59–010 

Calendar No. 256 

110TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! SENATE 1st Session 110–122 

MORE WATER AND MORE ENERGY ACT OF 2007 

JUNE 28, 2007.—Ordered to be printed 

Mr. BINGAMAN, from the Committee on Energy and Natural 

Resources, submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

[To accompany H.R. 902] 

The Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, to which was 

referred the Act (H.R. 902) to facilitate the use for irrigation and 

other purposes of water produced in connection with development 

of energy resources, having considered the same, reports favorably 

thereon with an amendment and recommends that the Act, as 

amended, do pass. 

The amendment is as follows: 

Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert in lieu thereof 

the following: 

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE, FINDINGS, AND PURPOSE. 

(a) SHORT TITLE.—This Act may be cited as the ‘‘More Water, More Energy, and 

Less Waste Act of 2007’’. 

(b) FINDINGS.—The Congress finds that— 

(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 that produced water is used for irrigation or other purposes, but 

most of the water is returned to the subsurface or otherwise disposed of as 

waste; 

(3) reducing the quantity of produced water returned to the subsurface and 

increasing the quantity of produced water 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 the water; 

and 

(C) in some cases, could increase the efficiency of energy development activities; and 

(4) it is in the national interest 

(A) to limit the quantity of produced water disposed of as waste; 

(B) to optimize the production of energy resources; and 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPT
2 

(C) 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) PURPOSES.—The purposes of this Act are— (1) to optimize the production of energy resources— (A) by minimizing the quantity of produced water; and 

(B) by facilitating the use of produced water for irrigation and other purposes without adversely affecting water quality or the environment; and 

(2) to demonstrate means of accomplishing those results. 

SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS. 

In this Act: 

(1) LOWER BASIN STATE.—The term ‘‘Lower Basin State’’ means any of the 

States of—(A) Arizona; 

(B) California; and 

(C) Nevada. 

(2) 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— (A) oil; 

(B) natural gas; 

(C) coalbed methane; or 

(D) any other substance to be used as an energy source. 

(3) SECRETARY.—The term ‘‘Secretary’’ means the Secretary of the Interior. 

(4) UPPER BASIN STATE.—The term ‘‘Upper Basin State’’ means any of the 

States of—(A) Colorado; 

(B) New Mexico; 

(C) Utah; and 

(D) Wyoming. 

SEC. 3. IDENTIFICATION OF PROBLEMS AND SOLUTIONS. 

(a) STUDY.—The Secretary shall conduct a study to identify— (1) the technical, economic, environmental, and other obstacles to reducing 

the quantity of produced water; 

(2) 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; 

(3) the legislative, administrative, and other actions that could reduce or 

eliminate the obstacles identified in paragraphs (1) and (2); and 

(4) the costs and benefits associated with reducing or eliminating the obstacles identified in paragraphs (1) and (2). 

(b) REPORT.—Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, the 

Secretary shall submit to the Committee on Natural Resources of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources of the Senate a 

report describing the results of the study under subsection (a). 

SEC. 4. IMPLEMENTATION. 

(a) GRANTS.—Subject to the availability of appropriations, the Secretary shall provide financial assistance for the development of facilities, technologies, and processes to demonstrate the feasibility, effectiveness, and safety of— (1) optimizing energy resource production by reducing the quantity of produced water generated; or 

(2) increasing 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 1 project in each of the Upper Basin States; and 

(B) at least 1 project in at least 1 of the Lower Basin States; (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 the operation or maintenance of any facility; and 

(5) may be in addition to assistance provided by the Federal Government pursuant to other provisions of law. 

SEC. 5. CONSULTATION, ADVICE, AND COMMENTS. 

In carrying out this Act, including in preparing the report under section 3 (b) and 

establishing criteria to be used in connection with an award of financial assistance 

under section 4, the Secretary shall—


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPT
3 

(1) consult with the Secretary of Energy, the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, and appropriate Governors and local officials; 

(2)(A) review any relevant information developed in connection with research 

carried out by others, including research carried out pursuant to subtitle J of 

title IX of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (42 U.S.C. 16371 et seq.); and 

(B) to the extent the Secretary determines to be advisable, include that information in the report under section 3 (b); 

(3) seek the advice of—

(A) individuals with relevant professional or academic expertise; and 

(B) individuals or representatives of entities with industrial experience, 

particularly experience relating to production of oil, natural gas, coalbed 

methane, 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 supersedes, modifies, abrogates, or limits—

(1) the effect of any State law or any interstate authority or compact relating 

to—

(A) any use of water; or 

(B) the regulation of water quantity or quality; or 

(2) the applicability or effect of any Federal law (including regulations). 

