Questa Hydrogen Project: Facts & Concerns  

The proposed Questa Hydrogen Energy Storage Project includes a solar array of approximately 300 acres, hydrogen production equipment, compressors, storage vessels, fuel cells, a substation, and related transmission infrastructure.

Kit Carson Electric Cooperative is pursuing the project with federal funding support and project partners. The proposed location is near the Village of Questa, homes, roads, and Alta Vista Elementary School.

The project has received major federal funding support, but residents continue to have questions about the construction timeline, environmental studies, emergency planning, financial obligations, and what happens if only part of the project is completed.

View Project Layout

USDA Environmental Assessment

USDA FONSI

Water Remains an Unresolved Question

Water is one of the most serious unresolved questions surrounding the proposed project.

The USDA environmental documents identify a well associated with the Chevron tailings facility—RG-14117-POD-18—as the proposed water source. KCEC has said that this well appears to draw from a deeper groundwater source than many nearby domestic wells and acequias.

On June 16, 2026, KCEC released a press release and fact sheet titled “Initial Water Study Findings.” The announcement stated that Phase One reviewed regional geology, well records, available groundwater information, borehole logs, subsurface conditions, and conditions near the Llano and Cabresto ditch systems.

KCEC later posted a two-page Phase One summary memorandum prepared by its hydrogeologic consultants. The memorandum identifies POD 18 as the proposed production well and gives several preliminary conclusions about its depth, geologic unit, well seal, surrounding clay layers, and possible connection to nearby groundwater.

However, KCEC has not publicly released the complete Phase One technical work or the full record supporting those conclusions, including the complete well dataset, borehole logs, geologic cross-sections, maps, field observations, modeling files, assumptions, calculations, and technical appendices.

The two-page memorandum itself states that the study is ongoing and that the Phase One findings could change based on future testing.

KCEC’s consultant concludes that POD 18 draws from a deeper volcanic unit than most surrounding wells and that clay layers may reduce groundwater communication. But a deeper well and intervening clay layers do not, by themselves, demonstrate that the groundwater systems are completely separate or that long-term pumping could not affect deeper wells, shallower groundwater, domestic or community wells, springs, wetlands, acequia source waters, or future water supplies.

The memorandum also identifies wells screened at a similar elevation to POD 18 that may have a more direct connection to the production well. It suggests that distance may be sufficient to limit impacts, but that conclusion has not yet been tested through a completed pumping test and calibrated groundwater model.

Most importantly, the memorandum places the following work in Phase Two:

• A step test and 48-hour pumping test at POD 18

• Additional field water-level measurements

• Development and calibration of a numerical groundwater-flow model

• Simulations of future groundwater extraction

• Analysis of drought, precipitation changes, population growth, and other water-use scenarios

This means KCEC’s preliminary conclusion of “little to no impact” was issued before the planned pumping test, field calibration, and future pumping simulations were completed and released.

Why “Deeper” Does Not Automatically Mean “Separate”

KCEC has said the proposed project well appears to draw from a deeper groundwater source than many nearby domestic wells and acequias. But depth alone does not prove that the water source is independent, isolated, or safe from long-term impacts.

Groundwater is not a still underground storage tank. It moves through layers, fractures, faults, pressure gradients, and slow connections across time. When a high-capacity well pumps groundwater, it can create a cone of depression around the well. Over time, that drawdown has to be balanced somewhere.

That balance usually happens in one of two ways:

• By removing water from aquifer storage, including deeper groundwater reserves

• By capturing water that would otherwise continue moving through the groundwater system toward springs, wetlands, shallow groundwater, acequias, or the Rio Grande

Clay layers and aquitards may slow or delay these impacts, but they do not automatically prove permanent separation. A delayed impact is still an impact. Time lags can be a deceptive trap, especially in groundwater systems where today’s pumping decisions may not fully show their effects for years or decades.

Because the proposed water source is associated with Chevron property and the Questa Superfund area, the public needs more than a summary statement saying the well appears to be deeper.

The real question is:

Could long-term pumping draw down connected groundwater, reduce natural discharge, affect nearby water users, alter groundwater gradients, interfere with Superfund groundwater controls, or shift impacts into the future?

July 2026 OSE Records Update: No Approval Shown for Long-Term Hydrogen Water Use

Records produced through IPRA show that Chevron and KCEC prepared draft materials seeking to use up to 100 acre-feet per year from POD 18 for expanded purposes, including industrial, commercial, construction, dust-control, and fire-suppression uses.

OSE records also show that KCEC sought emergency authorization to use POD 18 water before the ordinary approval process was complete, citing construction delays and risk to $231 million in federal funding.

OSE rejected the emergency request, stating that potential loss of project funding does not qualify as a legal emergency allowing groundwater use before approval. OSE also identified corrections needed in the draft application.

OSE indicated that limited construction-related dust control and ground compaction may fall within POD 18’s existing reclamation-related purpose. However, long-term commercial or industrial water use for green hydrogen operations appears to require a formal application process.

Key takeaway: The records reviewed so far do not show OSE approval for KCEC to use POD 18 for long-term industrial hydrogen production. Groundbreaking is not the same thing as operational water approval.

View Full OSE IPRA Records

Additional OSE records have been requested and will be posted or summarized as they are received.

POD 18 Is Still Being Used for Superfund Dust Control

On June 26, 2026, EPA confirmed that POD 18 continues to be used for dust control at the Chevron Questa Mine Superfund Site.

This matters because POD 18 has also been identified as the proposed water source for the hydrogen facility. Chevron’s existing water-right records describe the well as connected to mining, reclamation, closure, dust-control, and roadway-maintenance activities.

The community has not yet been shown whether POD 18 can reliably continue serving active reclamation needs while also supplying the hydrogen project—particularly during severe drought or periods of increased dust-control demand.

The unresolved question is not only whether POD 18 has water. It is whether the same well can legally, reliably, and sustainably support both Superfund-related reclamation needs and long-term industrial hydrogen production.

Information Still Needed

The public has not yet received the technical and legal records needed to independently evaluate KCEC’s water claims, including:

• The complete Phase One technical record and supporting files

• The complete well-record and groundwater dataset used in the analysis

• Borehole logs, geologic cross-sections, maps, field records, calculations, and assumptions

• Complete construction records for POD 18, including total depth, screened or open interval, casing details, tested capacity, and current condition

• Completed pumping-test results

• Monitoring-well data showing water-level response during pumping

• A calibrated groundwater-flow model

• Projected drawdown, cone of depression, and radius of influence under different pumping scenarios

• Analysis of whether pumping could affect springs, wetlands, acequias, shallow groundwater, domestic wells, community wells, or the Rio Grande

• Analysis of whether pumping could affect groundwater plumes or interfere with Superfund remedy controls

• Projected annual, peak, startup, cooling, maintenance, emergency, and fire-response water demand

• Analysis of cumulative demand from both the hydrogen project and ongoing Superfund reclamation

• Drought-adjusted analysis of long-term water availability, reduced snowpack, and climate stress

• A public monitoring plan with enforceable thresholds for reducing or stopping pumping

• A plan identifying who would repair, replace, deepen, or compensate affected wells if impacts occur

• The complete OSE application, public notice, supporting hydrologic analysis, and final approval for any long-term industrial hydrogen use

• Independent peer review by a hydrogeologist who was not retained by KCEC, Chevron, or another project participant

Without these records, the public cannot independently evaluate the claim that pumping POD 18 or another project well would have little or no effect on surrounding water resources.

