Texas Tribune Media Inquiry
Kiah Collier
Deadline: EOD August 19, 2019
Question 8
The Peelers claim that contaminated water is running off onto their land and also into the La
Parita Creek system, which eventually flows into Lake Corpus Christi, which is that city’s main
drinking water supply. Has SMECI tested water in the creek system and is it concerned that
contaminants may end up in the lake and in people’s drinking water
Discharges of wastewater from the mine are regulated by the Texas Commission on
Environmental Quality (TCEQ) through the Texas Discharge Elimination System (TPDES)
program. In developing TPDES permit terms and limits, TCEQ follows a strict process to
implement the Texas Surface Water Quality Standards. These standards include general
narrative standards that must be met; procedures to ensure that water quality of the receiving
stream is not degraded; specific numerical standards for designated stream segments; and
numeric standards for toxicants that are applicable to all waters.
All of these standards apply to discharges from SMEC, and all of these standards were
considered by TCEQ when issuing and re-issuing permits to SMEC. SMEC is authorized to
discharge wastewaters from specific outfalls in accordance with its TPDES permit. All of SMEC’s
discharges from the mine are from authorized outfalls and are pursuant to, and in compliance
with, requirements and limitations imposed in its TPDES permit.
In addition, in accordance with its Railroad Commission of Texas (RRC) permit, SMEC monitors
surface waters throughout the life of the mine (which includes the reclamation period), at
upstream and downstream locations, to ensure that the surface waters have not been
materially impacted by mining activities.
Question 9, Part I
We have documents and interviews with current and former RRC employees that show that
the agency has been seemingly supportive of SMECI in its dispute with the Peelers, who also
claim that the agency has done little to help them. Here are some examples that we’d like
SMECI to explain or respond to:
San Miguel has requested several revisions to its mining permit that would appear to be
significant, but the RRC’s mining division has often deemed those changes non-significant.
(For example, Revision No. 1, submitted in 2013.) That has included allowing SMECI to clean
up parts of the property to “industrial-commercial” standards rather than “pastureland.”
In one case, San Miguel sought permission to change post-mine land use for a few hundred
acres of land from pastureland to I/C and sent Alonzo Peeler a color-coded map for review

 that showed the location of the changes. Later, the family’s attorney discovered cleanup
standards had been downgraded for thousands of acres — seemingly because the map on file
at the RRC was black and white instead of color, so didn’t show where the sliver of land was.
The family thinks this was done on purpose. Both maps are attached.
Has SMECI addressed this issue?
Based on your question, it appears the Peeler’s attorney continues to misunderstand and
misconstrue the administrative record. As documented fully in sworn testimony during
depositions conducted by the Peeler’s attorney, San Miguel has always considered the leaserequired reclamation standard to be pastureland and remains fully committed to achieving that
post-mine land use. Deposition testimony of multiple witnesses establishes that San Miguel’s
actions in the field have never wavered from that commitment. The fact that the Railroad
Commission encouraged an Industrial/Commercial designation for an interim period of time
never changed San Miguel’s commitment and actions in the field to reclaim the Peeler property
to pastureland. To allay the concerns raised by the Peelers, San Miguel has initiated a process
with the Railroad Commission to shift the land use designation back to pastureland to
correspond with San Miguel’s reclamation process. It is important to note, even after San
Miguel completes this shift, ongoing oil and gas operations allowed by the Peelers and out of
San Miguel’s control will continue to hold an Industrial/Commercial land use designation, per
the practice and procedures of the Railroad Commission.

Question 19
The Peelers' attorney claims that SMECI still hasn’t notified the family of groundwater
contamination as required by the 2015 Coal Ash Rule. What is SMECI’s response to this?
It is important to note from the outset that the implication that the Peeler family has been
deprived of information is without merit, given that San Miguel has provided to the Peelers all
of the groundwater data obtained during the ongoing investigation at the time that the data
was obtained. The CCR Rules require formal landowner notification after San Miguel concludes
that certain constituents are detected at a statistically significant level above groundwater
protection standards. Consistent with the CCR rules and in full consultation with the Peelers,
San Miguel has installed temporary wells on Peeler property and obtained preliminary data. San
Miguel is in the process of evaluating that data and intends to provide notice per the CCR Rules
upon completion of that process.