Fort Worth is encouraging drillers to draw water from a line carrying reclaimed, non-drinkable water, Arlington is considering charging more for water destined for fracking wells, and Grand Prairie has quit selling water to oil and gas producers altogether:

Until conditions improve, drillers have not been allowed to buy municipal water for fracking wells and are required to request a permit or variance to buy water while the city works to keep its water usage below 45 million gallons a day. There is a concern that fracking usage could cause a drop in water pressure and the reserves needed for fire protection, Grand Prairie Public Works Director Ron McCuller said.

“We’re asking them to delay, and we’re restricting it as long as the water system is stressed,” McCuller said.

Instead of delaying fracking during the drought, companies can truck in water from other sources. But this month, Arlington cited Chesapeake Energy for trucking water it bought at one of its south Arlington well sites to a Grand Prairie well site, which is against city ordinance. Arlington is recommending the maximum $2,000 fine for the violation.

Arlington’s City Council is also considering upping the cost of water for its biggest commercial customers from $4.75 per 1,000 gallons up to $6. That would bring it in line with Arlington, which charges $6.02, and Grand Prairie’s $5.81 — almost twice what regular homeowners pay, the Star-Telegram reported.

“Most cities do charge a higher water rate, double or more, for gas drilling operations,” the Barnett Shale Energy Education Council’s Ed Ireland told the newspaper. “They are certainly paying their share or more.”

Grand Prairie’s director of public works told the Star-Telegram his city had decided to cut off sales to the natural gas industry out of concern for the fire protection reserves and water pressure.

Grand Prairie has also restricted “non-essential” water use like filling up swimming pools to help manage during the drought.

While fracking a well requires 3 to 5 million gallons in the Barnett Shale, Ireland stressed it’s a small fraction of the total water use, compared to other comercial water users nearby.

But the story quotes Arlington residents who are concerned about the amount of water hydrofracking removes from the active water cycle — only about 20 percent of water from frack wells comes back up, and most is later injected into separate disposal wells, not recycled.

As the Texas Independent has reported, the combination of the drought and the industry’s growth has created challenges for managers of rural groundwater districts, where much industry use is exempt from regulation.

Three counties have fought to opt out of a fingerprint-sharing program. (San Diego Union-Tribune/ZUMApress.com)

Immigration and Customs Enforcement official David Venturella started off a meeting with San Francisco law enforcement leaders on Tuesday with an apology. ICE, he admitted, had given conflicting information about Secure Communities, a program that shares fingerprints taken for criminal background checks with federal immigration enforcement, and whether counties like San Francisco could opt out.

[Immigration1] The meeting was one of three held in the past week — with officials from Arlington, Va., on Nov. 5, and from Santa Clara, Calif., later on Tuesday — between ICE and communities that had voted to be removed from the program, claiming it could harm public safety and lead to fear of police among immigrants.

In all three, the message was the same: Venturella, the assistant director of Secure Communities, acknowledged there had been reports from ICE that the program was optional and that such meetings were the first step in opting out. But the counties could not withhold information from federal immigration authorities, he informed them.

“They flew all the way here just to basically say, ‘We’re going back on our word,’” said Angela Chan, an attorney with the Asian Law Caucus who was briefed after the meeting Tuesday. “The whole entire thing is kind of a puppet show.”

The message on Secure Communities and whether or not counties could be removed from the program has changed multiple times in the last six months, as local officials in Arlington, San Francisco and Santa Clara sought to determine how they could opt out of sending fingerprints to immigration enforcement. Now, even after ICE held meetings with the three counties confirming that opting out is impossible, a coalition of civil rights groups is fighting to get more information on the program and how communities can avoid joining it.

The key, according to activists, will be a Dec. 6 hearing on an injunction filed against the Department of Homeland Security last month by the National Day Laborer Organization Network, the Center for Constitutional Rights and the Immigration Justice Clinic of the Cardozo School of Law. A court in New York will decide whether Homeland Security officials have to hand over documents demanded by the groups in February related to opting out.

With those documents, critics of the program hope to be able to prove what Venturella alluded to at the beginning of the San Francisco meeting: The agency has been misleading the public — albeit perhaps unintentionally — about how Secure Communities works and what it requires from local police forces that would rather not share fingerprints with immigration officials.

“What their public definition of ‘opting out’ is has changed based on what they think they can get away with,” Chan said.

