[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 47 (Monday, March 19, 2007)]
[House]
[Pages H2628-H2631]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                 MORE WATER AND MORE ENERGY ACT OF 2007

  Mr. GRIJALVA. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the 
bill (H.R. 902) to facilitate the use for irrigation and other purposes 
of water produced in connection with development of energy resources.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The text of the bill is as follows:

                                H.R. 902

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE, FINDINGS, AND PURPOSE.

       (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``More Water 
     and More Energy Act of 2007''.
       (b) Findings.--The Congress finds the following:
       (1) Development of energy resources, including oil, natural 
     gas, coalbed methane, and geothermal resources, frequently 
     results in bringing to the surface water extracted from 
     underground sources.
       (2) Some of this produced water is used for irrigation or 
     other purposes, but most of it is returned to the subsurface.
       (3) Reducing the amount of produced water returned to the 
     subsurface, and increasing the amount that is made available 
     for irrigation and other uses--
       (A) would augment water supplies;
       (B) could reduce the costs to energy developers for 
     disposing of such water; and
       (C) in some instances could increase the efficiency of 
     energy development activities.
       (4) It is in the national interest to remove or reduce 
     obstacles to use of produced water for irrigation or other 
     purposes in ways that will not adversely affect water quality 
     or the environment.
       (c) Purpose.--The purpose of this Act is 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.

     SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) Produced water.--The term ``produced water'' means 
     water from an underground source, that is brought to the 
     surface as part of the process of exploration for or 
     development of oil, natural gas, coalbed methane, or any 
     other substance to be used as an energy source.
       (2) Secretary.--The term ``the Secretary'' means the 
     Secretary of the Interior.
       (3) Upper basin states.--The term ``Upper Basin States'' 
     means the States of Colorado, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming.
       (4) Lower basin states.--The term ``Lower Basin States'' 
     means the States of Arizona, California, and Nevada.

     SEC. 3. IDENTIFICATION OF PROBLEMS AND SOLUTIONS.

       (a) Study.--The Secretary, acting through the Commissioner 
     of Reclamation and the Director of the United States 
     Geological Survey, shall conduct a study to identify--
       (1) the technical, economic, environmental, legal, and 
     other obstacles to increasing the extent to which produced 
     water can be used for irrigation and other purposes without 
     adversely affecting water quality or the environment; and
       (2) the legislative, administrative, and other actions that 
     could reduce or eliminate such obstacles.
       (b) Report.--Not later than one year after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall report to the 
     Committee on Resources of the House of Representatives and 
     the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources of the Senate 
     regarding the results of the study required by this section.

[[Page H2629]]

     SEC. 4. IMPLEMENTATION.

       (a) Grants.--Within existing authorities and subject to the 
     availability of funds appropriated for the purpose, the 
     Secretary shall provide financial assistance for the 
     development of facilities to demonstrate the feasibility, 
     effectiveness, and safety of processes to increase the extent 
     to which produced water may be recovered and made suitable 
     for use for irrigation, municipal or industrial uses, or 
     other purposes without adversely affecting water quality or 
     the environment.
       (b) Limitations.--Assistance under this section--
       (1) shall be provided for--
       (A) at least one project in one of the Upper Basin States 
     other than New Mexico;
       (B) at least one project in either New Mexico or one of the 
     Lower Basin States other than California;
       (C) at least one project in California; and
       (D) at least one project in Texas;
       (2) shall not exceed $1,000,000 for any project;
       (3) shall be used to pay not more than 50 percent of the 
     total cost of a project;
       (4) shall not be used for operation or maintenance of any 
     facility; and
       (5) may be in addition to assistance provided by the United 
     States pursuant to other provisions of law.

     SEC. 5. CONSULTATION, ADVICE, AND COMMENTS.

       In implementing this Act, including preparation of the 
     report required by section 3 and the establishment of 
     criteria to be used in connection with award of financial 
     assistance pursuant to section 4, the Secretary shall--
       (1) consult with the Secretary of Energy, the Administrator 
     of the Environmental Protection Agency, and appropriate 
     Governors and local officials;
       (2) review any relevant information developed in connection 
     with research carried out by others, including research 
     carried out pursuant to section 999 of Public Law 109-58, and 
     to the extent the Secretary considers advisable include such 
     information in the report required by section 3;
       (3) seek the advice of individuals with relevant 
     professional or academic expertise and of companies or 
     individuals with industrial experience, particularly 
     experience related to production of oil, natural gas, or 
     other energy resources, including geothermal resources; and
       (4) solicit comments and suggestions from the public.

