To extend the temporary suspension of duty on Permethrin.

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.