Enid’s water fight hinges on oil regulators’ discretion

Enid’s water – Enid is appealing to the Oklahoma Corporation Commission to revoke permits and tighten rules on oilfield wastewater injection after mapping shows at least 114 injection wells sit within a half-mile of public drinking-water wells—close enough to risk contaminat

Down a dirt road in northwest Oklahoma, only a few hundred yards from where the city of Enid draws its drinking water, a company injects the toxic byproduct of oil production deep underground.

The distance is the point. Enid says the operation violates a state rule meant to protect public groundwater supplies from oilfield wastewater—which can be saltier than the sea and laden with toxic metals. Under that rule. injection operations are banned within a half-mile of public water wells unless regulators hold a hearing to ensure the activity will not pollute the water.

Enid’s fight is now headed toward the same agency that previously signed off on a nearby well anyway.

The city has complained to state regulators about the Flying Monkey. an injection well that. according to court filings and state testing records. has repeatedly failed structural integrity tests—signaling a potential leak. Enid’s leadership and its attorney have declined to be interviewed before the matter is resolved. The Oklahoma Corporation Commission has declined to comment. citing the ongoing case. as has the Flying Monkey’s current operator. BCE-Mach III Midstream Holdings LLC. Enid’s case will be heard in the agency’s administrative law court later this year.

What Enid argues is not abstract. It’s about proximity—about the idea that the city can’t insulate its water by policy if injection is allowed to happen close by, unchecked.

More than 300. 000 Oklahomans live in communities that rely on public water wells that. in some cases. are located close to injection sites. The Frontier and ProPublica mapped injection wells across the state and identified at least 114 injection wells in communities across Oklahoma—including the Flying Monkey and two others in Enid—that are located within a half-mile of a public water supply well.

The story also adds a wider lesson Enid is trying to force onto Oklahoma regulators. Officials in Oklahoma and beyond have watched oilfield fluid spread underground and threaten municipal supplies. Midland, Texas, is still cleaning up groundwater polluted by a leaking injection well more than two decades ago.

Enid officials say they can’t protect their own water under state law. so they are trying to get stronger safeguards through an agency process rather than local rulemaking. The city is also asking the state to impose stronger protections against pollution from injection as more oil and gas companies seek permission to drill wells that dispose of wastewater nearby.

This pushback is rare in a state where the oil and gas sector has long held outsized influence, including through the regulatory approvals and exceptions the Oklahoma Corporation Commission grants.

In recent years, the commission has approved thousands of orders for waivers or adjustments to state rules, according to its administrative court database. These include nearly 400 orders granting exceptions to injection regulations alone since 2022.

The commission has repeatedly declined to punish oil and gas companies for causing widespread pollution. according to an earlier investigation by ProPublica and The Frontier. In response to that earlier reporting. the agency told those news outlets that the state is committed to “doing the right thing. holding operators accountable. protecting Oklahoma and its resources. and providing fair and balanced regulation.”.

Enid’s case is different only in that the city is finally putting its own drinking water on the center stage of an administrative fight.

In a community shaped by water needs, the question has become hard to avoid. “It’s ultimately all one big aquifer,” said Ben Ezzell, a former Enid city commissioner. “You can’t just pee in part of the pool. If any of the aquifer is tainted, all of the aquifer will be tainted.”

The Safe Drinking Water Act puts injection in the spotlight—Oklahoma’s application of its safeguards is what’s being challenged.

The Flying Monkey’s approval without a hearing

Enid’s legal case traces back to 2018, when a small company called Hinkle Oil & Gas applied for a permit for an injection well—the Flying Monkey—less than a quarter-mile from two of the city’s water wells, according to publicly available data.

On its application, the company checked a box attesting that the injection well was not within a half-mile of a public water supply well—the distance that, under state rules, should have triggered a hearing to evaluate the Flying Monkey’s pollution threat.

Enid’s lawyers say the claim was false. “This was demonstrably false,” Enid’s lawyers wrote in a September 2025 court filing.

The commission approved Hinkle’s application for the well without a hearing. The approval allowed the company to inject more than 800,000 gallons of wastewater into the earth each day.

The company declined to answer questions about the Flying Monkey. The commission did not respond to questions about whether it verified the distance before approving the permit. and it did not respond to the Frontier and ProPublica’s offer to show agency officials their mapping of the 114 injection wells across the state located within a half-mile of a public water supply well.

Later in 2018. Hinkle transferred the well to another small company. which applied for a new permit to convert the Flying Monkey to a commercial well to dispose of the wastewater produced by other oil companies. too. Enid contends regulators again allowed the company to violate another state rule designed to protect public water wells from commercial disposal sites.

Enid says the new company’s application also failed to acknowledge the close proximity of the public water supply well. The company has since filed for bankruptcy.