     SEC. 6. RELATION TO OTHER LAWS.

       Nothing in this Act shall be construed as superseding, 
     modifying, abrogating, or limiting--
       (1) the effect of any State law or any interstate authority 
     or compact with regard to any use of water or the regulation 
     of water quantity or quality; or
       (2) the applicability or effect of any Federal law or 
     regulation.

     SEC. 7. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       There are authorized to be appropriated--
       (1) $1,000,000 to implement section 3; and
       (2) $5,000,000 to implement section 4.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. Grijalva) and the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Pearce) 
each will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.


                             General Leave

  Mr. GRIJALVA. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and 
include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Arizona?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Speaker, I would like to commend our colleague, Representative 
Mark Udall, for his hard work on this issue.
  As many of us know, clean water is one of the most precious 
commodities in the West. The bill before us, H.R. 902, has a promise of 
providing more clean water to western communities.
  In oil and gas fields with thousands of producing wells, millions of 
gallons of so-called produced water will be brought to the surface 
along with oil or gas. To those who operate oil and gas wells, produced 
water is a waste product. In some cases, the produced water can be 
injected into the wells to force more oil to the surface. If the water 
quality is good enough, a well operator might be allowed to discharge 
the water down the nearest stream, but there may also be opportunities 
to treat the water and make it useful for irrigation or even domestic 
purposes. H.R. 902 authorizes a study of the opportunities and the 
obstacles to beneficial and environmentally safe use of this produced 
water.
  I again commend Mr. Udall for his hard work on this legislation. In 
the 109th Congress, the Subcommittee on Water and Power held a hearing 
on similar legislation. This legislation was subsequently passed by the 
House. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PEARCE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I am here to support H.R. 902 introduced by the gentleman from 
Colorado (Mr. Udall). I have cosponsored legislation authorizing the 
Department of the Interior to study the potential use of extracted 
water from oil and gas production for irrigation and other purposes.
  It will not surprise anyone in this Chamber that water is the most 
important resource in the West. Water is the lifeblood of the American 
West and the foundation of its economy. Yet it is also the scarcest 
resource in some of the fastest-growing areas of the country. But we 
can go beyond that and declare that water is the most strategic asset 
in the entire world. It may surprise some in this Chamber that the 
potential source of good-quality water lies just beneath the surface 
and is being wasted every day.
  During the process of oil and gas development, approximately 924 
billion gallons of water is extracted throughout the year, with most of 
that water being pumped back underground. Some significant share of 
that water is already being used for irrigation and livestock watering, 
but converting just 1 percent more of that total to additional 
beneficial use would yield over 75 billion gallons of more usable water 
for irrigation, ranching, fish and wildlife enhancement, stream 
augmentation or drinking water. The produced water that contains the 
lowest concentration of total dissolved solids, or TDS, less than 
10,000 parts per million, is found in the western United States where 
water is a critical resource.
  Often the largest hurdle to beneficial use of water produced from oil 
and gas production is finding the technology to accomplish water 
treatment in a cost-effective manner. Water treatment must compete with 
the lower-cost option of deep well injection. And while deep well 
injection is the most environmentally sound method of disposal, it 
forgoes the opportunity to use millions of gallons as a resource.
  Beneficial use of this water in these arid environments will be a 
win-win situation for the energy industry, water consumers, and oil and 
gas consumers. This legislation will facilitate the potential use of 
this abundant water for irrigation uses and other beneficial purposes. 
It could potentially help us find new water from what is now a 
virtually untapped water resource.
  I thank the gentleman from Colorado for introducing this legislation, 
and urge my colleagues to support the bill.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to 
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards).
  Mr. EDWARDS. Madam Speaker, let me begin by first thanking the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Grijalva) for his excellent explanation of 
what is in this bill. I will not repeat all of the details of this 
bill, but the bottom line of this legislation is that America needs 
energy, America needs clean energy, and America needs clean water.
  My district in central and north Texas basically is in the heart of 
one of the largest natural gas fields in American history, the Barnett 
Shale, and we are blessed to be in that situation where we are 
producing natural gas for not only Texas citizens, but families and 
businesses throughout the country.
  Natural gas is one of the cleanest forms of energy for this country 
to run our factories and to heat our homes. Because it is priced on a 
regional basis rather than on a world basis, every extra thousand cubic 
feet of natural gas we can produce is going to make America more 
competitive in the world market by bringing those prices down.
  This legislation is going to help us continue utilizing great natural 
resources such as the Barnett Shale by establishing pilot projects 
whereby we can learn how to more efficiently recycle the massive 
amounts of water that are used to, in effect, crack the shale,

