Denton County residents and others in the Barnett Shale could benefit from a push by Montgomery County residents to shore up laws enforced by the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality that govern injection wells.

Sen. Robert Nichols, R-Jacksonville, and Rep. Brandon Creighton, R-Conroe, pre-filed three bills for the upcoming legislative session that tackle problems posed by injection wells. The bills were drafted in response to concerns of Montgomery County residents over a proposed Class I injection well in their area.

Nichols supported those residents in his district north of Houston when they protested the permitting of that well at a TCEQ hearing last week, according to Nichols’ spokeswoman, Alicia Phillips Pierce.

The Environmental Protection Agency classifies injection wells in five groups. Class III wells are used for mining and Class IV is being phased out, with some exceptions. The three remaining groups, Class I, Class II and Class V, handle toxic waste, although federal laws exempt oil and gas waste from being labeled as such.

Texas remains highly dependent on groundwater, with wells supplying about 60 percent of the state’s drinking water, according to the Texas Water Development Board. Because groundwater moves slowly, any injection well failure poses a threat, as contaminants remain concentrated for a long time, EPA reports have shown. If even feasible, cleaning up groundwater is costly, usually prohibitively so.

According to EPA census data, Texas has nearly 78,000 injection wells, including about 50,000 of the nation’s 144,000 Class II wells used for “exempt” oil and gas wastewater. Decades of mammoth, above-ground failures in managing oil and gas wastewater — and the resulting environmental impacts — convinced state regulators to require operators to inject it underground since the 1960s. Those Class II wells, as well as some Class III, are regulated by the Texas Railroad Commission, with some facets of their operation reviewed by the TCEQ. That agency regulates the other classes of injection wells.

The first bill, pre-filed as HB 177 and SB 273, requires certain injection well operators to regularly test the soil and water and report the results to the TCEQ so that failures can be addressed more quickly.

The second bill, pre-filed as HB 178 and SB 274, requires a minimum half-mile distance between injection wells and established homes, child care centers, schools, churches, parks and public water supplies.

Era resident Donna Fleming’s neighborhood lost its battle against a new Class II injection well between her house and her neighbors’ on State Highway 51, despite their insistence that the location was a traffic hazard. She said two well-servicing trucks have already been involved in traffic accidents there since the site was permitted, including an injury accident Monday evening. Fleming said legislation covering the public interest is needed because state regulators seem unable to fold residents’ concerns into the permitting process.

The attorney representing the neighborhood is reviewing the latest accident to see whether the permit for the injection well, which has not yet been drilled, needs to be reviewed, Fleming said.

HB 178 and SB 274 also prohibit injection into old oil fields because many wells aren’t mapped. A 2004 EPA report found that a commercial injection well on the Texas-Louisiana border caused two orphan wells — nearly a mile away — to begin to flow and affect the public water supply.

In Era, the permit had to be delayed after residents found a mystery well near the proposed injection well site.

“Unfortunately, we have to wait for water to become contaminated, for leaking, or for a fire, before the railroad commission will take any action,” Fleming said.

The third bill, pre-filed as HB 179 and SB 275, requires certain rules about surface facilities that would directly affect the controversial toxic waste well proposed for Montgomery County.

The 81st session of the Texas Legislature begins Jan. 13.

PEGGY HEINKEL-WOLFE can be reached at 940-566-6881.