is enough to cause the power structure in Texas to spend a whole lot of money (and spread a whole lot of “Swift Boat-ish” manure) buying political power - after which some geographical area which has that scarce/valuable resource will find itself invaded.

I reckon Louisiana should look to their national guard…maybe throw a few more perks into their list:

Dave ftom Texas

March 16, 2013, 1:06 p.m.

I have a simple and elegant idea.  If they do succeed in mining, make all the political and financial people who gain from this come drink the water and prove to us it is safe. If they refuse they have been lying this entire time. Make them the test subjects to see if it is safe. Make them drink the “slightly” contaminated water for a year or more, use them as test subjects as they are the people of Golaid county. Include ALL people, lobbyist,  and companies involved. I highly doubt it will happen, but include that in your lawsuit and seewhat steps they make to avoid the possibility of havigbto drink the water they contaminate. Close the noose and let them hang themselves

It’s all about controlling the “spin”.  Just don’t send all these Texans to share Michigan water when they finish peaing in theirs.

More poop in the cesspool

March 17, 2013, 9:07 p.m.

Who cares?  It’s TEXAS.

Give Texas back to Mexico!!!!

I like the way you think, Dave.  I agree it will probably never happen.  But really, it doesnt matter.  If Heather Podesta and the executives at the Uranium Energy Corporation wouldnt drink that water, then they lose all credibility.  The word for it is “hypocrisy.”  Patronizing, holier than though, infuriating, hypocrisy.

And some people wonder why federal-level gun “regulation” is such a hot topic of late…

Many, if not all, states have a history that includes remedy through the use of The Boxes:


Like it or not, this country does not run without Texas. The state legislature votes on seceding every so often, and always pulls up a few votes short.

This article is part of an ongoing investigation:
Injection Wells

Injection Wells: The Hidden Risks of Pumping Waste Underground

Injection wells used to dispose of the nation’s most toxic waste are showing increasing signs of stress as regulatory oversight falls short and scientific assumptions prove flawed.

Get Updates

Our Hottest Stories