Officials in 34 states have signed memorandums of understanding to participate in the program, which so far is voluntary at the state level. (Some governors, such as Democrats Deval Patrick in Massachusetts and Bill Ritter in Colorado, have delayed requests to sign into Secure Communities, while other states are slated to join the program in the next few years.) There was indication from ICE officials this summer that local participation was also optional, even in states where governors had agreed to participate.

“No jurisdiction will be activated if they oppose it,” Dan Cadman, an ICE regional coordinator for the program, wrote in a July 23 email to the New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services. “There is no ambiguity on that point. We get it.”

On Aug. 17, ICE released a report called “Setting the Record Straight” that laid out specific steps for counties that wanted to opt out of Secure Communities. The steps were later reiterated in letters by Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano and an assistant attorney general.

But a sudden message shift on Secure Communities occurred in the beginning of October. Immigration officials began to say opting out was impossible. “We don’t consider Secure Communities an opt in/opt out program,” Napolitano said on Oct. 6. By Oct. 20, the report called “Setting the Record Straight” went missing from ICE’s website.

The options presented to Arlington, San Francisco and Santa Clara were far from what the counties expected when they voted to opt out. In a memo to Arlington County board members after her Nov. 5 meeting with ICE, County Manager Barbara Donellan clarified ICE’s definition of opting out of Secure Communities.

“All jurisdictions have the option of not receiving the results of ICE’s database inquiries. (This option is what ICE officials were referring to as the ‘opt out,’ for localities, and they acknowledged the confusion these statements have created),” she wrote.

For critics of the program, the new message that Secure Communities is mandatory is a major problem.

“If ICE for some reason decides not to follow through, I think we’re looking at possible massive deception,” Sarahi Uribe, lead organizer of an anti-Secure Communities coalition called the Uncover The Truth Campaign, told TWI in October.

But there is some hope for counties that don’t want to help immigration officials deport undocumented immigrants who are released without being charged with crimes. (In cases of domestic violence, for example, police sometimes arrest both parties until they can determine which person is the victim, a practice that has led to deportation proceedings for some abuse victims under Secure Communities.)

ICE officials said Tuesday that the holds they place on illegal immigrants detected under Secure Community are optional for local police — meaning law enforcement agencies could ignore detainer requests from ICE and release immigrants they do not charge with crimes, said Eileen Hirst, a spokeswoman for San Francisco Sheriff Mike Hennessey who was at the meeting Tuesday.

“That’s the silver lining,” Chan said. “At least he didn’t go back on his word on that.”

Today’s meeting in San Francisco proceeded much like a meeting in Arlington, Va., last week: An ICE official acknowledged misinformation surrounding the opt-out process for Secure Communities, but ultimately said counties cannot prevent fingerprints collected for criminal background checks from being shared with ICE for immigration enforcement.

The program runs up against San Francisco’s sanctuary ordinance, which forbids cooperation with ICE unless mandated by the courts or federal or state law. Sharing fingerprints, then, will still be mandatory, but San Francisco may be able to enact other changes, such as no longer holding illegal immigrants who are run through the Secure Communities system but not charged with a crime, Eileen Hirst, a spokeswoman from the San Francisco Sheriff’s office, said after the meeting.

Secure Communities director David Venturella reportedly said in the meeting that local law enforcement is not required to respond to requests by the agency to hold suspected illegal immigrants. These holds, called detainers, have been criticized for imposing costs on local police and netting too many non-criminal illegal immigrants who would otherwise be released.

Although Sheriff Michael Hennessy — a vocal critic of Secure Communities — has not yet reached a decision, Hirst said he could decide his department will no longer honor all of the detainers issued by ICE, meaning San Francisco would again let some known undocumented immigrants go free.

Still, the word from San Francisco officials that Secure Communities is mandatory is a blow to rights groups that say ICE deceived communities into thinking sharing fingerprints was optional. Advocacy groups seem unlikely to drop the issue. After Arlington’s county manager released a memo reporting the county could not opt out of Secure Communities after her Nov. 5 meeting with ICE, immigrant rights activists said they would continue to push for more information on the opt-out process.

Lucero Beebe-Giudice, a spokeswoman for Tenants and Workers United, told TWI yesterday that opponents of the program are awaiting the results of a Freedom of Information Act request to ICE on policy agreements, program communications and technology records. Immigrant rights groups hope to get information on whether it would be technologically possible to give fingerprints to the FBI for background checks without forwarding them to ICE — which would then allow communities like Arlington and San Francisco to make a new push to be removed from the program.

