A P-13 water well is a former oil or gas well converted for freshwater production through a process administered by the Railroad Commission of Texas (RRC). The arrangement can serve both the operator and the landowner: the operator avoids some of the expense of plugging the entire well, and the landowner obtains a comparatively inexpensive water source. But conversion does not eliminate the risks associated with the original wellbore. If casing, cement, or plugs fail, oil, gas, and saline water may enter freshwater formations or discharge at the surface. The landowner may then confront substantial plugging and remediation costs, with no clear assurance that a former operator or state agency will bear them.
The Texas House Energy Resources Committee will examine P-13 wells at its September 15, 2026 interim hearing. Its charge includes studying their environmental hazards, determining which state agency should have primary regulatory authority over them, and identifying funding mechanisms for plugging affected wells. That inquiry points to a possible subject of legislation in the 2027 session. It also brings attention to an existing concern for those who own, acquire, sell, develop, or finance Texas real estate.
P-13 wells take their name from the RRC’s “Application of Landowner to Condition an Abandoned Well for Fresh Water Production.” The process permits an abandoned oil or gas producer, including an unsuccessful exploratory well, to be conditioned for freshwater use.[1] The operator must properly plug the well through the base of usable quality water, leaving the upper wellbore available for the landowner to condition and equip.[2]
Those deeper plugs isolate protected water-bearing formations from underlying formations containing hydrocarbons or poor-quality water. The operator’s plugging duty ends only after the required plugging is complete, RRC has approved the conversion, and applicable groundwater conservation district registration or permitting requirements have been satisfied.[3]
The landowner, in turn, undertakes to complete the plugging when the freshwater well is abandoned.[4] The landowner also agrees to plug the well if RRC orders the work because the well threatens surrounding oil, gas, or freshwater strata. Form P-13 extends that undertaking to heirs, successors, and assignees and requires recording in the county records. A purchaser may therefore acquire a plugging obligation originating decades before its ownership, despite having played no part in the drilling or conversion.
The legal difficulty arises when the deeper portions of the converted well fail. Deteriorated casing, defective cement, or failed plugs may allow fluids to migrate into groundwater or, under sufficient pressure, reach the surface. Controlling the release can require specialized well control, plugging, and remediation far beyond the anticipated expense of abandoning the freshwater well. Three questions follow: which agency may require corrective action, who must perform the plugging, and who is liable for the resulting contamination?
Agency jurisdiction remains contested. RRC has treated certain converted wells as outside its oil and gas plugging jurisdiction, leaving landowners and groundwater conservation districts to seek other means of addressing the failure. Affected landowners and districts have challenged that interpretation, arguing that conversion does not extinguish the agency’s authority over hazards arising from wells originally drilled under its jurisdiction.
The distinction between abandoning the freshwater portion and repairing failed barriers installed by the oil and gas operator is central to that dispute. An undertaking to complete the plugging of a freshwater well does not necessarily resolve responsibility for failure of the original oilfield work. Nor does it conclusively allocate liability for the ensuing contamination. Yet uncertainty about ultimate responsibility offers little practical relief to an owner who must address an active discharge.
The Legislature has provided a limited means of funding corrective work. The House committee’s analysis of House Bill 4256 identified Lake Boehmer in Pecos County as an example of surface water contamination caused by leaking wells and cited the associated threats to groundwater and human and animal health. Enacted in 2023, the legislation added Subchapter E to Chapter 28 of the Texas Water Code, directing the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) to administer the Leaking Water Wells Grant Program.[5] Grants support permanent plugging through qualifying groundwater conservation districts, subject to geographic restrictions and requirements concerning the well’s condition and project eligibility. Individual landowners do not receive grants directly.
Public funding, however, does not settle legal responsibility. The enacted statute neither expressly resolves RRC’s jurisdiction over failed P-13 wells nor allocates liability for contamination among landowners and former operators. The program also provides no assurance that a particular well will receive funding or that assistance will cover site restoration, business interruption, property damage, or litigation. Even a fully funded plugging project may leave substantial expenses associated with contamination already present.
These limitations make P-13 wells a material consideration in environmental due diligence and the allocation of risk in Texas real estate transactions. A survey or environmental report identifying a “water well” may disclose little about its oilfield origins, the adequacy of the conversion work, or the obligations assumed by a predecessor. The inquiry should establish both what the well is and what ownership may require. Depending on the property’s history and the available evidence, relevant diligence may include:
- Obtaining the recorded Form P-13, RRC approval, plugging and cementing reports, completion information, and available well files.
- Confirming the well’s API number, original operator, drilling and conversion history, regulatory status, and plugging depth.
- Identifying the base of usable quality water and reviewing available information concerning casing, cement, plugs, corrosion, pressure, and mechanical integrity.
- Confirming applicable groundwater conservation district registration or permitting.
- Examining title records, surveys, easements, mineral leases, surface use agreements, and indemnities for obligations concerning the well and rights of access.
- Investigating indications of leakage or deterioration, including saline discharges, staining, gas migration, hydrogen sulfide, ponding, or groundwater impacts.
The findings should guide the transaction documents. Representations, indemnities, remediation obligations, access rights, escrows, insurance provisions, and closing conditions should reflect the identified conditions and the corrective work they may require. Plugging and contamination deserve separate consideration. An obligation to plug the well may leave responsibility for affected soil and groundwater unresolved unless the agreement addresses both. Potential grant assistance should be considered, but without assuming that public funds will satisfy either obligation.
The committee’s inquiry offers an opportunity to clarify agency authority, reconsider the allocation of plugging responsibility, and identify funding for failed conversions. An effective response will also need to distinguish the cost of stopping a discharge from the cost of addressing its consequences. Pending that clarification, owners and transaction parties should account for the ongoing risks of the original wellbore and the obligations that may accompany its acquisition.
Contact:
Jordan Rodriguez I 713.650.2655 I jrodriguez@winstead.com
Jordan Rodriguez brings deep expertise in navigating complex environmental and regulatory issues, offering strategic counsel to a diverse clientele, including public and private company clients, private equity firms, and government agencies. Jordan’s practice encompasses regulatory counseling, remedial issues, environmental litigation, and environmental transactional matters. In litigation, he has successfully defended and pursued high-stakes claims involving violations of state and federal environmental laws, property damage, natural resource disputes, and regulatory enforcement actions. He also has extensive experience advising clients on resolving environmental liabilities arising in transactions.
__________________________
[1] See Tex. Nat. Res. Code § 89.011(c); 16 Tex. Admin. Code § 3.14(a)(4).
[2] See Tex. Nat. Res. Code § 89.011(b); 16 Tex. Admin. Code § 3.14(a)(4)(A)(ii).
[3] See 16 Tex. Admin. Code § 3.14(a)(4)(B).
[4] See id. § 3.14(a)(4)(A)(i).
[5] Tex. Water Code § 28.104
