## THEATTORNEYGENE~RAL OFTEXAS

Honorable Joe Carter Opinion No. C-176 Chairman Texas Water Commission Re: Various questions concerning P. 0. Box 2311 the construction of Article Austin 11, Texas 7621b, Vernon’s Civil Statutes (injection wells for industrial andmunicipal Dear Mr. Carter: waste). In response to your request regarding the above cited matter, wehere examine the following questions posed byyou. 1. Does Article 7i21b, 8l(e) defining “Industrial and Municipal Waste, ” and l(h) defining “Injection Well,” when correctly Interpreted, include all wells which are drilled or used for the purpose of Injecting, transmitting, or disposing of oil field brines Into any subsurface strata or stratum, regardless of whether or not such strata or stratum is productive of oil or gas? 2. Does Article 7621b, E2-c, whencorrectly Interpreted, l:rovide that adetermination bythe Texas Water Commission to the effect that “the proposed drilling of such injection well andthe Injection of such salt water or other such waste into such subsurface stratum will endanger the fresh water strata in that area and that the formation or strata to beused 

### for such salt water or other waste disposal are fresh water sands,!’ is binding on all State Agencies and others concerned to the contents, scope and conclusions contained therein?
(i.e.:* If the replies to 1and 2above are in the affirmative

that Article 7621b Includes all such wells regardless of the nature of the subsurface stratum, andthat adetermination bythe Texas Water Commission in accordance with 8

### 2-C is binding onall State Agencies and others concerned), are prior permits which have been granted under Article 762Ib, $2-a wlthout aprior dete mlnatlon bythe Texas Water Commission In accordance with !i2-c void abinltlo or otherwise madeInvalid or vJldable byany party or State Agency and/or judicial body? 4. If the reply to 

## 3above is In the affirmative (a)



### -862-Honorable Joe Carter, page 2

## (c-176 )

what are the correct legal procedures available to the Water Commission bywhich it Mayo effect review of the void and/or voidable Injection operation permits concerned, and

### In the alternative, (b) what other legal procedures are available to effect review of the void and/or voidable permits if the Texas Water Commission is not authorized under the present statutes and law to effect such review? In order’ to answer your first question wemust look to Article 602ga,Vernon’s Civil Statutes. In Attorney General Opinion No. ~~-1.465 Articles 602ga, and7621b of Vernon’s Civil Statutes were construed to be in par1 materia and should be read together as constituting one body of law. Examination of Article 602ga and 7621b shows that there Is adistinction Intended bythe legislature as to wheneach act shall apply. Article 602ga wasintended to apply to drilling andproducing operations, the primary purpose of which Is the actual recovery of oil or gas. This is seen from the language used In the first paragraph of this Act;

“The Railroad Commission shall also makeand enforce rules, regulations and orders in connection with the drilling of exploratory wells andwells for oil or gas or anypurpose connected therewith; the production of oil or gas; andthe operation, abxonment and proper plugging of such wells D~.” (Emphasis added. ) This would Include not only operations governing primary recovery, but also secondary or tertiary operations for recovery of oil or gas from anoil or ga.sstratum, either by bygas Injection, water flood or liquified hydrocarbon sweeps. Onthe other hand, examination of Article 762lb shows that It wasintended to cover problems of disposal of salt water or other waste produced along with the oil or gas. This act wasIntended to establish ameanswhereby an oil operator could obtain authorization to drill or convert a well for the sole purpose of injecting the wastes produced along with the oil andgas he recovered. This Is amply shown frcm thecaption of the act andIn every applicable section of the act. Theapplicable part ofHonorable Joe Carter, page 

## 3(c-176 )

the caption reads:

“Designating the Railroad Commlsslon as the permit Issuing agency for all wells for the lnjection of waste arising out of the drilling for or the production of oil or gas.” Section I (e) defining waste corroborates the concept of Article 7621b as covering problems of disposal only.

“IIndustrial andmunicipal waste’ is any liquid, gaseous, s‘olid or other waste substance or acombination thereof resulting from any process of Industry, manufacturing, trade, or business or from the development or recovery of ane natural resource . . .” (Emphasis added.) Likewise, in Section 2-a govetig the obtaining of permits from the Railroad Commission under this act, wefind the identical concept expressed.