Santa Clara, Calif., the third community that requested an opt-out meeting, is holding a meeting on Secure Communities with ICE this afternoon.

But opponents of Secure Communities said they are not done pushing back against the program, which they say lessens overall safety by making immigrants fearful of police.

“We’re not giving up,” Lucero Beebe-Giudice, a spokeswoman for Tenants and Workers United, told TWI. “We continue to believe there’s a way to opt out. They’re trying to take the wind out of our sails, but we think that there’s a way to opt out.”

Tenants and Workers United is part of a larger coalition of immigrant rights groups that are fighting the spread of Secure Communities, which the Obama administration plans to extend nationwide by 2013. ICE officials listed steps for communities to be removed from the program, but later said opting out is impossible because fingerprints are shared directly between the FBI, which receives them for criminal background checks, and the Department of Homeland Security.

Immigrant rights groups are trying to get more information about the program, the technology that would be needed to filter out results sent to DHS and any policy changes that made the program mandatory. The groups submitted a Freedom of Information Act request in February, then filed again in October to receive documents related to the opt-out process.

Beebe-Giudice said Arlington would continue sending fingerprints to the FBI for criminal background checks even though they will be forwarded to ICE, but could change its actions on Secure Communities based on information that comes out of the FOIA request.

“The county is not going to stop doing whatever their regular process is,” she said. “But that doesn’t mean they’re not going to continue to pursue this issue.”

ICE officials previously laid out steps for opting out, which began with meetings like the one Arlington had with ICE representatives on Friday. But at the meeting, County Manager Barbara Donnellan said she was informed the county cannot be removed from Secure Communities because the state of Virginia agreed to participate in the program.

“ICE stated clearly — and with finality — that local activated communities do not have the option of withholding information from the program, although communities can opt not to learn the results of immigration queries,” Donnellan wrote in a memo to the county board after Friday’s meeting.

The county board voted unanimously in September to opt out of the program due to concerns about how it would impact trust in the police. Opponents of the program say it nets too many non-criminal illegal immigrants and deters undocumented people from reaching out to police if they are victims of or witnesses to crime.

Officials in San Francisco and Santa Clara, Calif., are also trying to move forward with removal from the program, but it seems unlikely they will have better luck. Their meetings with ICE will take place early this week.

It will be interesting to hear what happens, mostly because it’s unclear at this point whether it’s actually possible to opt out. Although ICE previously stated the program was voluntary — even posting documents explaining how communities could opt out that later disappeared – it is actually based on an agreement between the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security. ICE officials have confirmed that states agree to give fingerprints collected during arrests to the FBI for criminal background checks. The FBI then shares these prints with DHS to check for immigration status.

Despite being told that no opt-out is possible, several communities are going forward with the opt-out process laid out by ICE. The first step is a meeting with ICE and state representatives, which Arlington will begin today. San Francisco and Santa Clara, Calif., will meet with ICE officials early next week for similar meetings on Secure Communities.

Opponents of the program say it puts an unfair cost on local police and threatens immigrant trust in law enforcement. They argue ICE will have to find a way to make an opt-out possible, and have demanded information from ICE on how communities can be removed from the program.

Several cities have voted to opt out of Secure Communities, which runs fingerprints collected for criminal background checks through a Department of Homeland Security program to check their immigration status. In Washington, San Francisco, Santa Clara, Calif., and Arlington, Va., officials agreed they would go through steps to be removed from the program under a system laid out by ICE. Even after DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano confirmed on Oct. 6 that an opt-out process does not exist, officials in some cities said they planned to move ahead with an opt-out. Officials in Arlington, San Francisco and Santa Clara will meet with ICE in the next few weeks.

The injunction filed by National Day Laborer Organization Network, the Center for Constitutional Rights and the Immigration Justice Clinic of Cardozo Law would provide city officials with more information to deal with the process. The groups first filed a Freedom of Information Act request in February, but so far have not received some of the documents they requested about the opt-out process. They are now demanding that ICE hand over policy agreements, communications related to whether the program would be voluntary and records on how the FBI can filter the fingerprints to avoid sharing some with DHS, Hannah Weinstein of Cardozo Law told TWI.

“In spite of the widespread confusion about the opt-out process, ICE is moving full speed ahead, deploying S-Comm in cities and counties across the nation,” Bridget Kessler, a teaching fellow at Cardozo Law, said in a press release. “If information about opt-out is released years down the road, it will not do any good for local communities who need to understand the program and make decisions about it now.”

It could be nothing — ICE launched a new website today, and ICE spokeswoman Cori Bassett said it is possible the document was lost in the shuffle and will reappear later. Still, given the recent contention over Secure Communities, it is interesting that this document has gone missing while a number of others touting the program’s achievements remain in place.

For posterity, here is the section on opting out in the Aug. 17 memo called “Setting the Record Straight” (the old link is dead):

If a jurisdiction does not wish to activate on its scheduled date in the Secure Communities deployment plan, it must formally notify its state identification bureau and ICE in writing (email, letter or facsimile). Upon receipt of that information, ICE will request a meeting with federal partners, the jurisdiction, and the state to discuss any issues and come to a resolution, which may include adjusting the jurisdiction’s activation date in or removing the jurisdiction from the deployment plan.

What documents were worth transferring to the new site? “Benefits for Law Enforcement” is still linked, as is a memo called “National Sheriffs’ Association Resolution of Support.” “Success Stories” also appears to have been moved to the new website.

The blog Deportation Nation claimed yesterday that ICE added a new document called “What Others are Saying about Secure Communities” to its page on the program during the website redesign. The memo is dated June 2010. It features 11 testimonials — all positive — on the program from sheriffs, homeland security experts and politicians.

Not to imply that Secure Communities is universally unpopular; the program has been lauded for netting large numbers of illegal immigrants and allowing ICE to increase deportations. Still, it’s worth noting that it’s got some opposition: San Francisco Sheriff Mike Hennessey has pushed for his county to be removed from the program, and officials in Santa Clara, Calif., Arlington, Va., and Washington, D.C., have also attempted to opt out.

Note: Thanks to Kat Lucero, a journalism grad student at Georgetown University, for pointing this out.

But Santa Clara officials still don’t want to be involved and are looking for a Plan B, Renee Feltz reported at the Huffington Post today:

“I think some local governments are starting to feel painted into a corner to the point where we may have to make our own determination about who is worthy of being held for ICE and who is not,” said Anjali Bhargava, Deputy Counsel for Santa Clara County.

Bhargava is researching whether the county can ensure that “funds are only used to comply with requests by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement to the extent they are subject to reimbursement or required by law.” [...]

The county is also looking into ways to put limits on the fingerprints sent to the state’s database, which is monitored by ICE. This has been done in El Paso County, Texas, where the sheriff says he only shares fingerprints from Class B misdemeanors and above.

Depending on how ICE responds to its concerns, Santa Clara County may ultimately direct police not to spend county resources on detaining dropped or low-level charges, like speeding or a having a broken windshield.

These solutions would address two of the major charges levied against Secure Communities: that it costs too much and that it nets too many non-criminal illegal immigrants. Secure Communities has allowed ICE to dramatically increase its detention levels, but without adequate detention center space, local jails sometimes must hold suspected illegal immigrants even if they are not charged with a crime. ICE does not reimburse local police for holding illegal immigrants for the 48 hours they can placed on detainer before being picked up by federal agents.

Secure Communities also leads to deportation of a large number of illegal immigrants who have not been convicted of a crime, which immigrant rights advocates argue creates a fear of police and harms public safety.

Santa Clara officials will meet with ICE officials on Nov. 9 to discuss the county’s involvement in the program, but it seems unlikely they will be allowed to keep fingerprints they collect from being shared between the FBI and ICE. Still, Santa Clara leaders’ interest in continuing to push for removal aligns with the reporting I’ve done on the anti-Secure Communities movement after the revelation the program is mandatory: Officials in Arlington, Va., and San Francisco have also said they will not be deterred and plan to keep pushing for an opt-out.

Local governments in Arlington, Va., Santa Clara, Calif., San Francisco and Washington voted to remove their cities from the program. Although local communities have vowed to continue pushing for an opt-out option, confirmation that opting out is impossible has now come from the heads of the Department of Homeland Security and ICE.

Morton said ICE officials would still meet with local leaders to discuss Secure Communities, but they cannot remove themselves. This is a marked change from previous statements from the agency, which included instructions for opting out.

But since ICE actually receives fingerprints from the FBI — not directly from local authorities — the program will continue in states that have agreed to participate, Morton confirmed.

Critics argue that Secure Communities passes the costs of detaining illegal immigrants on to local communities, but Morton rejected this argument. “No one in the Department of Corrections, no one in Arlington County, no one in the other jurisdictions of Virginia is being asked to enforce federal immigration law,” he told the AP.