SEC. 7. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS. 

There are authorized to be appropriated—

(1) $1,000,000 to carry out section 3; and 

(2) $7,500,000 to carry out section 4. 

PURPOSE

The purpose of H.R. 902 is to facilitate the use for irrigation and 

other purposes of water produced in connection with development 

of energy resources. 

BACKGROUND AND NEED

In 2002, 2.1 billion barrels of oil and 196 trillion cubic feet of natural gas were produced in the United States (API). These activities 

resulted in nearly 22 billion barrels of produced water (2.9 million 

acre-feet)—water that is brought to the surface with oil and gas as 

a byproduct of production. The most common method of disposal of 

the produced water is subsurface injection which is expensive and 

does not make use of a potentially valuable resource. 

Currently, there are technical, economic, environmental, and 

legal issues which need to be addressed before the use of produced 

water becomes an industry norm. The potential benefits, though, 

are significant. Adding a new water resource in the water-short 

Western United States can help address future projected water 

shortages in the region. The produced water that contains the lowest concentration of dissolved solids (less than 10,000 ppm) is found 

in the West. For example, energy operations in the Powder River 

basin in north-central Wyoming produce approximately 1.4 million 

barrels of relatively good quality water per day. 

Reducing the amount of produced water can also have significant 

benefits to the oil and gas industry. One estimate indicates that 

significantly reducing the volume injected into disposal wells can 

reduce the energy loss of operations by as much as 20 percent. 

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY

H.R. 902 was introduced on February 7, 2007 by Representative 

Mark Udall for himself, and Representatives Chet Edwards and 

Steve Pearce, and referred to the House Natural Resources Committee. Under suspension of the rules, H.R. 902 passed the House 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPT
4 

of Representatives on March 19, 2007. A similar measure, S. 1116 

was introduced by Senator Salazar for himself, and Senator Bingaman, Senator Domenici, and Senator Thomas on April 16, 2007, 

and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. 

The Subcommittee on Water and Power held a hearing on S. 1116 

and H.R. 902 on April 25, 2007. At its business meeting on May 

23, 2007, the Committee ordered H.R. 902 favorably reported, with 

an amendment in the nature of a substitute. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, in an 

open business session on May 23, 2007, by a unanimous voice vote 

of a quorum present, recommends that the Senate pass H.R. 902, 

if amended as described herein. 

COMMITTEE AMENDMENT

During the consideration of H.R. 902, the Committee adopted an 

amendment in the nature of a substitute to improve the bill. 

The first change modifies the purpose of the bill to make clear 

that it is intended to help optimize energy production. The second 

change directs the Director of the Bureau of Land Management to 

participate in the study required under section 3. The third change 

expands the scope of the study to include an analysis of obstacles 

to reducing the quantity of produced water, the means to reducing 

those obstacles, and the relative costs and benefits of doing so. The 

fourth change modifies the Secretary’s authority to provide grants 

to include projects to reduce the amount of produced water generated. The fifth change specifies that the Secretary shall provide 

grants to at least one project in each of the Upper Basin States and 

one project in the Lower Basin States. The final change increases 

the authorization for grants from $5,000,000 to $7,500,000. 

SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS

Section 1 provides the short title, findings, and purposes of the 

Act. 

Section 2 defines the terms used in the Act. 

Section 3(a) directs the Secretary to conduct a study to identify 

obstacles to reducing the quantity of produced water; obstacles to 

increasing the use of produced water; actions to minimize the identified obstacles; and costs and benefits associated with minimizing 

the identified obstacles. 

Section 3(b) directs the Secretary to submit to Congress a report 

on the study under subsection (a) not later than one year after the 

date of enactment. 

Section 4(a) directs the Secretary, subject to appropriations, to 

provide grants for the development of facilities, technologies, and 

processes to demonstrate the feasibility, effectiveness, and safety of 

projects to reduce the quantity of produced water generated or to 

recover, clean-up, and apply produced water to beneficial uses. 

Section 4(b) provides that grants under the program shall be subject to the conditions and limitations described. 

