Print 🖨

The committee met to discuss Watermaster programs, desalination programs, and river authority review.
 
Voted out of Committee Favorably
HB 908, Rep. Larry Phillips

  • Red River Boundary Compact does not redraw line so as not to cause net loss of property between “either state”
  • Voted favorably

 
HB 1235, Rep. Phil King

  • Authorizes Board of Directors of Wise County to call election to authorize incorporation of water districts
  • Voted favorably

 
Texas Watermaster Program
Steve Ramos, South Texas Watermaster Program, Informational

  • Several ways a Watermaster is created, TCEQ may appoint, court may appoint, by petition of 25 or more water right holders, or legislature may create as needed
  • 3 regions currently covered by Watermasters
  • Brazos should be covered beginning June 1, 2015
  • Watermaster program operates from field offices and continuously monitors stream flows and reservoir levels, allocates available water amongst water right holders, and reviews declarations of intent to divert and attempt to stop illegal diversion
  • Diverters must submit declarations of intent subject to review and continually report pumping, must also install meters and pay an annual fee based upon their proportional right
  • TCEQ also required to evaluate areas with no Watermaster to determine if a Watermaster should be appointed
  • Chair Jim Keffer – common issue is another level of government is being created and too much power is in one person’s hands, what is the system of checks and balances
    • Watermaster answers to TCEQ executive director
    • Watermasters are on the “frontlines” with water rights, may have deputies acting in their areas to answer water right holder’s comment
  • Keffer – How does your program deal with water rights disputes?
    • Responds to water rights holder comments and attempts to stem illegal use
  • Rep. Eddie Lucio III – Lives in Watermaster program area, “huge fan” of program
  • Rep. James Frank – Is the difference between a river with a Watermaster and a river without, is that difference pro-active versus reactive
    • TCEQ responds to complaints outside of Watermaster areas, regional offices investigate claims from areas lacking Watermasters
  • Frank – Does the Watermaster continually monitor usage
    • Watermaster typically respond to calls from water rights holders and utilize deputy agents to patrol and monitor usage, TCEQ regional offices
  • Keffer – what do you do to illegal diverters
    • Enforcement process, field citations, investigations, notify violators
    • Process through the TCEQ rules to take violations to executive director
  • Keffer – Brazos will have 4 river authorities?
    • Yes
  • Keffer – How are international water rights disputes handled
    • Lucio – Watermasters may keep track of and report what appear to be illegal diversions on Mexican side, 1994 water rights treaty commands 

HB 280 – Simmons, Relating to the information required to be posted by the Texas Water Development Board on the board's Internet website regarding the use of the state water implementation fund for Texas.

  • Texas Water Development board is required to post information to website, HB 280 is a transparency bill requiring more information to be posted
  • Require amount of bonds and terms on bonds, summary of bond enhancement agreement terms, repayment status on loans, description of investment portfolio, and describes point system for selecting projects
  • Does not release personal information or anything restricted under state law
  • Keffer – why would Senate not favor this?
    • Likely because it was not in the Senate bill originally, but not sure
  • Pending

 
HB 1088 – Marquez, Relating to the establishment of the Texas Technical Center for Innovative Desalination at The University of Texas at El Paso in partnership with The University of Texas at San Antonio.

  • HB 1088 is in response to information received in interim, given population increases it is important to discuss this issue
  • Texas Technical Center for Innovative Desalination, cost-efficient and environmentally sound desalination procedures, UT San Antonio and UT El Paso collaboration
  • Keffer – It is certainly time for desalination, glad Rep. Marquez is making this effort

 
Edmund Archuleta, UT El Paso, for HB 1088

  • Difficult to determine what the big problems in Texas are and how to address them
  • Desalination is not the only solution to the water problem, but it is a “silver bullet” for this program
  • Brackish groundwater, seawater and non-potable water sources may be processed to diversify the water portfolio
  • Desalination does not need to be large-scale, 11 stand alone wells currently have desalination devices in place
  • Not only talking about working with UT San Antonio, but also open to working with other water partners throughout state

 
Dr. Les Shepherd, UT San Antonio, for HB 1088

  • Water problems are the paramount problem from a science-based perspective
  • Collaboration with other organizations is crucial to combating  water challenges in Texas as well as anticipating future problems
  • Rep. Lyle Larson – Is there a third party working with your universities?
  • Not currently, but intent is to bring together many organizations

 
Rep. Marquez, closing

  • Keffer – “Great bill”
  • Pending

 
HB 1336 – Dennis Bonnen, Relating to fees of office for the Velasco Drainage District.

