Print đź–¨

The House Committee on Natural Resources interim report to the 88th Legislature covers the Gulf Coast Protection District, infrastructure and flood mitigation, groundwater, and waters of the Untied States. For more information see the full report here.

Spotlight on Recommendations

Charge 1. Monitor the agencies and programs under the Committee’s jurisdiction and oversee the implementation of relevant legislation passed by the 87th Legislature, SB 1160.

  • The Legislature has given the Gulf Coast Protection District the tools they need to move forward and no statutory changes are necessary at this time.

Charge. Issues Regarding the Hidalgo County Water Improvement District

  • The Committee has ultimately determined that WCIDs still very much serve their intended purpose. While there may be issues at Hidalgo County Water Improvement District #3, they are not ones for which the Legislature is suited to specifically address.

Charge. Infrastructure and Flood Mitigation

  • Flood and stormwater infrastructure. The state’s new regional flood planning process will cease after the development of the first state flood plan in 2024 if we do not provide additional funding. TWDB received over $2.4 billion in applications for the Flood Infrastructure Fund (FIF), but the $793 million appropriated is now exhausted. Adding FIF funds would address flood and stormwater infrastructure deficiencies, reduce inequality, and reduce risks to the public.
  • Encourage local communities to adopt higher floodplain management regulations.
  • Water Availability Models (WAMs). Updating WAMs is important to accurately inform TCEQ’s water rights permitting and surface water availability decisions.
  • Water and Wastewater Infrastructure. New and additional funding is necessary to protect public health and reduce water loss. We need to increase principal investment in the State Water Infrastructure Fund and State Water Implementation Revenue Fund for Texas. Consider prioritizing utilities with above-average water loss.
  • Encourage water and wastewater utilities to establish rates that generate sufficient revenue to fund proactive infrastructure replacement (both pay-as-you-go and debt-financed) as well as management programs to track facility age and conducted planned replacements. This is critical given the age of many of the water and wastewater infrastructure systems in the state.
  • Encourage water and wastewater utilities to establish rates that generate sufficient revenue to fund system improvements, backup power systems, general repairs, and replacement work. This is critical given the age of many of the water and wastewater infrastructure systems in the state.
  • Update the statewide planning process to consider projected drought conditions rather than the “drought of record.”

Charge. Waters of the United States

  • The Committee agrees with the sentiment expressed by witnesses at the hearing, but recognizes the inability of the Texas Legislature to influence the matter. Accordingly, we urge our congressional delegation to intervene in a manner that brings regulatory clarity to the issue.