“Before anyperson shall commence the drilling of anInjection well, or before any person shall convert any~existing well into aninjection well, for the purpose of disposing of salt water or other waste arising out of or incidental to the drilling or the producing of 011

### or gas, apermit , . .‘I (Emphasis added.) Section 2-c covering the obtaining of aletter from the Water Commission in nowaycontroverts this concept.

“Any person applying to the &?ailroag Commission for apermit to inject salt water or other waste arising out of or incidental to the drilling or the producing of 011 or gas
. . .” It therefore becomes obvious that where the purpose of the injection well is to increase production from anoil or gas bearing stratum Article 6C2ga applies, and only where the purpose of the injection well Is the disposal of salt water or other waste resulting 

### from 011 or gas operations does Artic 7621b apply. le

In answer to your first question, therefore, weare of the opinion that Article 7621b, Section 1 (e) defining “Industrial andmunicipal waste,” and Section 1 (h) defining “injection well,” whencorrectly Interpreted, Include only those wells which are drilled or used for the purpose of disposal anddo

-864-Honorable Joe Carter, page 4 (c-176 )

not Include aninjection well where the purpose of such well is to increase production from an 011 or gas bearing stratum. Wenowturn to y~oursecond question regarding the lnterpretatlon of Article 7621b, Section 2-c, which states as follows:

“Any person applying to the flallroag Commission for apermit to inject salt water or other waste arising out of or Incidental to the drilling for or the producing of oil or gas Into asubsurface stratum shall submit with such application water Commlsslon jection well and aletter from the Board flexas stating that the drilling of such **ln** the Injection of such salt water or other such waste Into such subsurface stratum will not endanger the fresh water stratum

. . .‘I In construing this section, wemust construe the statute as awhole. 

## 82C.J.S. 691. It is obvious that the basic scheme of the statute Is to give the Railroad Commission control of 011 field waste andthe Water Commission control of all other industrial andmunicipal waste. Sections 2band2c of Article 7621b provide that each agency, byletter, furnish the other with certain Information in order that the permit issuing agency will be In abetter position to carry out its delegated authority. Wedonot believe that the Legislature Intended to give each agency aveto power over matters delegated to the other. The statute merely contemplates cooperation between the agencies In exchange of Information. Historically, the Railroad Commission has relied upon the Water Commission to advise it as to the depth of fresh water zones which should be protected. Before giving apermit to Inject, the Railroad Commission for years has required that It be furnished with aletter from the Water Commission showing the depth as to which fresh water should beprotected. It is quite proper to consider this history In construing the statute. 39Tex. Jur. 229, Statutes, Sec. 122. Reading the statute in the light of this background it seems clear that the legislature intended simply to codify a practice that has been followed with respect to disposal of oil field waste, andto provide aparallel system with respect to disposal of other industrial wastes. It is evident to us that the Water Commission Is expected simply to advise the Railroad Commission that the drilling of such Injection well andthe injection of such salt water or other such waste into such subsurface stratum will not en-

-865-Honorable Joe Carter, page 

## 5(c-176 ) danger the fresh water strata in that area andthat the formation or strata to beused for such salt water or other such waste disposal are not fresh water sands. In accordance with the 

### above reasoning, it is our opinion that under Article 7621b, Section 2-c the determination bythe Texas Water Commission is not binding onthe Railroad Commission but is merely advisory. The first and second questions being answered in the negative, it becomes unnecessary to answer your third and fourth questions. SUMMARY

Article 7621b applies only to those wells which are drilled or used for the purpose of disposal and does not include those wells the purpose of which is to increase production from an oil or gas bearing stratum. Under Section 2-c of Article 7621b the determination of the Texas Water Commission is not binding onthe Railroad Commission but merely advisory. Yours very truly, WAGGONER

CARR Attorney General of Texas

JT:sc APPROVED: OPINIONCOMMITTEE W.V. Geppert, Chairman Linward Shivers Milton Richardson Stanton Stone F. R. Booth APPROVED

FORTREATTORNEYGENERAL BY: Albert Jones



### -866-