Section 5 requires the Secretary to consult with other Federal 

agencies, and with State, local, private entities, and the public at 

large as described. 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPT
5 

Section 6 disclaims that the Act supersedes, modifies, abrogates, 

or limits State law, Federal law, or any interstate compact or authority. 

Section 7 authorizes appropriations to carry out the Act. 

COST AND BUDGETARY CONSIDERATIONS

The following estimate of costs of this measure has been provided 

by the Congressional Budget Office: 

JUNE 7, 2007. 

Hon. JEFF BINGAMAN, 

Chairman, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, 

U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. 

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: The Congressional Budget Office has prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 902, the More Water, 

More Energy, and Less Waste Act of 2007. 

If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be pleased 

to provide them. The CBO staff contact are Tyler Kruzich and 

David Reynolds. 

Sincerely, 

PETER R. ORSZAG. 

Enclosure. 

H.R. 902—More Water, More Energy, and Less Waste Act of 2007 

Summary: H.R. 902 would authorize the Secretary of the Interior, acting through the Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) and the U.S. 

Geological Survey (USGS), to study the feasibility of using water 

produced during oil and gas exploration for irrigation. The act 

would authorize the Secretary to provide grants for projects that 

demonstrate such use. For these purposes, the act would authorize 

the appropriation of $8.5 million. 

Assuming appropriations of the authorized amounts, CBO estimates that the agencies would spend $1 million to conduct a feasibility study in 2008 and 2009, $3 million for demonstration project 

grants over the 2010–2012 period, and about $5 million after 2012. 

Enacting H.R. 902 would not affect revenues or direct spending. 

The legislation contains no private-sector or intergovernmental 

mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

(UMRA) and would impose no costs on state, local, or tribal governments. 

Estimated costs to the Federal Government: The estimated budgetary impact of H.R. 902 is shown in the following table. The costs 

of this legislation fall within budget function 300 (natural resources 

and environment). 

By fiscal year, in millions of dollars— 

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 

CHANGES IN SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION 

Estimated Authorization Level ...................................................................... 1 0 8 0 0 

Estimated Outlays ......................................................................................... * 1 1 1 1 

Note.—* = less than $500,000. 

Basis of estimate: For this estimate, CBO assumes that H.R. 902 

will be enacted before the end of 2007 and that the authorized 

amounts will be appropriated for each year. 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPT
6 

The act would require the USGS to study the feasibility of using 

water produced during oil and natural gas exploration for irrigation 

purposes. Based on information from USGS, CBO estimates that 

conducting the study would cost $1 million over the next two years. 

H.R. 902 also would authorize BOR to provide grants for demonstration projects. CBO expects that the disbursal of grants would 

commence in 2010 following the completion of the feasibility study. 

Based on information from BOR, CBO estimates that grants to the 

states would cost $3 million over the 2010–2012 period and an additional $5 million after 2012. 

Intergovernmental and private-sector impact: H.R. 902 contains 

no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined by 

UMRA and would impose no costs on the budgets of state, local, 

or tribal governments. 

Estimate prepared by: Federal Costs: Tyler Kruzich and David 

Reynolds; Impact on State, Local, and Tribal Governments: Lisa 

Ramirez-Branum; Impact on the Private Sector: Amy Petz. 

Estimate approved by: Peter H. Fontaine, Deputy Assistant Director for Budget Analysis. 

REGULATORY IMPACT EVALUATION

In compliance with paragraph 11(b) of rule XXVI of the Standing 

Rules of the Senate, the Committee makes the following evaluation 

of the regulatory impact which would be incurred in carrying out 

H.R. 902. The bill is not a regulatory measure in the sense of imposing Government-established standards or significant responsibilities on private individuals and business. 

No personal information would be collected in administering the 

program. Therefore, there would be no impact on personal privacy. 

Little, if any, additional paperwork would result from the enactment of H.R. 902. 

EXECUTIVE COMMUNICATIONS

The testimony provided by the Department of the Interior at the 

Subcommittee hearing on H.R. 902 and S. 1116, the Senate counterpart to H.R. 902, follows: 

STATEMENT OF ROBERT M. HIRSCH, ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR

FOR WATER, U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, I am 

Dr. Robert M. Hirsch, Associate Director for Water for the 

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). I thank you for the opportunity to provide the views of the Department of the Interior on H.R. 902, the ‘‘More Water and More Energy Act 

of 2007.’’