  • Current law limits reimbursement to board of directors to $7,200
  • Lifts Velasco supervisor limit to $12,000 annually
  • Velasco supervisors put “an enormous amount of time” into their Texas water program, $12,000 limit is still “pretty much volunteer service”
  • Keffer – Nobody from district came to speak?
  • Only has a resolution
  • Pending

 
HB 1221 – Lucio, Relating to seller's disclosures in connection with residential real property subject to groundwater regulation.

  • One of 7 consensus bills recommended in interim, result of collaboration from realtor associations and water districts
  • Provides notice of groundwater conservation districts (GCD) to buyer of real property in Texas
  • Legislature has constitutional duty to protect groundwater resources, GCDs are the chosen method to protect these resources
  • Keffer – What is the process today?
  • No requirement to disclose GCDs at all

 
Brian Sledge, Texas Water Conservation Association, resource

  • “No brainer” bill
  • Provides useful service to property owners who otherwise have no way of knowing

 
 
Charles Porter, Austin Board of Realtors, for HB 1221

  • Much of the litigation surrounding water rights disputes in Texas involves lack of notice given to property owners
  • 98 GCDs around Texas, general public usually do not know what they are
  • “It is time after 65 years” for the public to have better knowledge about GCDs, HB 1221 will easily fulfill need for public to know

 
HB 2031 – Lucio, Relating to the development and production of marine seawater desalination, integrated marine seawater desalination, and facilities for the storage, conveyance, and delivery of desalinated marine seawater.

  • Marine desalination, not much has been done to advance seawater research desalination in Texas since 2002
  • HB 2031 moves seawater desalination from research and investigation to actual production
  • Provides definitions for marine seawater and clarifies what, amends code to require TCEQ to issue permits through expedited process, provides for desalination for beneficial purposes without permitting, also requires water to be treated to the standard of the destination water source, sets out certain drinking water and non-potable uses standards

 
James Murphy, Executive Manager Water Resources Guadalupe-Blanco River Authority, for HB 2031

  • GBRA likely has more experience with seawater desalination than any other district
  • Major issue with seawater desalination is there is no legislative framework for desalination
  • Biggest problem of desalination is often the cost, good solution is to integrate with existing water sources
  • Though HB 2031 causes distress to environmentalist, GBRA believes that it can work with those concerns
  • Keffer – How does framework help allay investor concerns?
  • Will not answer all concerns, but will help, also acts as scaffolding to add legislation later
  • Blending of water sources is the best way to reduce cost

 
Stefan Schuster, MWH, for HB 2031

  • MWH is working with GBRA to produce an integrated power and water system
  • HB 2031 establishes seawater as a “limitless” source for water, provides good groundwork for future development
  • HB2031 establishes regulatory certainty with regards to water rights and treatment
  • Water Development Board should draft rules regarding production of potable water from seawater
  • HB 2031 desalination plan “drought-proof”
  • Larson – Tampa Bay, Florida and Poseidon in California, what is the cost differential between the two projects and is it dropping?
    • Cannot directly answer, but cost has dropped and can get information
  • Keffer – Another major factor is brine and concentrates, can technology adequately handle these?
    • Yes, research has shown the specifics as well as helped with ensuring environmental protection
  • Lucio – So the disposal is primarily salt, correct?
    • Yes
  • Lucio – Manufacturing organizations have expressed interest in the salt byproduct
    • Pilot projects exist in Texas
  • Larson – What is the timeline on getting desalination project started
    • 2020 groundbreaking
  • Larson – What is the anticipated volume?
    • 25 MG/D to 250 MG/D
  • Frank – HB 2031 calls the water source “limitless,” what is the “600 quadrillion” body of water?
    • Yes, that is the volume of the Gulf of Mexico

 
Ken Cramer, Lone Star Chapter of the Sierra Club, against HB 2031

  • Opposition is not to seawater desalination, agree that there needs to be a “responsible” framework for desalination
  • Important to have framework to have desalination to proceed where appropriate, but also allow for public and environmental concerns to be considered
  • HB 2031 as written does not seem to provide for this consideration
  • Purpose today is to say that “we would like to be involved” in the desalination legislation
  • Would like to see a robust permitting process, a recognition that there is a need to protect the productivity of Texas’ bays and estuaries and promote sea environments, and want to be sure water quality is protected so disposal and “bed and banks” provision must be scrutinized
  • Interested in working with author and committee, but cannot support HB 2031 as introduced
  • Sierra Club study of brackish water and seawater desalination exists
  • Keffer – Given Rep. Lucio’s background he is likely aware of environmental concerns, committee has been talking about these issues, hope Sierra Club will work with Rep. Lucio
  • Lucio – Procedural process for disposal and treatment is one of the big issues
  • Frank – It seems like HB 2031 is asking TCEQ to put a framework in place, unsure how HB 2031 would be modified to include framework
    • HB 2031 as introduced does provide for some standards, the bill contains some confusion
    • HB 2031 also seems to imply that TCEQ should freely issue permits without considering environmental or public concerns
    • One of the issues is what are the consequences of diversions, HB 2031 does not seem to address this
  • Frank – HB 2031 should also look at the impact on humans
  • Lucio – Tourism etc. strong industries for Texas, want to protect the Texas coast

