Print 🖨

The committee met to consider interim charges related to RESTORE Act funding, desalination, and water quality and infrastructure.
 
 
RESTORE Act
 
Toby Baker, Commissioner, Texas Commission on Environmental Quality

  • 3 main funding sources surrounding BP spill
    • Criminal penalties
      • National Fish and Wildlife Fund will send Texas over $200 million in total for projects developed in the state
    • Natural resource damage assessment
      • Texas will receive around $300 million through natural resource damage assessment only for ecosystem restoration
    • RESTORE funds
      • RESTORE funds go to ecosystem restoration, economic recovery and tourism promotion in the Gulf Coast
      • RESTORE fund will have around $5.5 billion total for all states
  • Texas will receive in total around $1 billion stemming from the BP oil spill
    • Federal oversight over all funds coming through RESTORE Act
  • RESTORE program has been rolled into the grant program existing at TCEQ to build a competitive process from which projects will be selected; grant money is provided through reimbursements
    • Money stays in the federal treasury until projects are selected and the funds are needed; only stays with the state for three days
  • Texas RESTORE Act Advisory Board developed to administer the program in the state
  • Funding is only available for projects on the coast; includes watersheds flowing into the coastal zone
  • Funds are distributed into five buckets that are available for different uses
  • Have created two centers of excellence
    • Texas A&M – to monitor the Gulf ecosystems
    • University of Houston – to develop methods for deep water oil production
  • Budget riders require
    • notifying LBB if any expenditure over $1 million is committed out of bucket 1
    • keeping the legislature apprised of all RESTORE Act activity in the state
  • Extensive public outreach programs have reached out across the gulf to take stakeholder input
  • BP will be paying into the fund for 15 years; Texas will receive funds every year but does not have to spend all of the money in the year it was made available
  • Chair Jim Keffer – would like to consider how this opportunity can be used to positively affect the long-term water supply of the state
    • Those types of projects are eligible for RESTORE funds

 
Chloe Lieberknecht, Nature Conservancy of Texas

  • Credited TCEQ and Commissioner Baker with positioning Texas very well to take full advantage of RESTORE funds
  • Have been very supportive of projects that have been funded thus far
  • Would like to use funds for long-term projects to benefit the ecosystem
  • Commitments from private sector will help Texas’ competitiveness for project selection
  • Discussed state agencies working together to leverage resources and keep this project running smoothly

 
Kyle Frazier, Texas Desalination Association

  • Recommended using RESTORE money to put together intake and output mechanisms for desalination plants
    • Would make projects more viable and would make the resulting desalinated water more cost effective
  • Would provide a drought proof, consistent source of water and would provide upstream benefits because less water is needed downstream
  • Rep. Eddie Lucio – marine desalination is generally considered to be about twice as expensive as other desalination methods
    • Infrastructure cost is a large part of the difference
  • Lucio – is there a way to determine the breakdown of costs of desalination to determine where funding can come from; the state could help with some aspects or incentivize activity in some way
    • Working to come up with cost estimates with some different options
  • Lucio – why is a regional project so beneficial
    • Spreads the cost, can achieve the scale needed to bring costs down, provides more buyers which means plants can be run at capacity also bringing price down
  • Lucio – it is important to develop some time of public/private partnership or other method to get technology moving now because the need is already there
    • Cost is a barrier; ratepayers do not want to see an increase but the price will only increase as the need increases; starting some educational programs to inform ratepayers and industry about the benefits of moving sooner than later
  • Keffer – technology will continue to improve and desalination needs to be seriously considered; more work is needed by the legislature

 
Desalination
 
Bech Bruun, Chair, Texas Water Development Board

  • Reservoirs statewide are currently 82% full; a record for this time of the year
  • Rep. James Frank – during the worst part of the drought where were reservoir levels
    • About 60%
  • The 2017 state water plan being developed now will be the most comprehensive state water plan ever produced
    • 2012 plan had 3,000 projects; the new plan has around 5,500 projects
    • 2012 cost was $55 billion; new plan is over $60 billion
  • Upcoming water plan includes 230,000 acre/feet of water production per year through desalination; about half brackish and half seawater
    • About $4-5 billion in costs
  • Building desalination capacity may need the help of the private sector but TWDB is ready to finance these types of projects