The Department agrees that the goals of the bill are 

commendable, but we have concerns regarding the availability of funding and the Administration’s priorities. In 

addition, the USGS and Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) currently have sufficient authority to carry out the 

types of activities authorized by H.R. 902. 

Water is the lifeblood of the American West and the 

foundation of its economy, yet it is also the scarcest reVerDate Aug 31 2005 05:36 Jun 30, 2007 Jkt 059010 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6969 E:\HR\OC\SR122.XXX SR122

hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPT
7 

source in some of the fastest growing areas of the country. 

Seeking to remove the obstacles to putting produced waters to beneficial use is important to our Nation’s energy 

and water future. 

H.R. 902 requires the Secretary of the Interior, acting 

through the Commissioner of Reclamation, and the Director of the USGS, to conduct a study to identify the technical, economic, environmental, legal, and other obstacles 

to increasing the extent to which produced water can be 

used for irrigation and other purposes; and the legislative, 

administrative, and other actions that could reduce or 

eliminate such obstacles. It further requires the Secretary, 

within existing authorities, and subject to the availability 

of funds, appropriated for the purpose, to provide financial 

assistance for at least four demonstration projects. The $4 

million authorized for demonstration project grants would 

be used to develop facilities to demonstrate the feasibility, 

effectiveness, and safety of the processes to increase the 

extent produced water may be used for irrigation and 

other purposes. 

BACKGROUND

Development of energy resources, such as oil, natural 

gas, and coalbed methane, produces water, sometimes in 

volumes that are difficult and costly to manage. Often the 

produced water is of such poor quality that subsurface disposal is an essential cost of production. Streams and 

aquifers can be contaminated by improper handling of produced water or the failure of disposal systems. The major 

concerns over produced water are potential impacts on 

soils, water, and the biota that depend on the soil and 

water. Where produced water quality is unsuitable for irrigation, industrial, or domestic uses, it can be disposed of 

by deep well injection, evaporation, or after appropriate 

treatment, percolation or discharge into surface water 

drainages. 

Prior to environmental regulations in the 1970s, produced waters, which are often highly saline (3,000 to more 

than 350,000 mg/L total dissolved solids) and may contain 

toxic metals, organic and inorganic components, and naturally occurring radioactive materials, were commonly discharged into streams, creeks, and unlined evaporation 

ponds, causing salt crusts and surface- and ground-water 

contamination. These past practices and current accidental 

releases of produced water are national issues that concern 

managers of Native American, Federal, and State lands, as 

well as oil and gas producers, mineral rights and lease 

owners, State and Federal regulators, and land owners. A 

growing concern is the potential use of land for farming, 

housing, or other uses where produced water from oil and 

gas production has left a legacy of undesirable environmental effects. Even produced waters of low salinity can 

lead to problems because application of such waters to the 

land for irrigation or ground water recharge can result in 

rapid leaching of the naturally occurring salts present in 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPT
8 

the soil and the unsaturated zone, leading to potential contamination of aquifers and streams. 

The USGS has an 80-year history of conducting scientific 

studies to evaluate and describe the long-term and shortterm effects of the disposal of produced water on soils, 

ground water, streams, and ecosystems. The USGS has 

also conducted numerous studies to describe the effects of 

produced-water salts on water and biota, techniques for 

detecting these effects, and techniques for remediation of 

soils and ground water. 

In 2002, the USGS released a national produced-water 

geochemistry database that describes the water quality of 

waters produced from conventional oil and gas fields. This 

database is an invaluable tool for coalbed methane development companies; land managers; Federal, State, and 

local water-quality officials; and the public. The information facilitates evaluation of issues pertaining to energy resource development and environmental quality, such as 

the need for anti-scaling additives, the design of water 

handling and treatment systems, and disposal and beneficial use options. 

The USGS and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service are 

studying the impacts on water quality and the landscape 

caused by waters associated with coalbed methane production in the Powder River Basin of Wyoming. This research 

is being conducted as part of the DOI Landscapes Initiative in collaboration with the Department of Energy, U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau of Land Management, 

and others. One component of that project is an examination of hydrology and geochemistry in the vicinity of a produced-water infiltration pond. Early findings are that 

slightly to moderately saline water infiltrating from the 

pond dissolved significant quantities of salts present in the 

soil and unsaturated zone, resulting in a significant increase in total dissolved solids. Although coalbed methane 

production in the Powder River Basin can provide ecological benefits by increasing stream flows and creating and 

enhancing wetlands, there are some concerns associated 

with the levels of contaminants in the Basin. Indeed, preliminary findings were dramatic enough to cause a State 

regulatory agency to order that disposal of produced water 

at the infiltration pond be stopped and the site be reclaimed. 