Both permits were signed by Patricia Downey. the manager of the agency’s underground injection control program. and both approvals included the phrase “decision without hearing.” Downey did not respond to questions sent directly to her. including whether she knew about the Flying Monkey’s proximity to public water wells.

Tests, shutdowns, and the leak in March

In the last five years, the state has shut down the Flying Monkey repeatedly—for months at a time—for failing mechanical tests required by the state that evaluate the well’s structural integrity. Failing those tests can indicate a problem with the well that may allow wastewater to escape.

The well has failed five of these tests since 2021, including one in March due to a leak in the well’s tubing that the company had reported to the agency, according to state records.

The agency’s report about the March incident does not reference an investigation into whether the leak reached nearby groundwater. The agency typically notes when an investigation is conducted, and it did not answer questions about whether it investigated the well for potential pollution.

In last fall’s court filing, Enid’s lawyers described the pattern of violations as “a significant compliance red flag, especially given the well’s immediate proximity to Enid’s public supply well.” Enid wants the state to terminate the Flying Monkey’s permit.

After a period of inactivity last year. the well began injecting wastewater again last summer. only to be shut down again this March. State records indicate the Flying Monkey’s operator. BCE-Mach III Midstream Holdings. repaired the tubing leak in April. and the well’s status is listed as active. The company declined to comment.

Neither the company’s nor the commission’s court filings include responses to Enid’s accusations. In June, BCE-Mach III Midstream Holdings refiled a permit application for the Flying Monkey, acknowledging the proximity of the city’s water supply wells.

A second Enid well sits close, too

Close by the Flying Monkey, another wastewater injection well—Estill #8—sits roughly a quarter-mile from three of Enid’s water wells.

Estill #8’s permitting story is also intertwined with the question of hearings. In its application, submitted in August 2012, an affiliate of the U.S. Energy Development Corp. acknowledged the proposed injection well’s proximity to the city’s water supply but urged regulators to approve an emergency order to allow the well to begin injecting wastewater immediately. Waiting for the required hearing. the company wrote. would result in “irreparable financial harm” because delay would deprive it of a way to get rid of the wastewater generated by its nearby oil wells.

The commission approved the emergency order on a temporary basis while it considered whether to issue a permanent permit, and the well began injecting wastewater in November 2012.

In February of the following year. the company returned to the commission to renew its request to continue injecting without a standard hearing. The commission approved the second request in March. and two weeks later authorized the well’s official permit without a hearing. The commission did not answer questions about the permitting process for Estill #8.

Estill #8 has been operating ever since, injecting more than 12 million gallons of wastewater into the earth last year. A third injection well also operates within a quarter mile of a city water well, but it was permitted in the 1970s, before modern regulations were established.

The state has tested these injection wells every few years and has not identified problems with either one.

In Enid’s quiet battle over who controls the rules

Enid is in a part of Oklahoma where surface water is scarce. The city has become a vital source of drinking water for a dozen smaller. more rural communities as well as Vance Air Force Base. Even after the recent completion of a 70-mile. $400 million pipeline to bring water from Kaw Lake. Enid will continue to rely heavily on its groundwater wells.

Frank Baker, an Enid city commissioner, put it bluntly in an interview: “In the 21st century, water is going to be the new gold.”

Enid’s effort to protect its water has stretched for two years but has received scant attention around town. The issue hasn’t previously been covered in the media. The City Council hasn’t discussed it in public meetings. And few residents follow the obscure quasi-judicial system of the Oklahoma Corporation Commission.

Elizabeth Betchan, a barista at a downtown coffee shop, said the distance between injection wells and drinking-water wells is something she believes most people wouldn’t fully grasp until it’s made clear. “I would feel more comfortable if there was more of a buffer there,” she said.

Enid’s application asks regulators for a ban on oil and gas wastewater injection within a half-mile of its water wells. with no possibility of exceptions. It also wants the state to require additional testing. pollution monitoring. and mechanical safety measures for wells within 1 mile of an Enid water well.

“I think a mile is probably too close,” said Eddie Mack, a retired manager of a rural water district who also served on Enid’s planning commission.

Oil company arguments for flexibility clash with Enid’s insistence on fixed boundaries. Pollution from high-pressure wastewater injection can radiate much farther than a mile. Oil companies have acknowledged that their injection wells can impact one another’s operations that were 3 miles apart. according to agreements between companies on how to respond in such scenarios.

The Frontier and ProPublica identified more than 400 wastewater injection wells across Oklahoma that are within 1 mile of a public water supply well.

Regulations vary widely among oil states. Colorado and Ohio set a minimum buffer of 1,000 feet between injection wells and public water supplies. Many states do not have fixed setbacks, instead relying on belowground geological evaluations to ensure injected fluid does not contaminate aquifers.

Enid’s legal pathway runs through a barrier built by state law. A 2015 law forbids cities and counties from establishing their own regulations on oil and gas operations. Even if an administrative law judge sided with Enid. any decision must be approved by the regulatory agency’s three elected commissioners.