Current Drought Conditions Matter

This project is not being considered under ordinary water conditions.

On May 20, 2026, Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham issued Executive Order 2026-026 in response to drought and severe fire conditions across New Mexico.

The Governor’s Office reported historic-low snowpack, record-high spring temperatures, record-low runoff, below-average river flows, and 366 wildfires during the first four months of 2026—twice the number recorded during the same period in 2025.

New Mexico’s long-range water planning also projects that climate change could reduce available water supplies by approximately 25 percent or more, along with reduced groundwater recharge, earlier snowmelt, longer summers, and increasing aridification.

A project may have access to an existing water right and still raise serious questions about whether the proposed use is wise, sustainable, and adequately protected during prolonged drought.

These conditions are not background information. They are the conditions under which the project’s proposed groundwater use must be evaluated.

Local History Matters

Questa residents have lived through decades of uncertainty involving mining, contamination, groundwater, cleanup, and questions about who controls local water.

Because of that history, the community should not be expected to accept selected conclusions, a press release, or a short summary as proof that there will be no impact.

The complete study, pumping-test results, OSE records, and legal water approvals should be available for independent public review.

The Central Water Question

KCEC has released its interpretation of Phase One and a two-page summary prepared by its consultants. IPRA records now also show that KCEC sought emergency authorization to use POD 18 water before the ordinary approval process was complete, and that OSE rejected that emergency request.

The community is still waiting for:

• The complete Phase One technical record

• Completed pumping-test results

• A calibrated groundwater model

• Clear project water-demand figures

• Final OSE authorization for the proposed hydrogen use

• A drought-adjusted long-term analysis

• Independent peer review

• Public monitoring and enforceable protections if nearby water resources are affected

Until those records are released, KCEC has not demonstrated that POD 18 can legally, reliably, and sustainably supply the hydrogen project without harming existing water users, reclamation needs, or surrounding water resources.

KCEC commissioned BakerRisk to evaluate possible hydrogen-related accidents involving fire, explosion, thermal radiation, blast pressure, building damage, and human injury.

The analysis models several possible consequences, including:

• Hydrogen fires and thermal radiation

• Blast overpressure and blast impulse

• Damage to residential and other structures

• Human hearing and lung impacts

• Potential effects extending beyond the project boundary

BakerRisk concluded that additional safety work is needed, including a site fire-protection plan, emergency-response planning, blast mitigation, fire-and-gas detection, and action-plan development.

On June 25, 2026, KCEC announced that portions of its electrical system were being placed into non-reclose operation because of extreme wildfire conditions. This means electrical lines may remain off after a fault until they can be inspected, reducing the risk of repeated electrical ignition.

That announcement raises an important question: if current conditions require heightened precautions to prevent electrical wildfire ignition, how will those same drought and wildfire conditions be addressed for a facility involving high-pressure hydrogen production, compression, storage, and electrical infrastructure?

Read BakerRisk Analysis

Read KCEC June 25 Fire Notice 

On June 24th 2026, James Hampton, Taos County Fire Marshal, responded to our questions about fire-code oversight and emergency planning for the proposed hydrogen facility.

He explained that because the project is located within the Village of Questa, the Questa Fire Department is the authority having jurisdiction. This means Questa Fire—not Taos County—would be responsible for establishing local fire-code requirements, reviewing response plans, setting emergency conditions, and addressing evacuation planning. Taos County would serve only in a supporting or mutual-aid role.

This is especially important because the February 27, 2026 BakerRisk presentation says that several major safety steps still needed to be completed or further evaluated, including:

• A site-specific fire-protection plan

• The amount and source of fire water needed for worst-case events

• Emergency-response planning

• Blast mitigation

• Fire-and-gas detection

• Action-plan development

On June 24th 2026 we contacted Questa Fire/EMS asking whether these plans have been completed, reviewed, or approved, and whether local responders have the staffing, equipment, training, water supply, and mutual-aid agreements necessary to respond to a hydrogen emergency.

As of June 26, 2026, no response has been received. 

That does not prove that no planning has occurred. It means the public has not yet been shown that the required planning exists or that the local department expected to carry the responsibility is prepared.

What remains unanswered

• Has Questa Fire reviewed the BakerRisk analysis?

• Has a hydrogen-specific fire-protection plan been completed?

• Has the required fire-water supply been identified and secured?

• Is there a public evacuation plan for nearby homes, roads, and Alta Vista Elementary School?

• Are local responders trained and equipped for high-pressure hydrogen fires and explosions?

• What role would Taos County, neighboring departments, and state responders play?

• Has the project received final local fire-code approval?

• Why is the project moving forward before these safety requirements have been completed, reviewed, and made public? 

The Superfund Site, POD 18, and the Chevron–KCEC Lease

The proposed hydrogen facility and solar array are located on Chevron property within or associated with the larger Chevron Questa Mine Superfund Site.

This is not simply a former mine that has been cleaned up and closed. The federal Superfund cleanup remains active and includes ongoing remedy work, groundwater management, monitoring, land-use controls, maintenance, and government oversight.

In a 2016 federal court complaint, the United States, the State of New Mexico, and the New Mexico Environment Department alleged that mining and waste-disposal operations at the Questa Mine contaminated soil, sediment, surface water, and groundwater. The complaint described the Superfund Site broadly, including the mine, mill, waste-rock piles, tailings pipeline, tailing facility, and other areas where contaminants from mining, milling, or tailings disposal are located.

The complaint was filed alongside a negotiated consent decree requiring Chevron to perform specified cleanup work and reimburse public agencies for certain response costs. It is important to distinguish between the two: the complaint contains the governments’ allegations, while the consent decree establishes legally enforceable cleanup obligations.

State and federal regulators have said they do not expect construction in the KCEC leased area to interfere with the existing Superfund remedy. However, the public has not yet been shown the complete maps, technical analysis, compatibility review, or other records supporting that conclusion.

The community is not claiming that EPA approved the hydrogen project as a whole. EPA’s role appears to be focused on protecting the Superfund remedy, including cleanup infrastructure, monitoring systems, access, land-use restrictions, drainage, tailings, and any activity that could interfere with the cleanup or create new contamination.

The larger concern is that the project is being reviewed one piece at a time, while construction and ground disturbance are already moving forward.

Why the 2016 Federal Case Matters

The 2016 complaint provides important historical and legal context for the land now being considered for new industrial development.

The government alleged that:

• mining operations and waste disposal contaminated soil, sediment, groundwater, and surface water;

• hazardous substances had been released or threatened to be released at and from the Site;

• contaminants had been discharged from the Site in excess of water-quality standards;

• certain pollution conditions could present an imminent and substantial danger to public health;

• public agencies had already spent money investigating, monitoring, and responding to the contamination.

The cleanup selected for the Site has included contaminated-soil removal, waste-rock management, groundwater extraction, seepage interception, tailings covers and revegetation, mine dewatering, water treatment, stormwater controls, and long-term monitoring.

This history does not prove that every acre of Chevron property is contaminated or that construction in every location will interfere with the remedy. It does show why new grading, roads, trenching, drainage changes, groundwater use, and industrial development deserve careful and transparent review.

The relevant question is not only whether the hydrogen facility sits directly on a tailings impoundment.

