[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 23 (Wednesday, February 7, 2007)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E285]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




           INTRODUCTION OF ``MORE WATER AND MORE ENERGY ACT''

                                 ______
                                 

                            HON. MARK UDALL

                              of colorado

                    in the house of representatives

                      Wednesday, February 7, 2007

  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Madam Speaker, I am today again introducing 
legislation to facilitate the use of water produced in connection with 
development of energy resources for irrigation and other uses in ways 
that will not adversely affect water quality or the environment.
  The bill is similar to one I introduced in the 109th Congress (as 
H.R. 5011) that passed the House last year but on which the Senate did 
not complete legislative action. It is cosponsored by Representative 
Pearce of New Mexico, who is the ranking Republican member on the 
Natural Resources Committee's Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral 
Resources and also by Representative Edwards of Texas. I greatly 
appreciate their support.
  The bill's purpose is to help change an energy-industry problem into 
an opportunity, not just for oil and gas producers but for everyone 
else who would benefit from increased supplies of usable water.
  Especially in the arid west, that covers everyone--not least our 
hard-pressed ranchers and farmers.
  The focus of the bill is what's called ``produced water''--the 
underground water extracted in connection with development of energy 
sources like oil, natural gas or coalbed methane. It would do two 
things:
  First, it would direct Reclamation and the USGS to identify the 
obstacles to greater use of produced water and how those obstacles 
could be reduced or eliminated without adversely affecting water 
quality or the environment.
  Second, it would provide for federal help in building 3 pilot plants 
to demonstrate ways to treat produced water to make it suitable for 
irrigation or other uses, again without adversely affecting water 
quality or the environment.
  At least one of these pilot plants would be in Colorado, Utah, or 
Wyoming. At least one would be in one of the three States of New 
Mexico, Arizona or Nevada. And there would be at least one each in 
California and Texas. This is to assure that, together, the plants 
would demonstrate techniques applicable to a variety of geologic and 
other conditions.
  Under the bill, the federal government could pay up to half the cost 
of building each plant, but no more than $1 million for any one plant. 
No federal funds could be used for operating the plants.
  The bill's goal is reflected in its title--the ``More Water and More 
Energy Act of 2006.''
  The extent of its potential benefits was shown by the testimony of 
Mr. David Templet at a hearing on the similar bill of mine the House 
considered last year.
  Mr. Templet testified in support of that bill on behalf of the 
Domestic Petroleum Council and several other groups, including the 
Colorado Oil & Gas Association. He noted that produced water is the 
most abundant byproduct associated with the production of oil and gas, 
with about 18 billion barrels being generated by onshore wells in 1995.

  And he pointed out that if only an additional 1% of that total could 
be put to beneficial use, the result would be to make over 75 billion 
gallons annually available for use for irrigation or other agriculture, 
municipal purposes, or to benefit fish and wildlife.
  Now, remember that in the West we usually measure water by the acre-
foot--the amount that would cover an acre to the depth of one foot--and 
an acre-foot is about 32,8560 gallons, so an additional 75 billion 
gallons is more than 230,000 acre-feet--more water, indeed.
  And at the same time making produced water available for surface 
uses, instead of just reinjecting it into the subsurface, can help 
increase the production of oil and gas.
  At least year's hearing, this was illustrated by the testimony of Dr. 
David Stewart, a registered professional engineer from Colorado. He 
cited the example of an oil field in California from which an estimated 
additional 150 million barrels of oil could be recovered if water were 
removed from the subsurface reservoir. And he pointed out that where 
oil recovery is thermally enhanced, a reduced amount of underground 
water means less steam--and so less cost--is needed to recover the oil.
  The potential for having both more water and more energy is also 
illustrated by the example of a project near Wellington, Colorado, that 
treats produced water as a new water resource. An oil company is 
embarking on the project to increase oil production while a separate 
company will purchase the produced water to supplement existing 
supplies, eventually allowing the town of Wellington and other water 
users in the area to have increased water for drinking and other 
purposes.
  In view of its potential for leading to both ``more water'' and 
``more energy'' I was pleased but not surprised that last year the 
Administration, through the Interior Department, testified that it 
``agrees that the goals of the bill are commendable and the needs that 
could be addressed are real'' and that the roles the bill would assign 
to the Bureau of Reclamation and the USGS are consistent with the 
missions and expertise of those agencies.
  In view of all this, Madam Speaker, I submit that this bill--and its 
promise of helping provide our country with both more water and more 
energy--deserves the support of the House.
  For the benefit of our colleagues, here is a summary of the bill's 
provisions:

    Summary of Provisions of the ``More Water and More Energy Act''

       Section One--provides a short title (the ``More Water and 
     More Energy Act of 2007''), sets forth several findings 
     regarding the basis for the bill, and states the bill's 
     purpose: ``to facilitate the use of produced water for 
     irrigation and other purposes without adversely affecting 
     water quality or the environment, and to demonstrate ways to 
     accomplish that result.''
       Section Two--defines terms used in the bill.
       Section Three--requires the Interior Department (through 
     the Bureau of Reclamation and the U.S. Geological Survey) to 
     conduct a study to identify the technical, economic, 
     environmental, legal, and other obstacles to increasing the 
     extent to which water produced in connection with energy 
     development can be used for irrigation and other purposes 
     without adversely affecting water quality or the environment, 
     and legislative, administrative, and other actions that could 
     reduce or eliminate those obstacles. Results of the study are 
     to be reported to Congress within a year after enactment.
       Section Four--provides that within existing authorities and 
     subject to appropriation of funds, the Interior Department is 
     to provide financial assistance for development of facilities 
     to demonstrate the feasibility, effectiveness, and safety of 
     processes to increase use of produced water for irrigation, 
     municipal or industrial uses, or other purposes without 
     adversely affecting water quality or the environment. The 
     section specifies that assistance is to be provided for at 
     least one project in (1) Colorado, Utah, or Wyoming; (2) New 
     Mexico, Arizona, or Utah; (3) California; and (4) Texas. 
     Assistance to any facility cannot exceed $1 million and 
     cannot be used for operation or maintenance. The section 
     specifies that assistance under this bill can be in addition 
     to other federal assistance under other provisions of law.
       Section Five--requires the Interior Department to--(1) 
     consult with the Department of Energy, EPA, and appropriate 
     Governors and local officials; (2) review relevant 
     information developed in connection with other research; (2) 
     include as much of that information as Interior finds 
     advisable in the report required by section 1; (3) seek the 
     advice of people with relevant professional expertise and of 
     companies with relevant industrial experience; and (4) 
     solicit comments and suggestions from the public.
       Section Six--specifies that nothing in the bill is to be 
     construed as affecting--(1) the effect of any State law, or 
     any interstate authority or compact, regarding the use of 
     water or the regulation of water quantity or quality; or (2) 
     the applicability of any Federal law or regulation.
       Section Seven--authorizes appropriation of--(1) $1 million 
     for the study required by section 1; and (2) $5 million to 
     implement section 4.

                          ____________________