The USGS, in cooperation with the Osage Nation, Department of Energy, and U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, is investigating the effects of hydrocarbons and 

produced water (brines) on soil and ground and surface 

water at two sites adjacent to Skiatook Lake in the southeastern part of the Osage Reservation in northeastern 

Oklahoma. Results from this investigation will provide information needed by environmental officials, land managers, petroleum companies, and land owners to assess 

human and ecosystem impacts and to develop risk-based 

corrective actions to clean up contamination from produced 

water from oil and gas wells that are no longer active. 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPT
9 

Reclamation has extensive expertise and capabilities in 

water storage and delivery infrastructure planning and design. Reclamation works with the states, BLM, EPA and 

others in managing produced waters so that the quality of 

Western water supplies are not degraded by impaired produced waters. 

Pilot and demonstration projects like those described in 

this bill could help provide proof of concept from treatment 

to beneficial use in key basins where opportunities may 

exist for converting produced waters to beneficial uses. 

However, the feasibility and potential value of any demonstration project should be evaluated prior to making any 

commitments to conduct pilot and demonstration projects. 

Any such demonstration projects should be well coordinated at the federal, state, and local levels. Other federal 

agencies with whom Reclamation and USGS would coordinate such demonstration projects include BLM, EPA, and 

DOE’s National Energy Technology Lab (NETL). 

CONCERNS

The Department concurs with the goals of the bill to 

identify impediments to the beneficial use of produced waters. Understanding the opportunities and overcoming the 

challenges involved in converting produced waters to beneficial uses will help irrigators, farmers, energy producers, 

and State and Federal agency efforts to increase the development of western energy sources while protecting the 

quality of our streams and aquifers. 

Our concerns with the bill include funding for these activities. The study, report, and pilot activities required by 

this bill are not currently in the FY2007 operating plans 

for the USGS or BOR and the FY 2008 President’s Budget 

also does not fund these activities. The activities authorized in this bill should compete with other priority projects 

for funds. 

Additionally, language in Section 3 that directs the Secretary, acting through USGS and BOR, to conduct a study 

to identify the legal, legislative, and administrative obstacles to increasing the extent to which produced water can 

be used for irrigation and other purposes. It is not within 

the purview or expertise of the USGS or BOR to identify 

legal, legislative, or administrative obstacles. 

Another concern is that if the bill becomes law, the accomplishment of the study and report, as proposed in Section 3 of H.R. 902, should be subject to the availability of 

funds appropriated for that purpose, just as the projects 

proposed by section 4 are. We anticipate that such a study 

would focus on existing and potential new technologies for 

treating produced waters to make them suitable for beneficial uses and would also focus on existing and potential 

new hydrologic and geochemical models needed to predict 

the impacts of various management strategies on streams, 

aquifers, soils and biota. 

We wish to note that S. 1116, a companion bill to H.R. 

902 which was introduced on April 17, 2007, is very simiVerDate Aug 31 2005 05:36 Jun 30, 2007 Jkt 059010 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6969 E:\HR\OC\SR122.XXX SR122

hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPT
10 

lar to H.R. 902 and that the Administration would have 

the same concerns about S. 1116 that we have discussed 

with respect to H.R. 902. We have one other comment on 

S. 1116. Section 3(a) of the Senate bill includes the Bureau 

of Land Management (BLM) in the list of agencies within 

the Department of the Interior that are to carry out the 

study authorized in this bill. While Reclamation and USGS 

are working with the BLM to manage produced waters, a 

study of this nature would appropriately be carried out by 

Reclamation and USGS. BLM and other Interior agencies, 

including the Fish and Wildlife Service, would provide assistance as appropriate but should not be listed as leads on 

the study. 

Improved technology and collaboration are among the 

four key tools proposed as part of Water 2025, an initiative 

of the Department to meet the water-supply challenges of 

the future. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to 

present this testimony. I will be pleased to respond to 

questions you and other Members of the Subcommittee 

may have. 

CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW

In compliance with paragraph 12 of rule XXVI of the Standing 

Rules of the Senate, the Committee notes that no changes in existing law are made by the Act H.R. 902, as ordered reported. 

Æ 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPT