On June 17 the Texas Water Development Board (TWDB) published proposed rulemaking for 31 TAC including Chapter 363 relating to the State Water Implementation Fund for Texas (SWIFT) and the State Water Implementation Revenue Fund for Texas (SWIRFT). Consideration for publication of the proposed rulemaking in the Texas Register will be taken up by the TWDB during their June 26 agenda.
The rules provide for the use of funds in the SWIFT; establish standards for determining whether projects meet the criteria for rural political subdivisions, agricultural water conservation or water conservation and reuse; and specify the Board’s criteria for prioritization of projects.
Spotlight on Key Issues:
The proposed definition of “Agricultural water conservation” is defined by referring to the board’s existing Agricultural Water Conservation Program. Those types of projects covered by the Agricultural Water Conservation Program would be eligible for funding under the SWIFT/SWIRFT loan program if it were otherwise qualified, e.g. the project was a water management strategy in the state water plan.
The proposed rule would define “Reuse,” as the use of groundwater or surface water that has already been beneficially used because this is the definition used in the state water plan. See Water for Texas 2012, pages 170 and 249. This definition would include both direct reuse, where water that has been used once is treated and then reused, and indirect reuse where the once used water is treated, discharged to a surface water body or injected into an aquifer, and then retrieved at a later time.
The proposed rule would define “Rural,” as required by Texas Water Code §15.434(b)(1)(A), which is to use the definition found in Texas Water Code §15.992. The proposed rule uses that definition but further specifies that the board will use the most current data available from the U.S. Bureau of the Census or board-approved projections for the population figures.
The proposed rule would define “Water conservation,” consistent with the definition in the state’s best management practices guide for water conservation, first developed by the Water Conservation Implementation Task Force in 2004 and since updated and maintained by the Water Conservation Advisory Council established pursuant to Texas Water Code Chapter 10.
The preamble notes that Texas Water Code §15.434(b)(2) seems to draw a distinction between “water conservation,” and “reuse.” In light of this statutory language, the preamble specifically invites comments on whether the phrase “or increase the recycling and reuse of water,” should be deleted from the final definition of “water conservation.” The preamble notes that if this deletion was made, reuse projects would still count toward satisfying the requirements of the 20% of funds for water conservation and reuse.
Proposed §363.1303 (relating to the Prioritization System) provides a prioritization system required by Texas Water Code §15.437. The proposed prioritization system functions similar to the prioritization system for the current Water Infrastructure Fund of §363.1207, but dates and timing of SWIFT/SWIRFT applications will not be fixed by rule to give the board additional flexibility in the timing of when it will make funds available.
Proposed §363.1304 (relating to Prioritization Criteria) incorporates a priority criteria into the SWIFT/SWIRFT rules required by Texas Water Code §15.437. The proposed criteria provide for consideration of the various statutorily required factors, giving the most weight to those factors required by statute to receive the highest consideration. The proposed rules would implement the criteria for the local contribution to finance the project and the criteria related to federal funding for the project being used or sought by combining those two criteria into one category for obtaining points. In keeping with Texas Water Code §15.437(d)(6), the proposed rule has a proposed criteria relative to water conservation. While the proposed priority system does not have criteria for projects that serve rural political subdivisions, the executive administrator is of the opinion that many rural political subdivisions will be able to obtain points for the project meeting the needs of a high percentage of the water supply needs of the water users to be served.
The entire proposal can be found by visiting: http://www.twdb.texas.gov/board/2014/06/worksession/ws03.pdf