 
Robert Mace, TWDB

  • 2017 state water plan is expected to provide 230,000 acre/feet per year of desalinated water
    • 2.7% of new water supply connected up to water users
  • There is a 27% lower volume of brackish desalination in the 2017 plan than in the 2012 plan
    • 13% more seawater desalination
  • Projects from Corpus Christi, GBRA, SAWS, Brownsville and others
  • Rep. Lyle Larson – wants to ensure the water planning process takes into account the possibility of a severe drought in the near future; there needs to be a sense of urgency in any contingency plan built in; there was not that sense of urgency in 2011
    • Bruun – not set up to be regulatory in nature; cannot force projects to be built in certain regions; can only provide incentive
  • HB 30 directed TWDB to identify brackish groundwater production zones
    • Have executed contracts and are on pace to meet the December 2016 deadline

 
Guillermo Espiga, Poseidon Water

  • Discussed a seawater production project in Southern California
  • San Diego County decided to go after seawater desalination for a number of reasons
    • Benefits were that is was a locally sourced, drought-proof, consistent source of water
  • The county saw the benefits of diversification of their water supply
  • Built through a public/private partnership
    • 30 year water purchasing agreement
  • Have the ability to expand the plant and increase production
    • Currently making up 10% of the county’s water supply
  • Took advantage of existing infrastructure such as pipelines to bring the price down
  • Frank – are state subsidies needed for these types of projects
    • Depends on what the effect on water rates would be and what the ratepayers can bear
  • SWIFT funding combined with private funding can be very beneficial to these types of projects
  • Electricity costs makeup about 1/3 of the total cost and with the water purchase agreement this is a fixed charge
  • Based on experiences in California, could provide significant savings on desalination in Texas
  • Larson – this is what Texas is going to look like in the future; this will be the only way to move water up the I-35 corridor

 
Carlos Rubenstein, Senior Advisor, Poseidon Water

  • Creating a market for desalinated water will increase the amount of water facilities are able to make
  • Must be able to move water upstream efficiently; the Rio Grande is a good example of this ability
  • Proper valuation of water leads to conservation
  • Junior water rights provisions hinder the proper valuation of water
  • Larson – projections for desalination production in the future of Texas seem alarmingly low; population is growing so fast that desalination production needs to increase quickly
    • As desalination increasingly is considered a source of water for Texas production will increase; do not think the problem is with water planning
  • Larson – believe there needs to be a strategy for the infrastructure that will be needed to move this water to where it is needed
  • Rep. Tracy King – there weren’t many choices in California when this plant was created; Texas has more choices so the political reality is that cheaper options will be used first until the problem grows to a critical level

 
James Murphy, Guadalupe Blanco River Authority

  • Prior to last session, Texas lacked a way for agencies to value sources of water that have not been used before
    • HB 2031 (84R) changed this
  • HB 2031 recognized that the safest way to develop these projects would be to put the intake and discharge in the Gulf
  • Worked with a private company to develop an MOU to secure affordable energy; electricity costs are variable and at the high end make a desalination project unaffordable
  • No matter how much desalinated water costs, if it is only 10-15% of a water supply the cost will not be felt as much
  • The future of moving water is not through pipelines but through exchanges
  • There is no water market in Texas and Texas will not have one in a long time; a water market would put agriculture out of business because agriculture continues to decline but will continue to need upwards of 30% of the Texas water usage

 
Mark Ellison, Texas Desalination Association; IDE Technologies

  • Have built over 400 desalination plants around the world
    • One in Israel produces 165 million gallons per day
  • Partners with Poseidon on the Carlsbad California plant
  • Need to undertake an educational campaign
  • Need to do a better job talking about water blending and desalinated water as just a part of the water supply
  • Texas is becoming less of an ideal place for business site selectors because of the water issues

 
John Bruciak, CEO, Brownville Public Utility Board

  • BPUB began studying brackish groundwater in 1996 and only recently came online with the desalination plant in the last few years
  • Lucio – need to determine what needs to be done to get a truly regional desalination plan off the ground
  • Southwest Regional Water Authority desalination plant produces 7.5 million gallons per day which, if shopped for on the market in the form of water rights, would cost about $17 million
    • The plant cost just under $25 million to build
  • Developed the desalination plant through TWDB funding
  • Cities have to bite the bullet and make the decisions to have these backup water sources that are drought proof; in wet years the higher rates are not appreciated but in drought years people don’t complain as much

 
Phil Cook, Senior Project manager, Black and Veatch

  • This regional plan uses all available water to meet the needs but more water may still be needed.
  • There are a few viable options to get more water. Cycling water through a ground water treatment plant may be a viable. Sea water is the most unlimited source of water but also the most expensive. Some water resource options are time sensitive.
  • Infrastructure is not cheap.  This plan may cost a half a billion dollars a year for the next six decades. SWIFT funding helps lower that cost.
  • This project is going to take time. A couple years are needed for organization and to get contracts in place, a minimum of 3 more years is needed for designs.  There is too much to get done for this to be reactionary, this plan needs to be pro-active.
  • Reviewed options to meet the future LRGV water needs including privatization/p3 and regionalization through RGWA.
  • Suggests regionalization through RGWA. The RGWA recently created the infrastructure improvement Council for coordinating programs like this project.
  • Lucio – The Valley has categorized water rights and municipalities get water first. Irrigation districts are in charge of water distribution. More needs to be done to figure out the traditional structure of irrigation districts.
    • Irrigation districts purpose is to help out in situations like this one.
  • Next step is organization and action.
  • Lucio – the RGWA does not collect money so funding for this project has to come from an outside source.
    • Correct. That’s why the seed money is necessary for action to start.

 
Water Quality & Infrastructure
 
Trey Pebley, Associated General Contractors of Texas

  • Worked hard to see Prop 6 pass in 2013 to fund state water plan projects
  • The benefits of that have been seen already
  • Much of the infrastructure is aging in Texas and maintenance costs are high
  • Federal grant funds are helpful but EPA projects that $400-600 billion will be needed nationwide in the next ten years to maintain the goals of the water quality protection act
    • This is in addition to the estimated $62 billion in capital costs to provide enough safe drinking water across the state
  • Lucio – They are proposing a project that will strengthen real-time water quality monitoring capabilities for South Texas that currently do not exist
  • Supports fully funding federal and state assistance programs for building water infrastructure

 
L’Oreal Stepney, Texas Commission on Environmental Quality

  • In 1977, Texas received primacy to regulate drinking water quality.
  • TCEQ does not regulate private drinking wells but they do regulate nearly 7,000 public drinking systems in the state.
  • 102 regulations are in place from EPA standards. Texas runs compliance tests weekly. This ensures TCEQ and the public have the most up to date information.
  • 96% of Texas population is served by public water systems that have been certified.
  • There is an enforcement process for any system that does not meet standards.
  • Texas optimization program is a specific team that looks at how plants can be optimized to provide safest water. Staff has diverse background to ensure all angles are looked at. There is an emphasis on helping small systems.
  • There are 15 water systems in the state that have less than 180 day’s supply left. 1,000 systems have outdoor water restrictions, 100 systems that have come off the list and 23 are on the watch list, signaling they might have a drought problem.
  • Keffer – In light of Flint, is there any kind of failsafe system you have put in place?
    • We looked at our process and put in additional measures to look at systems that exceed action level for lead and copper. We track each step a system takes and if steps have not been met public notices are issued. Closely monitoring actions by EPA to ensure Texas is in line.
  • Keffer – Flint also thought systems were in place so we need to make sure we keep track of everything.