The question is whether the full project—including the solar array, roads, utilities, fencing, transmission infrastructure, drainage changes, construction dust, groundwater use, and future operations—could affect any part of an active and interconnected cleanup system.

What NMED Said

On June 25, 2026, we spoke with Matthew Bogar, Chevron Questa Mine Oversight Manager with the New Mexico Environment Department.

He said the proposed construction area lies within the larger Chevron property but was not used as a tailings-disposal area. He described the project area as natural or previously undisturbed land and said a separate Superfund review was not required.

We asked him directly whether the proposed project area was toxic. He said no.

He also said he did not believe construction would interfere with the cleanup and that Chevron would remain responsible if contamination were encountered or caused by construction.

That information is reassuring as far as it goes. But it does not answer how regulators evaluated the full project footprint, what records they reviewed, or how construction will be monitored over time.

It also raises an important question: if the leased land is natural or previously undisturbed, why was a major industrial project allowed to begin disturbing it without the public first seeing the environmental review, biological surveys, drainage analysis, and construction-control plans?

What EPA Confirmed in Writing

On June 19, 2026, we sent EPA detailed questions about POD 18, the Chevron–KCEC lease, and protection of the Superfund remedy.

On June 26, 2026, Elizabeth Pletan, an attorney with EPA Region 6’s Superfund Branch, provided written responses.

EPA confirmed that:

• POD 18 is within the Superfund Site boundaries.

• POD 18 is still being used for dust control.

• EPA reviewed the Chevron–KCEC lease.

• Chevron remains responsible for the Superfund remedy.

• Neither Chevron nor KCEC has indicated that KCEC will perform Superfund response work.

• EPA expects construction in the leased area not to affect the remedy.

• EPA will continue overseeing the cleanup and monitoring whether the remedy remains protective.

EPA stated:

“EPA has determined that construction in the leased area should not impact the remedy. EPA will continue to oversee the response actions and monitor the protectiveness of the remedy.”

EPA’s statement is important. But the public is still asking what maps, records, engineering information, drainage analysis, and technical review EPA relied on in reaching that conclusion.

The 2016 court record makes that request even more reasonable. It shows that the Superfund Site and its cleanup involve more than isolated tailings piles. They include groundwater movement, surface water, seepage, drainage, monitoring systems, treatment systems, waste-rock areas, and other places affected by mine operations.

July 7, 2026 EPA Meeting Update

At the July 7, 2026 EPA community meeting on the Chevron Questa Mine Superfund Site, EPA and NMED representatives provided additional clarification.

Because these notes come from an AI-generated transcript, this summary should be treated as preliminary unless verified against an official recording or transcript.

According to the meeting transcript, EPA and NMED representatives confirmed that the Superfund cleanup is ongoing. The Site is not simply finished or closed. Remedy work, monitoring, land-use controls, maintenance, and government oversight remain active.

EPA also confirmed that Chevron submitted the required 60-day notice concerning the KCEC lease. This means EPA was aware of the lease and reviewed it for issues related to the Superfund remedy.

However, EPA’s review of the lease does not mean EPA approved the hydrogen facility or reviewed every aspect of the project. It does not appear to constitute approval of the project’s water use, fire protection, emergency planning, wildlife impacts, local permits, zoning compliance, construction stormwater controls, or overall public-safety implications.

EPA’s authority appears focused on whether the project could disturb tailings, interfere with cleanup infrastructure, affect monitoring, change drainage, limit access, or create new contamination or liability issues.

According to the transcript, EPA also indicated that if KCEC disturbed tailings or interfered with the remedy, it could potentially become a responsible party under Superfund law.

Construction Stormwater and Current Ground Disturbance

The July 7 meeting raised an immediate permitting question involving active solar-array construction.

According to the meeting transcript, EPA staff said they were checking whether KCEC had obtained coverage under EPA’s Construction General Permit. Construction disturbing one acre or more generally requires permit coverage and a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan.

EPA also explained that if dirt work were occurring without required coverage, the agency could inspect and potentially require the operator to come into compliance.

This raised several immediate questions:

• Had KCEC obtained Construction General Permit coverage?

• Had a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan been prepared?

• Did the permit cover the entire area being disturbed?

• Were critical species and sensitive environmental areas identified?

• Did grading begin before all required construction-stormwater protections were in place?

July 23 Construction Permit Update

At EPA’s July 23, 2026 public meeting and hearing, EPA stated that the KCEC solar-array construction is covered under an EPA Construction General Permit.

EPA also said that the permit requires stormwater pollution controls and a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan.

According to the meeting transcript, EPA staff visited the site and observed active dirt work, water trucks, compaction, straw bales, and dust or stormwater-control measures. EPA also said NMED had inspected the site.

EPA reported that it did not observe a visible site board displaying permit information at the project area. EPA said NMED was working with EPA enforcement staff regarding what had been observed.

This update answers one question—the project reportedly has construction-stormwater permit coverage—but it raises others.

The public is still asking to see:

• the Construction General Permit coverage;

• the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan;

• the area of disturbance covered by the permit;

• inspection reports;

• corrective-action records;

• dust-control requirements;

• drainage and erosion-control plans;

• and any conclusions reached by EPA or NMED enforcement staff.

A permit existing is not the same as the public being able to evaluate whether its requirements match the actual construction taking place.

Why POD 18 Still Matters

Chevron’s 2018 water-right application described POD 18 as being used for dust control and roadway maintenance associated with reclamation and closure of the tailing facility.

POD 18 has also been identified as a possible water source for the proposed hydrogen facility.

At the July 7 EPA meeting, EPA and NMED representatives reportedly stated that POD 18 is not within the KCEC lease area and that Chevron continues to have access to the well for dust control required by the Superfund remedy.

The transcript also states that KCEC was allocated approximately 80 acre-feet from Chevron’s permitted 250 acre-feet. This differs from other public references to as much as 100 acre-feet for the hydrogen project.

That discrepancy matters.

The public still needs a clear explanation of:

• how much water POD 18 currently supplies for cleanup-related dust control;

• how much water the hydrogen project would require;

• whether the proposed amount is 80 acre-feet, 100 acre-feet, or another figure;

• whether the Office of the State Engineer has approved the proposed industrial purpose of use;

• whether POD 18 can reliably support both cleanup needs and industrial use during severe drought;

• what happens if dust-control demands increase during dry or windy conditions;

• and whether industrial pumping could affect groundwater conditions relevant to the Superfund remedy.

Groundwater is not a side issue at this Site. The federal cleanup has included groundwater investigation, extraction, interception, monitoring, treatment, and efforts to prevent contaminated groundwater from reaching other water-bearing areas.

That does not prove that pumping POD 18 will interfere with the remedy. It does mean the public deserves more than a general assurance that the well appears to draw from a deeper source.

Questions About the Chevron–KCEC Lease

EPA confirmed that it reviewed the lease between Chevron and KCEC. EPA also said neither company has indicated that KCEC will perform Superfund response work.

The lease reportedly requires KCEC to address environmental damage caused by its own activities.

But the boundary between KCEC’s responsibility and Chevron’s responsibility remains unclear.

What happens if construction:

• encounters previously unidentified contamination;

• spreads contaminated soil or dust;

• alters drainage;

• damages monitoring equipment;

• limits access to cleanup infrastructure;

• interferes with groundwater monitoring;

• disturbs tailings or mine-related material;

• or creates a new pathway for contaminants to move?

Chevron remains responsible for the existing Superfund remedy. But KCEC may become responsible for contamination or interference caused by its own activities.

The public should not have to wait for damage to occur before learning how those responsibilities have been divided.

What EPA Has Not Yet Provided

EPA has not yet publicly identified:

• the reports, maps, or technical analysis supporting its determination;

• whether a formal written compatibility review exists;

• whether its review covered both the hydrogen facility and the full solar-array footprint;

• whether roads, grading, trenching, fencing, utilities, drainage, and transmission infrastructure were evaluated;

• whether the project was compared with the most recent Five-Year Review;

• whether groundwater use from POD 18 was evaluated in relation to cleanup needs;

• what monitoring will occur during construction;

• and what authority EPA could use to pause, modify, or require changes if construction begins to interfere with the remedy.

Follow-up questions have been submitted requesting this information.

July 23, 2026 EPA NPDES Meeting and Hearing

On July 23, 2026, EPA held a public meeting and hearing in Cerro regarding Chevron Mining Inc.’s Draft NPDES Permit No. NM0022306.

According to the AI-generated transcript, EPA explained that this is not a permit for the hydrogen project. It is a renewal of Chevron’s existing discharge permit for the Questa Mine.

EPA described the permit as authorizing discharges associated with the mine-water treatment plant, potential stormwater outfalls, and seepage water from the former tailing facility into the Red River.

EPA also explained that the permit review uses a “reasonable potential” analysis. This analysis considers whether a discharge from an outfall could cause downstream water quality to exceed applicable state standards. Based on that analysis, permit limits may be added, removed, strengthened, or relaxed.

This clarification matters because many community questions raised at the meeting were broader than the NPDES permit itself.

Residents asked about:

• the hydrogen facility;

• solar-array construction;

• groundwater pumping;

• POD 18;

• drought;

• construction dust;

• stormwater runoff;

• biological impacts;

• and the relationship between new industrial development and an active Superfund cleanup.

EPA repeatedly explained that some of these issues fall outside the scope of Chevron’s NPDES permit.

That leaves a larger and still-unanswered question:

If the NPDES permit does not evaluate the hydrogen project as a whole—and EPA’s Superfund review is limited to protecting the cleanup remedy—which agency is responsible for reviewing how all of these pieces work together before the project moves forward?

A Striking Contrast: How Restoration Projects Were Reviewed

In 2018, state and federal natural-resource trustees prepared a 164-page Restoration Plan and Environmental Assessment for projects intended to repair environmental damage associated with the Questa Mine.

Those projects included river-habitat restoration, groundwater protection, municipal water and sewer improvements, and wetland restoration.

Although the projects were intended to benefit the environment and the community, they were still subjected to a coordinated review process.

The plan was prepared by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Forest Service, and New Mexico Office of Natural Resources Trustee. It evaluated alternatives, environmental consequences, wildlife, threatened and endangered species, water resources, climate stressors, socioeconomic conditions, cultural resources, and environmental justice.

The Trustees also consulted or notified a broad group that included EPA, the Army Corps of Engineers, New Mexico Game and Fish, NMED, the Mining and Minerals Division, the Office of the State Engineer, Taos County, the Village of Questa, conservation organizations, watershed groups, elected officials, and Chevron.

The process included public meetings in Questa, a published draft, a formal public-comment period, written responses to public concerns, and a publicly available administrative record.

That history creates a difficult but important comparison.

When government agencies proposed projects intended to restore resources damaged by the mine, they conducted a broad, coordinated environmental review and invited the public into the decision-making process.

No comparable review has been shown for the much larger industrial project now under construction.

The hydrogen project and solar array involve hundreds of acres of ground disturbance, industrial water use, roads, trenching, utilities, drainage changes, wildlife habitat, dust, fire and explosion risks, and development within or beside an active Superfund landscape.

Yet no agency has publicly demonstrated that it reviewed all of those impacts together.

EPA reviewed the Chevron–KCEC lease for possible interference with the Superfund remedy. EPA’s construction-stormwater program addresses runoff controls. The Office of the State Engineer is addressing water-right questions. Other agencies have said the project falls outside their authority or that they were never formally asked to review it.

This does not necessarily mean that every agency involved in the 2018 restoration plan was legally required to approve the current project.

It does show a profound difference in process:

Projects intended to repair environmental harm received a coordinated environmental assessment, public participation, interagency consultation, and a public administrative record.

A far larger industrial development is now changing the same landscape without any comparable comprehensive review visible to the public.

No agency has publicly answered how the project’s water use, Superfund setting, dust, drainage, construction stormwater, wildlife impacts, drought conditions, fire risk, emergency response, and long-term operations interact with one another.

The question is not only whether each individual permit exists....

The question is why restoration required comprehensive environmental review, while new industrial development appears to be proceeding through a collection of narrow and disconnected approvals.

What the July 23 Meeting Did Not Resolve

The July 23 meeting clarified what EPA was and was not reviewing through the NPDES process. But it did not resolve the larger concern that the project is being reviewed in fragments.

EPA addressed Chevron’s discharge permit.

EPA acknowledged a separate construction-stormwater permit for KCEC’s solar work.

EPA’s Superfund staff reviewed the lease for potential interference with the cleanup remedy.

The Office of the State Engineer is addressing water-right questions.

Local governments may have authority over zoning, building, electrical, road, and fire-code requirements.

But the public has not been shown a single, comprehensive review examining how the hydrogen facility, solar array, POD 18 pumping, Superfund cleanup, stormwater, dust, drought, wildlife, emergency response, and long-term community risk fit together.

That remains one of the central concerns.

The public is not asking only whether individual permits exist. The public is asking whether the whole project has been reviewed before the landscape is changed, water is committed, and hundreds of acres are disturbed.

Preliminary Independent Community Soil-Sample Findings

On June 26, 2026, community members collected three preliminary soil samples near the Chevron Questa Mine Superfund area.

The sampling was prompted by ongoing concern about dust, runoff, grading, and possible contamination pathways near homes, roads, ravines, and Alta Vista.

Eurofins analyzed the samples for fluoride, sulfate, manganese, molybdenum, and uranium.

All three samples contained measurable manganese, molybdenum, and uranium. Fluoride and sulfate were detected only in the Alta Vista sample.

The results show why more complete and professionally designed testing is needed.

This landscape has been shaped by decades of mining, tailings disposal, waste rock, groundwater impacts, stormwater movement, wind, and dust. The federal complaint alleged that mine operations contaminated soil, sediment, groundwater, and surface water, and the Site was defined to include other areas where mining-related contaminants are located.

The question is therefore not simply:

Do these three samples exceed a cleanup standard?

The larger questions are:

What is present in community soil, dust, runoff, and groundwater today?

How are these materials moving?

And why are community members having to begin this investigation themselves before additional land is disturbed?

Samples Collected

Sample 1 — Cornelio Road

No fluoride or sulfate was detected.

The sample contained:

• Manganese: 410 mg/kg

• Molybdenum: 0.96 mg/kg

• Uranium: 0.48 mg/kg

Sample 2 — Ravine

No fluoride or sulfate was detected.

The sample contained:

• Manganese: 330 mg/kg

• Molybdenum: 4.7 mg/kg

• Uranium: 0.52 mg/kg

Sample 3 — Alta Vista

This was the only sample in which fluoride and sulfate were detected.

The sample contained:

• Fluoride: 9.6 mg/L

• Sulfate: 35 mg/L

• Manganese: 370 mg/kg

• Molybdenum: 5.2 mg/kg

• Uranium: 0.43 mg/kg

The laboratory report can be viewed in the Document Library.

What Stood Out

All three samples contained manganese, molybdenum, and uranium.

Alta Vista stood out because it was the only sample with detectable fluoride and sulfate and because it had the highest molybdenum concentration of the three samples.

The lab report includes comparisons to EPA maximum contaminant levels and secondary drinking-water standards. Those standards generally apply to water and should not be treated as direct soil-health thresholds.

Metals measured in soil are reported in milligrams per kilogram, or mg/kg.

Drinking-water concentrations are generally reported in milligrams per liter, or mg/L.

Airborne exposure is measured differently again, often in milligrams per cubic meter, or mg/m³.

These measurements describe different exposure pathways and cannot be directly substituted for one another.

The results point toward the next questions that need to be tested directly: dust, runoff, leaching, and groundwater.

Comparison With EPA’s Five-Year Review

EPA’s Five-Year Review includes site-specific molybdenum soil cleanup levels, including:

• 11 mg/kg for livestock protection south of the tailing facility;

• 41 mg/kg for deer and elk protection;

• 54 mg/kg for birds and other non-grazing wildlife.

The highest molybdenum result in the community samples was 5.2 mg/kg at Alta Vista. That is below the listed molybdenum cleanup levels.

We are therefore not claiming that these samples demonstrate a molybdenum cleanup exceedance.

However, those particular ecological cleanup levels are not a complete assessment of potential human exposure, especially for young children, people exposed repeatedly to dust, or residents living near construction and transportation routes.

A cleanup threshold is not the same as a full picture of community exposure.

Three preliminary samples cannot tell us:

• how much dust crosses the valley during high-wind events;

• what substances are present in airborne dust;

• what moves during monsoon runoff;

• whether contaminants are leaching through soil;

• whether concentrations vary by depth or season;

• or what may be moving through groundwater.

That is why current, pathway-specific testing matters.

What Soil Samples Can and Cannot Tell Us About Dust

These samples tell us what substances were measured in the collected soil.

They do not tell us how much of that material is becoming airborne or how much anyone is breathing.

The distinction is simple:

Soil testing tells us what is in the dirt.

Air monitoring tells us how much dust is in the air.

Chemical analysis tells us what that airborne dust contains.

Health-based standards help evaluate whether the resulting exposure may be harmful.

EPA’s Five-Year Review discusses PM10 and PM2.5 monitoring at the tailing facility. PM10 and PM2.5 measurements tell us how much particulate matter is in the air by particle size.

They do not automatically tell us which metals or other chemicals are contained in those particles.

That is why the next step should include air monitoring paired with chemical analysis of the collected dust.

What These Results Do and Do Not Prove

These preliminary samples do not prove:

• a public-health emergency;

• an OSHA exceedance;

• a drinking-water exceedance;

• a Superfund cleanup exceedance;

• that the detected substances came from the mine;

• or that the three sampling locations represent the wider community.

They do show that community-collected soils contain substances that EPA also monitors or discusses in connection with the Superfund Site.

They support a clear and reasonable request:

Test the soil. Test the dust. Test the runoff. Test the groundwater. Release the results.

What the Community Is Asking For

Before additional ground disturbance occurs, the public should receive:

• a professional soil-sampling plan;

• appropriate background or control samples;

• GPS-mapped sampling locations;

• surface and subsurface soil testing;

• PM10 and PM2.5 monitoring;

• chemical analysis of airborne dust;

• runoff and stormwater sampling after rain events;

• groundwater testing where appropriate;

• leachability testing;

• clear quality-control procedures;

• and public release of the results in language residents can understand.

Bottom Line

The 2016 federal case makes clear why this landscape requires care.

The United States, the State of New Mexico, and NMED alleged that decades of mining and waste disposal contaminated soil, sediment, groundwater, and surface water. The resulting consent decree imposed legally enforceable cleanup obligations involving groundwater extraction, water treatment, seepage interception, soil removal, tailings management, stormwater controls, and long-term monitoring.

That history does not prove that the KCEC project area is contaminated or that the hydrogen project will interfere with the cleanup.

It does mean that assurances should be supported by records the public can see.

The community-collected soil samples are preliminary. They do not provide a complete risk assessment and should not be overstated.

But they raise a fair and urgent question:

What has been moving through the soil, dust, runoff, and groundwater pathways around Questa, and what will happen when additional land is disturbed?

The responsible next step is current testing, transparent review, and meaningful protection before more ground is changed.

Key Questions Still Awaiting Answers

1. What records, maps, engineering information, and technical analysis did EPA rely on when determining that construction in the leased area should not affect the Superfund remedy?

2. Does a formal written Superfund compatibility review exist, and will it be released?

3. Did EPA’s review include the full solar-array footprint, hydrogen facility, roads, grading, trenching, fencing, utilities, drainage changes, and transmission infrastructure?

4. Did EPA evaluate the project against the most recent Five-Year Review and the requirements of the federal consent decree?

5. Where can the public view KCEC’s Construction General Permit coverage?

6. Where can the public view the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan?

7. Does the permit cover the full disturbed area, including roads, grading, trenching, fencing, drainage, utilities, and transmission infrastructure?

8. Why was permit information or a site board reportedly not visible when EPA visited the project area?

9. What did EPA and NMED enforcement staff conclude after reviewing the site-board issue?

10. What inspection records, corrective actions, and compliance reports exist for the current construction?

11. What monitoring is being conducted during high-wind events, storm events, grading, and trenching?

12. Does any permit require chemical analysis of dust, runoff, or sediment leaving the construction area?

13. Has dust monitoring included chemical analysis of the dust itself, rather than only PM10 or PM2.5 particle levels?

14. Will soil, road dust, construction dust, runoff, sediment, leaching, and groundwater pathways be tested before more land is disturbed?

15. Which agency is reviewing the cumulative effects of the hydrogen facility, solar array, POD 18 water use, Superfund remedy, stormwater, dust, drought, wildlife, and emergency-response concerns together?

16. Can POD 18 legally and physically support both Superfund dust-control needs and long-term hydrogen production during drought or periods of high dust-control demand?

17. What is the actual proposed water allocation for the project: 80 acre-feet, 100 acre-feet, or another amount?

18. Has the Office of the State Engineer approved the proposed industrial purpose of use?

19. What happens if construction encounters contamination, spreads contaminated soil or dust, changes drainage, limits access, or interferes with monitoring or cleanup infrastructure?

20. How are responsibility and liability divided between Chevron and KCEC if project activities affect the Superfund remedy?

21. What authority could EPA, NMED, OSE, or another agency use to pause, modify, or require additional protections if construction threatens the cleanup, water resources, or public health?

Wildlife and Biological Review

The New Mexico Department of Wildlife reviewed the proposed project through the New Mexico Environmental Review Tool and issued recommendations in November 2025.

Those recommendations addressed several parts of the project, including:

• Prairie-dog habitat and possible burrowing owls

• Migratory birds, raptors, active nests, and seasonal construction precautions

• Wetlands, riparian vegetation, washes, and sensitive drainage areas

• Solar-array design, grading, fencing, habitat corridors, and retention of native vegetation

For the solar array, the Department recommended minimizing grading and blading, preserving soil and root systems, retaining native vegetation where possible, using wildlife-permeable fencing, leaving undisturbed habitat patches, and maintaining wildlife corridors.