Two of those commissioners have histories that make Enid’s fight especially steep.

Before winning election to the commission in 2024. Brian Bingman served in the state Senate. where. as the Senate president pro tempore. he was the lead author of the bill to ban local governments from regulating the oil and gas industry. Kim David, another commissioner, voted for the bill as a state senator. All three commissioners were elected with significant financial support from the oil and gas industry.

Neither Bingman nor David responded to requests for comment.

The preemption law passed at a time when several local governments were considering restrictions on hydraulic fracturing amid a wave of earthquakes caused by oil and gas injection. The legislation mandated that any regulation of the industry be approved by the corporation commission.

In 2022. the Oklahoma Supreme Court upheld the law in a unanimous decision nullifying a requirement by the city of Norman—about 20 miles south of Oklahoma City—that oil and gas companies maintain extra liability insurance. “Municipalities no longer possess a broad police power to regulate oil and gas,” the court wrote.

Five companies oppose Enid’s attempt to tighten protections. Those include Flying Monkey owner BCE-Mach III Midstream Holdings, Estill #8 owner U.S. Energy Development Corp. and two others—D&B Operating and Royalty Energy Development LLC—that have pending applications for new injection wells near Enid. Neither of the latter two companies responded to requests for comment.

In a May procedural hearing, Matthew Allen, an attorney representing U.S. Energy Development Corp., argued that the city’s proposed changes would “significantly increase the regulatory burden” and costs to companies. Allen also said the administrative court was the incorrect venue for the city to pursue such a significant change. Neither Allen nor other company representatives responded to requests for comment.

Enid’s attorney, Kaylee Davis-Maddy, emphasized during the hearing that Enid was not trying to establish a statewide rule. Rather, she said, Enid wants the rules to apply within a geographic boundary to protect its freshwater. Davis-Maddy declined to be interviewed.

The mapping that sharpened the stakes

The case is being fought in two directions at once: Enid’s petition for stronger rules, and the wider footprint of injection wells located close to public water wells.

The Frontier and ProPublica’s methodology relied on data from the Oklahoma Corporation Commission and Department of Environmental Quality. They isolated all active injection wells (class II UIC wells) by filtering the OCC’s Risk Based Data Management System database for wells with welltype values matching 2D. 2DCm. 2DNC. 2R. 2RIn. 2RSI. IEPA. SWD. WIW and INJ and wellstatus values of AC or ACRT.

They then filtered the DEQ’s Public Water System wells dataset for all public water wells within 804 meters—one half-mile—of a UIC well.

To calculate the population served by water districts with UIC wells near drinking water wells, the reporters scraped the DEQ’s Drinking Water Watch website and combined data in “Population Served” tables for all water districts, excluding wholesale users.

To build an interactive map, they used the Oklahoma Water Resources Board’s Water System Service Areas map layer. Some water districts with at least one injection well within 1 half-mile of a public water well do not show up on the map because there was no available geographic service area data. The list includes: Sooner Utilities-Valley Brook. Country Hills MHP (Creek Co). Lyndsay’s Tavern. Keystone Lake Motel. Lucky Trip of Bristow LLC. Hazel Dell Baptist Church. Wildwood Acres RV Park. The Oasis Gas ’N Go. Oak Grove School. Sunset RV Park. Alfalfa Co RWS & SWMD #1. Christian Life Missionary Baptist Church. Golden Oaks Home Owners Association. Iowa Tribe of Oklahoma – Grey Snow Eagle. Chisholm Springs Event Center. Bels Club. Route 66 Rally RV Park. Pawnee Co. RWD #2.

Where things stand now

The stakes for Enid aren’t just technical, and they aren’t confined to one well. They sit in the way Oklahoma’s rulebook has been applied when hearings were required and when they weren’t.

Enid is asking the Oklahoma Corporation Commission to terminate the Flying Monkey’s permit and impose stronger protections against pollution from oilfield wastewater injection. including a proposed ban within a half-mile of Enid water wells with no exceptions. and additional requirements within 1 mile.

The commission’s administrative law court will hear the case later this year, and the outcome will still depend on commissioners—elected officials whose legislative careers include supporting the 2015 state preemption law that blocks local governments from setting their own oil and gas restrictions.

Outside the commission’s hearing rooms, the pressure remains the same: in an arid state where groundwater is central, Enid is betting that regulators can be made to treat drinking-water safety as nonnegotiable—especially when the distance is measured in hundreds of yards rather than miles.

Enid Oklahoma Flying Monkey injection well Oklahoma Corporation Commission wastewater injection underground injection control Safe Drinking Water Act drinking water protection oilfield pollution administrative law court Patricia Downey BCE-Mach III Midstream Holdings Estill #8 U.S. Energy Development Corp