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 and municipal 

Dear Mr. Carter: waste). 

In response to your request regarding the above cited 

matter, we here examine the following questions posed by you. 

1. Does Article 7 

i 

21b, 8 l(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, E 2-c, when correctly Interpreted, 

l:rovide that a determination by the Texas Water Commission to 

the effect that “the proposed drilling of such injection well 

and the 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 be used 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 1 and 2 above are in the affirmative 

that Article 7621b Includes all such wells regardless 

of the nature of the subsurface stratum, and that a determination by the Texas Water Commission in accordance with 8 2-C is 

binding on all State Agencies and others concerned), are prior 

permits which have been granted under Article 762Ib, $ 2-a wlthout a prior dete mlnatlon by the Texas Water Commission In 

accordance with !i 2-c void ab inltlo or otherwise made Invalid 

or vJldable by any party or State Agency and/or judicial body? 

4. If the reply to 3 above is In the affirmative (a) 

-862- 
Honorable Joe Carter, page 2 (c-176 ) 

what are the correct legal procedures available to the Water 

Commission by which 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 we must look to 

Article 602ga,Vernon’s Civil Statutes. In Attorney General 

Opinion No. ~~-1.465 Articles 602ga, and 7621b 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 a distinction Intended by the legislature as to when each 

act shall apply. 

Article 602ga was intended to apply to drilling and producing 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 make and 

enforce rules, regulations and orders in connection 

with the drilling of exploratory wells and wells for 

oil or gas or any purpose connected therewith; the 

production of oil or gas; and the 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 an oil or ga.s stratum, either by 

by gas Injection, water flood or liquified hydrocarbon sweeps. 

On the other hand, examination of Article 762lb shows 

that It was intended to cover problems of disposal of salt 

water or other waste produced along with the oil or gas. 

This act was Intended to establish a means whereby 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 and gas he recovered. 

This Is amply shown frcm th e caption of the act and In 

every applicable section of the act. The applicable part of 
Honorable 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. 

“I Industrial and municipal waste’ is any 

liquid, gaseous, s‘olid or other waste substance 

or a combination 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, we find the identical concept expressed. 

“Before any person shall commence the drilling 

of an Injection well, or before any person shall convert 

any~ existing well into an injection 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, a permit , . .‘I (Emphasis added.) 

Section 2-c covering the obtaining of a letter from the 

Water Commission in no way controverts this concept. 

“Any person applying to the &?ailroag Commission for 

a permit 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 an oil 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, we are of the 

opinion that Article 7621b, Section 1 (e) defining “Industrial 

and municipal waste,” and Section 1 (h) defining “injection 

well,” when correctly Interpreted, Include only those wells 

which are drilled or used for the purpose of disposal and do 

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

not Include an injection well where the purpose of such well 

is to increase production from an 011 or gas bearing stratum. 

We now turn to y~our second question regarding the lnterpretatlon of Article 7621b, Section 2-c, which states as follows: 

“Any person applying to the flallroag Commission 

for a permit to inject salt water or other waste arising 

out of or Incidental to the drilling for or the producing of oil or gas Into a subsurface stratum shall 

submit with such application 

water Commlsslon 

jection well an d 

a letter from the Board flexas 

stating that the drilling of such lnthe 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, we must construe the statute 

as a whole. 82 C. J.S. 691. It is obvious that the basic scheme 

of the statute Is to give the Railroad Commission control of 

011 field waste and the Water Commission control of all other 

industrial and municipal waste. Sections 2b and 2c of Article 

7621b provide that each agency, by letter, furnish the other 

with certain Information in order that the permit issuing 

agency will be In a better position to carry out its delegated 

authority. We do not believe that the Legislature Intended to 

give each agency a veto 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 a permit to 

Inject, the Railroad Commission for years has required that 

It be furnished with a letter from the Water Commission showing the depth as to which fresh water should be protected. 

It is quite proper to consider this history In construing the 

statute. 39 Tex. 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, and to provide a parallel 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 and the 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 and that the 

formation or strata to be used 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 by the Texas Water Commission is not binding on the 

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 on the Railroad Commission but merely advisory. 

Yours very truly, 

WAGGONER CARR 

Attorney General of Texas 

JT:sc 

APPROVED: 

OPINION COMMITTEE 

W. V. Geppert, Chairman 

Linward Shivers 

Milton Richardson 

Stanton Stone 

F. R. Booth 

APPROVED FOR TRE ATTORNEY GENERAL 

BY: Albert Jones 

-866-