[[Page H2630]]

divide the shale where this Barnett Shale field exists.
  It is estimated that one well alone can require 3\1/2\ to 5 million 
gallons of water to basically break up that shale so we can bring the 
natural gas to the surface and utilize it in our homes and businesses. 
Right now much of that water is either being injected back down into 
the earth or literally carted away at great expense to be disposed of 
at other sites.
  What a great benefit to the natural gas industry and families and 
businesses and communities all across America if we can recycle that 
water in an environmentally friendly way for the benefit of our farmers 
and ranchers, for the benefit of local communities that could use that 
water.
  Seldom do we see in this House and on this floor a bill that 
businesses, the oil and gas industry, and environmentalists can be 
behind. I commend the gentleman and his coauthor, the gentleman from 
Colorado (Mr. Udall), for having developed this legislation. It is nice 
to see bipartisanship on the floor of the House.
  This is good for America. It does what its title says, More Water, 
More Energy. That is what this bill is all about. That is why I 
enthusiastically support it.
  I want to thank the gentleman from Colorado for agreeing to my 
request to add Texas to the possible list of pilot sites for this 
project. Again, the home of the Barnett Shale in Texas is, I think, the 
largest producing gas field today. I think it is appropriate that Texas 
be included in this list of potential pilot projects. This is good 
legislation not just for Texans, it is good for America.
  I thank the gentleman and all of those involved who put this 
legislation together.
  Mr. PEARCE. Madam Speaker, many times people have asked exactly how 
does this work on the ground. For instance, in my home county of Lea 
County, New Mexico, we have the Ogallala Aquifer. We are right at the 
very edge of it. And in the 50 years we have been pumping out of the 
aquifer, we have used about 50 percent of the water that is available 
to us. There is no surface water available, only that aquifer water is 
available. We have used 50 percent of it, and it would take 1,900 years 
to recharge what has been used, and so we understand that we are on the 
downward slide for having water available to us.
  In Lea County, New Mexico, we produce over 150,000 barrels of water 
yearly, and that water is reinjected. If that water were available to 
be cleaned up, that water would be available for development, industry 
and jobs. It is a very important thing.
  The county right next is Eddy County. Water is produced there that is 
fresher than water in the Pecos River, and yet law and regulation 
requires the disposal of that water back down into salt zones. Everyone 
in the West understands that at some point we are going to go back and 
repump that water to the surface, this time for use as water. Right now 
it is free at the surface. It is a by-product of the oil and gas 
exploration, and yet we are required to put that water back down into 
wells, into the salt zones, where it is going to be very much harder to 
clean up the next time we use it.
  So this bill represents a great opportunity for us to take a step 
forward to benefit the industry in the West, to benefit the residents 
of the West, and to help lower the cost of production of oil and gas. 
It seems to be a win-win situation every way that we look at it.
  I compliment the gentleman from Texas and the gentleman from Colorado 
for introducing this legislation.
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado, Madam Speaker, I rise in support of my bill, 
H.R. 902, the ``More Water and More Energy Act, and to express my 
thanks to Chairman Rahall and Ranking Member Don Young of the Natural 
Resources Committee for making it possible for the House to consider it 
today.
  The bill's purpose is 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.
  It is similar to a bill I introduced in the 109th Congress 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.
  I think the bill may 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 useable water.
  Especially in the arid west, that covers everyone--not least our 
hard-pressed ranchers and farmers.
  The focus of the bill is 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 the Bureau of Reclamation and the USGS to 
identify the obstacles to greater use of produced water and the 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 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 percent 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 last 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. I had the opportunity to 
visit it just last week, and found it very interesting.
  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, and I urge its approval.
  Mr. PEARCE. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by

[[Page H2631]]

the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Grijalva) that the House suspend the 
rules and pass the bill, H.R. 902.
  The question was taken; and (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the 
rules were suspended and the bill was passed.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________