On June 16, 2026, NMDOW confirmed that it had not received the USDA Environmental Assessment or completed biological survey reports and therefore could not verify whether its recommended surveys and protections were carried out.

SWCA has since stated that it conducted a biological survey and migratory-bird survey for the broader project area. SWCA also recommended a pre-construction nesting survey if ground disturbance occurs during the breeding season. However, the completed Biological Survey Report, survey maps, methods, timing, and findings have not yet been made public, and SWCA indicated that it did not know whether KCEC had finalized the report.

The central issue is not simply whether a biological review occurred. It is whether the surveys covered the full project footprint, were conducted at the appropriate time of year and before disturbance, and whether the findings and agency recommendations were incorporated into the final project design.

July 2026 NMDOW Site Visit Update

Ron Kellermueller, Mining and Energy Habitat Specialist with the New Mexico Department of Wildlife, confirmed that he attended the Mining and Minerals Division site visit on July 7, 2026 and observed construction activity underway for the solar facility.

According to Ron, the construction activity he observed was occurring in big sage habitat. He also stated that the biologist for the Questa Mine did not know whether Kit Carson Electric had completed a wildlife survey before construction began.

Ron’s main wildlife concern during the site visit was an active prairie dog colony in nearby grassland habitat. He spent time observing for burrowing owls and did not see any. He also noted that the prairie dog town appeared to be on private property outside the project footprint, and because prairie dogs do not typically use big sage habitat, he did not believe the project was likely to impact that colony directly.

Ron identified the primary project-related issue as the potential disturbance of nesting sage-obligate bird species. He specifically noted that this is where he hoped Kit Carson Electric had followed the recommendation to conduct nesting bird surveys before ground disturbance.

This confirms a key public question remains unanswered:

Were nesting bird surveys completed before construction began, and will the results be released to the public?

Why This Matters

The New Mexico Department of Wildlife previously recommended wildlife review and seasonal protections before ground disturbance. Ron’s site visit suggests that while the prairie dog colony may not be inside the project footprint, the project is still disturbing big sage habitat where nesting sage-obligate birds may be present.

The public still needs:

• confirmation that nesting bird surveys were completed before disturbance

• the dates and methods of those surveys

• survey maps showing the actual project footprint

• the results of any bird, raptor, burrowing owl, or migratory bird surveys

• documentation of any avoidance or mitigation measures required before construction

Until those records are released, the community cannot verify whether wildlife recommendations were followed before construction began.

Read NMDOW Recommendations 

Rare Plants, Wetlands, and Agency Review

On June 17, 2026, New Mexico State Botanist Erika Rowe responded to questions about endangered plants at the proposed project site. She said that her office had not previously been contacted for review or consultation by KCEC, USDA, the Village of Questa, SWCA, ENTrust, or another project representative. She had not received a project footprint or rare-plant survey for review.

After examining the available project maps, Erika noted that much of the mapped area appears previously disturbed, which may reduce the likelihood of rare plants in those portions of the site. However, she identified a specific concern involving the state-endangered plant Cymopterus spellenbergii. Known populations occur near the small forested area along the western side of the project.

Erika also explained that:

• State endangered-plant protections can apply on private land.

• An incidental-take permit may be required if a state-listed plant would be harmed.

• A federally funded project would generally be expected to include an appropriate biological survey.

• Private project proponents may not always realize that state endangered-plant requirements apply.

Erika brought Sami Naibauer, Botanist/Ecologist with the BLM Taos Field Office, into the discussion because of the adjacent BLM land and known plant populations.

On June 29, 2026, Sami confirmed that Cymopterus spellenbergii occurs on adjacent BLM land. She also reported that numerous pinyon-jay colonies are present in the surrounding area.

Without a GIS shapefile showing the complete project footprint and Area of Potential Effect, Sami said she could not determine what the environmental impacts may be. We are now requesting that shapefile so she can assess the project’s proximity to known plant populations and surrounding habitat. Following her recommendation, we are also contacting the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service regarding possible impacts to pinyon jays.

Earlier recommendations from the New Mexico Department of Wildlife also identified concerns involving an Important Plant Area, riparian habitat, and possible wetlands.

What Remains Unanswered

• Was a complete rare-plant survey performed?

• Was the survey conducted during the appropriate season?

• Did it cover the western forested area and the entire final disturbance footprint?

• Have the State Botanist and BLM Botanist been given the survey and full project shapefile for review?

• Were possible impacts to pinyon jays evaluated in consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?

• Has a formal wetlands delineation been completed?

• Has the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers determined whether federal wetlands authorization is required?

• Were agency recommendations incorporated into the project design before construction plans were finalized?

Following the June 3, 2026 community meeting at Yoga Sala, KCEC sent attendees a written explanation of federal tax-credit and funding deadlines connected to the proposed hydrogen-and-solar project.

That explanation confirmed something important: the solar array faces the earliest deadline.

According to KCEC, the solar array may qualify for the federal Investment Tax Credit through either of two pathways:

1. Show a “substantial beginning of construction” by July 4, 2026
or
2. Place the solar array in service by December 31, 2027

Only one pathway must be met.

KCEC did not explain what specific work qualifies as a “substantial beginning of construction,” how much must be spent or completed, who would claim the tax credit, or what happens if the solar array begins but the hydrogen facility is later delayed, denied, or abandoned.

KCEC also stated that hydrogen construction must begin by December 31, 2027, that the hydrogen facility must be operating by December 31, 2028, and that the ten-year hydrogen Production Tax Credit begins when the first kilogram of qualifying hydrogen is produced. KCEC also identified a later fuel-cell construction deadline of December 31, 2032.

These hydrogen and fuel-cell deadlines are considerably later than the July 4, 2026 solar deadline.

USDA New ERA Funding and OSE Water Records

KCEC has been selected for or awarded approximately $231 million through USDA’s New ERA program. But there is an important difference between being awarded funding and having funding fully secured, spent, reimbursed, or protected from repayment conditions.

The public has not been shown the full award agreement, drawdown schedule, reimbursement conditions, milestone requirements, repayment obligations, or consequences if project deadlines are missed.

OSE records add to this concern. Those records show that KCEC sought emergency water authorization connected to POD 18, citing construction delays and the risk of losing or jeopardizing federal funding. OSE rejected that emergency request, stating that potential funding loss or project delay does not qualify as a legal emergency allowing groundwater use before approval.

That matters.

It suggests that the funding may be tied to project timing, permitting, water authorization, or construction milestones that have not been clearly explained to the public.

KCEC has told residents that New ERA funds must be fully spent by December 31, 2031, but major questions remain unanswered:

• Does beginning the Questa solar array unlock, protect, or trigger any portion of the USDA award?

• How much of the $231 million is allocated specifically to Questa?

• How much is allocated to the solar array, hydrogen facility, batteries, or projects in other locations?

• When may KCEC begin drawing federal funds?

• What milestones must be met before reimbursement?

• Must funds be repaid if the hydrogen facility is not completed?

• What happens to the solar array if the hydrogen project does not proceed?

• Why was emergency water authorization sought if the project funding is already secure?

These questions matter because the timeline creates strong financial pressure to move quickly while major environmental, safety, water, wildlife, emergency-response, and liability questions remain unresolved.