Charge. Groundwater

  • Require the GCD representatives in a GMA, using groundwater availability models, to adopt intermediate DFCs for each five-year period between adoption of the DFC and the DFC that is established 50 years in the future so that interim progress towards achievement of the DFC may be more easily assessed.
  • Require GCDs to include information in their district management plans that explains how the GCD is tracking achievement of DFCs and how the District has actually performed in achieving DFCs over the previous five-year period.
  • Require the GCD representatives in a GMA that has changed the DFCs for an aquifer from those adopted in the prior five-year cycle to include an explanation of why the DFC was changed in the explanatory report submitted to the TWDB.
  • Appropriate additional funding and full-time staff to the Texas Water Development Board to support state-of-the-art groundwater availability modeling, and to provide technical and financial support to groundwater conservation districts as they develop their DFCs.
  • In a manner similar to how financial assistance is currently provided to the regional water planning groups to carry out regional planning, provide direct financial assistance through the TWDB to the GCDs in each groundwater management area to assist with the joint planning costs related to considering DFC statutory criteria and preparing explanatory reports as mandated by the legislature.
  • Create and fund a grant program administered by the TWDB for GCDs to apply to develop local data and science that can support the DFC process and management of the resource.
  • Amend Section 36.108(c)(4), Water Code, to include an annual discussion between district representatives in the joint planning process of how and whether each district’s rules and its implementation and enforcement of the rules is achieving the DFCs, and to require a summary of the discussion to be included in the DFC explanatory report.
  • Require TWDB to calculate the modeled sustained groundwater pumping volumes for the aquifers in a GMA and provide them to GCDs to inform the DFC process (See HB 2851, 87th Regular Session).
  • To improve the TCEQ petition process in which an affected person can request a TCEQ inquiry about the actions or inactions of a particular GCD in complying with statutory requirements, including achievement of DFCs: o Allow the TCEQ or the review panel to seek technical assistance from the TWDB if needed;
    • Allow panel review members to be reimbursed from TCEQ for reasonable out-of-pocket costs incurred in serving on a review panel, including travel reimbursement, administrative costs such as photocopying, and similar out-of-pocket costs;
    • Require the TCEQ’s Office of Public Interest Counsel to provide legal advice to the review panel upon request from a panel member, and make clear that the Office of Public Interest 25 | P a g e Counsel has no other duties or obligations in such a petition for inquiry so as to avoid any conflicts of interest;
    • Clarify that a review panel is only an advisory body that can make recommendations to the TCEQ for the TCEQ itself to take action, and is therefore not a governmental body subject to Chapters 551 or 552, Government Code. Consistent with this change, consider reducing the number of panel members from five to three to make it easier for TCEQ to empanel a review panel. The number of panel members should not be reduced unless the statute is clarified to provide that review panels are not subject to Chapter 551, Government Code. Clarify also how notice shall be provided of any public meetings or public hearings of the review panel.
  • Clarify deadlines in Chapter 36 for updating a management plan and rules after adoption of a DFC consistent with Section 36.3011, Water Code.
  • Update and clarify the definition of “waste” in Chapter 36, Water Code, to reflect basic modern conservation and hydrogeology concepts, eliminate confusion regarding the meaning of certain components of the definition, and remove any obsolete references. Relatedly, reconcile the tension between and confusion regarding the definitions of “waste” and “use for a beneficial purpose” in Chapter 36, Water Code, by amending “use for a beneficial purpose” to incorporate the concept that use of groundwater should be non-wasteful and utilize reasonably efficient conservation practices. Also, add a definition of “conservation” to Chapter, 36, Water Code.
  • Incorporating some of the reasonableness, efficient practices, and economically necessary concepts set forth in the definition of “waste” under TCEQ’s Chapter 297 rules and the definitions of “conservation” and “beneficial use” set forth in Section 11.002, Water Code, into definitions for those terms in Chapter 36;
  • Deleting Section 36.001(8)(G), Water Code, which cross-references an outdated concept of waste for artesian wells in Subchapter F, Chapter 11, Water Code, and which unnecessarily weakens the definition of “waste”; and
  • Whether any of the other subsections of the definition of “waste” in Chapter 36, such as Section 36.001(8)(C), should be updated to reflect modern hydrogeological understanding and practices, or other changes in state law, such as water well drilling and completion regulations adopted by the Texas Department of Licensing and Regulation.
  • Amend Chapter 36, Water Code, to expressly authorize all GCDs in the state to adopt reasonable rules in light of local circumstances and considerations that promote conservation and efficiency in the use of groundwater in whole or in part for filling amenity ponds, and to consider the rules in taking action on an application for a water well.
  • Clarify in Section 11.042, Water Code, that TCEQ has express statutory authority to authorize bed and banks permits for discharge of groundwater into a watercourse prior to its beneficial use for subsequent diversion and beneficial use, but couple that authority with a mandate that TCEQ evaluate the losses of water associated with a proposed authorization, and approve, approve with special conditions, or deny the application based on a reasonableness standard to avoid waste and promote reasonably efficient conservation practices under the totality of the circumstances involved with the application.
  • In conjunction with the amendment to Section 11.042, Water Code, amend the definition of “waste” of groundwater in Section 36.108(8)(E), Water Code, to exclude from the definition groundwater 34 | P a g e that is discharged prior to its beneficial use into a watercourse under a bed and banks authorization for subsequent diversion and beneficial use that is approved by the TCEQ under Chapter 11, Water Code. However, couple the amendment with the amendment to Section 36.113(d)(6), Water Code, described below.
  • Amend Section 36.113(d)(6), Water Code, to grant express statutory authority to GCDs to consider whether and the extent to which an applicant will avoid waste and implement reasonably efficient water conservation measures in determining whether to grant, grant with special conditions, or deny an application for a permit, rather than simply considering whether the “applicant has agreed to avoid waste and achieve water conservation.”
  • Review the continued usefulness of each of the provisions of Subchapter F, Chapter 11, Water Code, or lack thereof, in light of the numerous groundwater management laws that have been enacted by the legislature since its or. Specifically consider the recommended amendments to Subchapter F that are set forth in the body of this report.