 
Linda Brookins, Director, Texas Commission on Environmental Quality

  • 96% of the Texas water supply is meeting standards while only 90% of the national water supply is meeting standards.
  • EPA has been looking to Texas’ disinfection in distribution lines and treatment process as an example for other states. Texas had drinking water rules before the Federal government, with a disinfectant process in place since 1937. This process helps prevent water born outbreaks.
  • Texas recognizes the use of chloramines.  In 1988 the use of chemicals and how to maintain them was adopted into the rules.  Now the TCEQ works on creating things such as nitrification action plans.
  • During the drought in Wichita Falls, fast and safe solutions were needed. TCEQ created a network of teams.
  • Frank – One of the challenges from the state standpoint is that the state is not required to provide water, the municipality is. So the TCEQ does a great job. And a lot of the time it takes them to get things done is waiting for the Federal government to respond.
  • TCEQ’s PH standard is stricter than the EPA’s.  During times of drought, water age becomes an issue. Long range pipes need updating to prevent aging. 
  • Lead is a soft metal that does not hold up well in warm climates. It was not used to create many pipes. However, the TCEQ still samples for lead following the EPA’s guidelines.
  • TCEQ hires a  3rd party to collect data from entry points so if there is a problem, within 24 hours the public will be notified and TCEQ will be working on it. Texas is the only state hiring a third party to test the water.
  • For arsenic 98.8% of that State is meeting standards. Only 68 small water systems in the state have issues with naturally occurring arsenic. We help them work to find funding.
  • Frank – Is there any appeal process with the Clean Water Act when the EPA changes standards?
    • It takes the EPA an average of 10-12 years researching a new rule and then send it out for state comments. They don’t always take the comments. We took primacy for each rule. If we don’t the EPA will have to come in and implement the rule.
  • Frank – We want you to take primacy but it’s not really primacy if it is their primacy. But, there are no exceptions for their rules?
    • No. We have to accept the rules as written.
  • Keffer – Going back to Flint, do we have enough checks and balances in our system to make sure Flint will not happen in Texas?
  • We have three-pronged approach. Federal rules, primacy agency and the public water systems all work together. The most important part is the operators; if they are not properly trained there is nothing we can do.  We just need to make sure they are trained.
  • Keffer – The oversight is so important. We have to make sure the overlap is there.

 
Celia Eaves, Environmental Service Director, Texas Rural Water Association 

  • TRWA provides online training for operators. Classes are vital for operators.
  • TRWA provides on sight assistance with everything from production to rates and budgeting.
  • TRWA has three full time field staff and four subcontractors. Staff ranges in experience, training and knowledge.
  • Federal programs through TRWA provide additional resources and seven full time staff.
  • Recently conducted 12 workshops for public water systems over new Federal standards.
  • Worked with Mooreville Water Supply Corporation when they experienced a decrease in water production in their well and detected a contaminant. During this process, the well went down. TRWA provided a consolidation assessment, reaching out to other suppliers to create a long term solution.  TRWA helped the supply corporation gain funding from Texas Water Development Board.
  • EJ Water Company, community water system with 270 customers. Experiences high levels of TTHM, a byproduct of using disinfectants. TRWA helped identify everything that could contribute to these levels and created a strategy to maintain disinfection and lower levels of TTHM.
  • Rep. DeWayne Burns – Did you find out what the contaminant was in the Mooreville well?
    • No the well collapsed before they were able to but they changed their supply point so it is no longer a problem.

 
Victor Trevino, General Manager, Olmito Water Supply Corporation

  • Olmito Water Supply Corporation is a private non-profit water supply corporation.
  • Olmito faced problems with treating water. Plant was in violation of TCEQ rules but lacked funds to renovate. Once money was made available the plant expanded treatment capacity.
  • Plant operator had a class B license and 25 years with the Plant but allowed inconsistent water quality and covered up major problems for years.
  • Another operator was hired and helped identify the problems. Old plant operator was suspended as an investigation began. The Board of Directors did not allow for old plant operator’s termination. TCEQ was brought in. However, the TCEQ’s licensing and operator overview team was not brought in until after the statute of limitations ran out.
  • The rules that are in place are adequate but need to be enforced.