Fragmented Review: Hydrogen Facility vs. Solar Array

The January 2026 USDA/RUS Environmental Assessment clarifies another major issue: the federal environmental review did not evaluate the full hydrogen-and-solar project as one combined development.

The EA states that USDA/RUS funding was proposed to be used exclusively for the hydrogen facility and substation, while funding for the integrated solar array was proposed to come from the State of New Mexico. Because of that funding split, the EA states that impacts assessed in the report are associated with the hydrogen facility and substation only, and that impacts from the proposed solar array are not assessed in the EA.

That matters because the hydrogen facility and substation are described as having a combined footprint of approximately 25 acres, while the larger study area is approximately 321 acres, including the northern portion of the Chevron Questa Mine tailings facility site and a Village of Questa parcel.

In other words, the project being publicly discussed is not only a 25-acre hydrogen facility. It also includes a much larger solar-array component across hundreds of acres near homes, roads, sage habitat, the Rio Grande del Norte National Monument, and Alta Vista Elementary School.

This raises a central public-process question:

Has any agency reviewed the full combined project — hydrogen facility, substation, solar array, water use, wildlife impacts, dust, Superfund concerns, emergency response, and financial risk — as one connected development?

The EA also states that the proposed site is located almost entirely within the Chevron Questa Mine Superfund site and acknowledges that contamination from mining operations is likely present throughout the Superfund site to some degree.

That does not make the solar array impact-free.

It means the public needs to know who reviewed the solar-array impacts, who approved the current disturbance, and whether cumulative impacts were evaluated before work began.

Broader New Mexico Hydrogen Policy Concerns

The concerns being raised in Questa are not isolated.

In 2021, a coalition of New Mexico environmental, legal, health, equity, and community organizations sent a hydrogen policy letter to state and federal leaders. The letter warned that hydrogen must be evaluated carefully in relation to water availability, equity, public health, safety, financial risk, and limited end-use markets.

The letter specifically called for a “clear-eyed assessment” of water availability, efficiency challenges, and constrained end-use markets for renewables-powered green hydrogen. It also emphasized that hydrogen policy must center rural communities, low-income communities, tribal communities, communities of color, and communities already impacted by extractive industries.

The community of Questa has already lived with the long-term consequences of mining, tailings, Superfund cleanup, water concerns, dust, drought, and economic promises tied to extractive industry. A new hydrogen-and-solar project should not move forward on the same old pattern: promises first, community answers later.

The same policy letter also stated that New Mexico’s highest climate priority should be proven renewable energy generation, battery storage, electrification, energy efficiency, and transmission — not hydrogen as the backbone of the clean-energy economy.

For Questa, the practical questions are clear:

• Is this the right use of scarce water?

• Is this the right location, next to a village, school, Superfund site, and national monument?

• Has the community been fully informed and meaningfully included?

• Have safety, water, wildlife, dust, emergency-response, and financial risks been independently reviewed?

• Are proven, less risky energy alternatives being pushed aside to chase hydrogen funding?

Village Council Removes Solar Array from Capital Plan

At its June 2026 meeting, the Village of Questa Council considered its Infrastructure Capital Improvement Plan for 2028–2032. The plan included a proposed “Village of Questa Solar Array.”

During the discussion, a council member asked whether the Village had a contract with Kit Carson Electric Cooperative concerning the solar array. The answer given was no.

Council members raised concerns that the Village had no contract, had not been clearly shown what it would gain, and had not received a full explanation of potential financial or environmental liabilities.

A motion was made to remove the Village of Questa Solar Array from the ICIP. The motion passed 3–1. The Council then approved the amended ICIP without the solar-array project.

This was not a formal land-use denial preventing KCEC from independently pursuing a solar project. However, it was a clear decision by a majority of the Village Council not to include the proposed Village solar array in the Village’s official capital improvement plan without a contract, defined benefits, understood liabilities, and further public discussion.

Following the vote, a council member requested that KCEC return for a public presentation with the Village attorney present to explain project ownership, legality, tax credits, costs, benefits, and potential taxpayer liability.

That request further shows that major terms had not been clearly presented to the Council.

Lease and Environmental Responsibility

EPA confirmed on June 26, 2026 that it reviewed the lease between Chevron Mining and KCEC. EPA also stated that neither Chevron nor KCEC had told the agency that KCEC intended to perform response work at the Superfund Site.

However, the lease reportedly includes provisions requiring KCEC to restore, remediate, repair, or address environmental conditions resulting from its own project activities.

This creates an important distinction that has not yet been fully explained:

Chevron remains legally responsible for the Superfund remedy.
KCEC may be responsible under the lease for environmental damage caused by its construction or operations.

EPA has not yet publicly explained where KCEC’s restoration responsibilities end and Chevron’s Superfund responsibilities begin.

The public deserves to know whether project construction could create new cleanup costs, who would initially pay them, and whether any financial or environmental liability could later affect KCEC members or the Village of Questa.

What the Timeline Shows

The project timeline creates clear pressure to move quickly:

July 4, 2026 — Solar “beginning of construction” tax-credit pathway
December 31, 2027 — Alternate solar placed-in-service deadline
December 31, 2027 — Hydrogen construction deadline
December 31, 2028 — Expected hydrogen operational deadline
December 31, 2031 — USDA New ERA expenditure deadline
December 31, 2032 — Fuel-cell construction deadline

The July 4 solar tax-credit deadline may help explain the urgency around beginning construction.

It does not answer the central public questions.

It does not explain who reviewed the full project.
It does not explain why solar-array impacts were not assessed in the USDA/RUS EA.
It does not resolve water, wildlife, dust, Superfund, emergency-response, or liability concerns.
It does not explain why emergency water authorization was sought from OSE.
And it does not erase the Village Council’s 3–1 decision to remove the solar array from the Village capital plan.

Bottom Line

The community is not asking for one piece of the project at a time.

The community is asking for the full picture.

Before this project moves forward, the public needs:

• permits

• funding agreements

• tax-credit documentation

• OSE water-rights records and applications

• water analyses

• wildlife surveys

• dust-control plans

• emergency-response plans

• lease terms

• liability protections

• cumulative impact review for the entire hydrogen-and-solar project

A federal deadline does not erase a community vote.
A tax-credit deadline does not replace environmental review.
A funding award does not answer water, safety, wildlife, Superfund, or liability questions.
And a project split across funding sources should not be split apart so completely that no agency, council, or community member can see the whole thing.

Despite months of public discussion, agency outreach, document review, and direct questions to KCEC, several major issues remain unresolved.

Community consent

• Will KCEC continue pursuing the project despite approximately 1,400 petition signatures and the Village Council’s 3–1 vote to remove the proposed Village solar array from the ICIP?

• Will KCEC hold a member vote or another formal process to measure community consent?

Safety and emergency response

• Has a final fire-protection and emergency-response plan been completed and approved?

• Where are Alta Vista Elementary School, nearby homes, and evacuation routes in relation to BakerRisk’s modeled impact contours?

Water

• When will KCEC release the full Phase One report, pumping data, drawdown analysis, and water-right documentation?

• Can POD 18 serve both Superfund dust control and hydrogen production during drought?

Wildlife, wetlands, and rare plants

• Were complete biological and rare-plant surveys performed across the full disturbance footprint at the proper time of year?

• Were state and federal agency recommendations incorporated into the final design?

Superfund and soil

• What documents did EPA rely upon in concluding that construction should not affect the remedy?

• Has the full solar-array footprint been independently tested for contamination?

County permits and construction

• What permits and approvals have actually been issued?

• Has any site work begun before all required approvals were complete?

Funding, ownership, and liability

• What must KCEC do by July 4, 2026 to preserve the solar tax credit?

• Who receives the financial benefit, and who carries the liability if the hydrogen facility is delayed, abandoned, or transferred to the Village?

Accountability

KCEC describes itself as a member-owned cooperative. The central question is whether a cooperative should move forward with a major industrial project while substantial community opposition, legal questions, and safety concerns remain unresolved.

A cooperative should not treat the community it serves as an obstacle to overcome.

LEGAL UPDATE: Complaint Filed

A federal lawsuit has been filed challenging USDA Rural Utilities Service’s approval of the Questa Green Hydrogen Project.

The complaint argues that USDA’s environmental review did not fully evaluate the project’s impacts before issuing its Finding of No Significant Impact. The lawsuit raises concerns about the connected solar array being excluded from the environmental analysis, groundwater impacts from POD 18 pumping, Superfund-site risks, lease and site-control issues, hydrogen safety, and the need for lawful review before the project moves forward.

This lawsuit is not an attack on renewable energy or economic development. The concern is that clean-energy projects should be built the right way: with lawful environmental review, protection for water resources, meaningful public participation, and full transparency.

Goal: require a lawful environmental review before the project moves forward.

Read La Jicarita’s Lawsuit Summary

Help Fund the Community Response

Residents have already given an enormous amount of time, research, and energy to understanding this project and bringing unanswered questions into the public record. Now that legal action has been filed, the community continues to need support for legal, technical, public-records, and outreach work.

Funds raised will help cover:

• Legal consultation, research, and case-related support

• Independent soil sampling and laboratory costs

• Technical and environmental review

• Newspaper advertisements and public notices

• Flyers, printing, signs, and community outreach

• Public-records costs and document review

• Other expenses connected to protecting Questa’s water, land, health, and future

This work is being led by local residents who believe decisions of this scale should not move forward without complete information, meaningful public participation, and clear protections for our water, land, health, and community.

Every contribution — large or small — helps us continue asking the necessary questions and pursuing real accountability.

Scan the QR code at the bottom of the page or click HERE to donate to the Protect Questa fundraiser.

Ways Residents Can Help

Community participation matters SO much! Residents can help by:

• Attending public meetings, especially Questa Village Council meetings, and asking that concerns be entered into the record

• Writing letters to agencies, elected officials, and decision-makers

• Sharing relevant documents, emails, recordings, maps, photographs, or meeting notes

• Helping research permits, public records, funding agreements, and agency decisions

• Documenting site clearing, grading, fencing, equipment delivery, dust, runoff, or other activity

• Supporting independent soil, water, wildlife, safety, and legal review

• Contributing funds, technical expertise, research help, or volunteer time

Sample letters and contact information are provided at the bottom of this website.

Sign the Petition

A countywide petition is asking local governments and KCEC to slow the proposed hydrogen project until the public has received fuller environmental review, broader water analysis, meaningful public input, and clear information about the risks and economic benefits.

Sign the Taos County Hydrogen Petition

Connect With Questa Watershed Protectors

Residents have contacted agencies, reviewed project documents, gathered approximately 1,500 petition signatures, and brought concerns before local officials.

The Questa Village Council also voted 3–1 in June to remove the proposed Village of Questa Solar Array from its 2028–2032 Infrastructure Capital Improvement Plan.

To stay connected with daily updates and community discussion, join Questa Watershed Protectors on Facebook.

Join the Questa Watershed Protectors Facebook Group

Public-Records Action Is Underway

Public-records requests are being used to gather documents related to the project’s permits, approvals, funding, environmental review, construction activity, and agency communications.

On June 18, 2026, an Inspection of Public Records Act request was submitted to Taos County seeking records concerning:

• Zoning, building, grading, utility, fencing, and development permits

• Site plans, engineering drawings, surveys, and maps

• County planning and land-use determinations

• Communications among Taos County, KCEC, the Village of Questa, Chevron, USDA, and project contractors

• Environmental-review and NEPA records

• Inspections, complaints, enforcement actions, and stop-work orders

• Whether construction began before all required approvals were issued

EPA has also been asked to identify the documents supporting its conclusion that construction in the Chevron–KCEC leased area should not affect the Superfund remedy.

Records received through these requests will be reviewed and added to this site when available.

Offer Help

Can you offer legal expertise, technical knowledge, documents, research assistance, financial support, or volunteer time?

Use the red form below to connect with the community effort.

If residents observe possible environmental concerns, unpermitted ground disturbance, dust, runoff, spills, unsafe work conditions, or other site-related problems, they can report them directly to the appropriate agencies.

Please report only what you actually observed. Include as much specific information as possible:

• Date and time

• Location or nearby landmarks

• What was observed

• Photos or video, if available

• Whether the concern involved dust, runoff, grading, equipment, worker safety, spills, drainage, erosion, or possible environmental disturbance

• Any visible company names, vehicles, signs, or equipment

Environmental concerns

Environmental concerns can be submitted to the New Mexico Environment Department using the Environmental Notification Reporting form.

Submit an environmental concern to NMED:
https://ents.web.env.nm.gov/public/INCIDENT_HDR_add.php

Photos can be attached after the first page of the form is submitted.

For environmental emergencies requiring immediate action, NMED directs people to call the 24-hour emergency line: 505-827-9329.

Worker-safety concerns

Worker-safety concerns can be reported to New Mexico OSHA through the New Mexico Environment Department Occupational Health and Safety Bureau.

Email New Mexico OSHA:
Complaints.OSHA@env.nm.gov

Worker-safety concerns can also be submitted through the federal OSHA online complaint form.

Federal OSHA online complaint form:
https://www.osha.gov/form/osha7

For fatalities or imminent life-threatening situations, do not use an online form or email. Federal OSHA directs people to call immediately: 1-800-321-OSHA (6742).

Letter to Village of Questa Mayor

Letter to Taos County Commissioners  

Letter to Request KC Board Member Contact Info 

Letter to NMED, EPA, and ATSDR 

Letter to EPA re water sampling reduction 

Letter to EPA and OSHA 

Letter to Congress Representatives 

Letter to Chevron 

Letter for Legislators 

This document library includes public records, technical reports, agency materials, site plans, lease documents, legal records, and community-submitted analyses related to the proposed Questa hydrogen/solar project and the Chevron Questa Mine Superfund Site. Documents are organized by topic so residents, agencies, reporters, and attorneys can review the records for themselves. 

EPA / Superfund Records 

Water, Groundwater, Geology, and POD 18 

Project Site Plans and Lease Documents 

Permits, Hearings, and Public Notices - (EPA Public Notice — Chevron Questa Mine Draft NPDES Permit No. NM0022306)

Government Resolutions and Public Support Records 

KCEC Cooperative Governance and Corporate Records 

Energy Feasibility, Wind, and Alternative Energy Records 

USDA RD / FONSI 

Community Analysis and Research Memos (Community analysis documents reflect the author’s interpretation of available records and project patterns. They are included for transparency and discussion, but should not be read as agency findings or confirmed project plans unless supported by primary-source documents)

Documents are posted for public transparency. Some records are agency documents, some are public-records productions, and some are community-prepared analyses. Each document should be read according to its source and context. This library will be updated as additional records are received.