 
Kyle Frazier, Executive Director of Texas Desalination Association, for HB 2031

  • ~97% of water is unusable without desalination
  • There are a number of brackish water treatment plants in Texas
  • Want to make HB 2031 more efficient, part of this is streamlining the permitting process
  • Have already streamlined the brackish water desalination permitting process some, looking to do the same for seawater desalination
  • No more need for pilot programs
  • Desalination will be expensive, regardless of whether source is seawater or brackish water
  • “Days of cheap water…are gone”
  • Israel switched to “almost complete” ocean desalination program, 95% of Israel’s water supply is desalinated, water conditions are much improved
  • Environmental considerations can be taken into account, but water “is there” and it is usable

 
Myron Hess, National Wildlife Federation, against HB 2031

  • “Basically” against HB 2031 for the same reasons as Ken Cramer
  • Should identify important safeguards and implement them, find locations that should be looked at more carefully, and important to move forward with “good projects”
  • In areas with little or no environmental impacts, make the process easy, in areas where there are adverse impacts, properly investigate and proceed carefully

 
Brian Sledge, STW Resources, for HB 2031

  • STW holds license for inexpensive seawater desalination process
  • Big issue for STW is the length of the surface water rights process, would like to have more efficient processes in place
  • Rep. DeWayne Burns – Do you think HB 2031 permitting requirements will slow the process down?
    • It will, but this is a new permitting process
    • Current HB 2031 process will be as slow as surface water rights process, however, TCEQ is understaffed and underfunded
    • STW process has “zero liquid discharge” so no environmental dead zones
    • Biggest hurdle is the permitting process, only people who win with surface water rights are water rights lawyers

 
Chloe Lieberneck, Nature Conservancy, on HB 2031

  • Message today is to express willingness and interest in engaging with seawater desalination regulatory process and legislation, including supporting coastal environment and economic concerns
  • Keffer- “That’s the spirit”

 
Todd Votteler, Blanco River Authority, for HB 2031

  • Considering new tree-ring study, evidence shows there have been “mega-droughts” that lasted longer than the current drought, seawater desalination could address this issue
  • NASA has said 80% chance of “mega-drought” affecting Texas region
  • Major reason to start the desalination process to meet such droughts

 
Rep. Lucio, closing

  • Keffer – “Good bill” looks forward to seeing it again”
  • HB 2031 pending

 
HB 1290 – Keffer, Relating to the sunset review of river authorities.

  • HB 1290 is a “change whose time has come,” aim is to provide direct overview for river authorities by citizens and legislature
  • Sunset review would provide a good avenue to investigate and ensure efficient and effective river authority operations
  • Each river authority is invested with broad powers without oversight, HB 1290 corrects this situation
  • Emphasis that this is “Sunset light,” HB 1290 prohibits the commission from abolishing the river authorities
  • However, still a demonstrable need for review
  • Not a “witch hunt,” not specifically targeting any specific river authority, do not want to harm bonding or financial processes
  • This is an evolving effort
  • Frank – Looking forward to moving forward with this, but what is the cost for the Sunset process, can we limit that?
  • One of the issues still out there, working with Sunset staff to produce a cost
  • Frank – There should be some accountability
  • Want to be fair to river authorities too, it is a cost to them so should be precise

 
Gregory Ellis, Bandera County River Authority, on HB 1290

  • Not opposed to transparency efforts, but do want to point out that BCRA is “very different” from the entities discussed by Keffer; does not hold water rights or reservoirs etc., concerned almost entirely with water quality in Medina and Saginaw rivers
  • 3 things different about BCRA: elected board, already subject to performance audit because it is a hybrid and groundwater conservation district, and subject to continued supervision of TCEQ through petition process which TCEQ can enforce through various means
  • Current fiscal reports suggest Sunset review would cost BCRA $90k on a $600k budget, tax supported
  • BCRA is also one of the first on the list, would need some time to put aside the money
  • Would like to see BCRA removed from HB 1290, if not would like to see if substitutes can be made for full Sunset review
  • Frank – Do you know why BCRA has an elected board?
    • Changed when groundwater conservation powers came into BCRA
  • Frank – Is geography where elections take place similar to where the authority is?
    • All elected in Bandera county from single member districts

 
Dean Robins, Texas Water Conservation Association, on HB 1290

  • No good general purpose definition of a river authority, river authorities are created by special acts of the legislatures, generally no taxing authority, operations are usually paid for through contractual agreements, most have existed for decades, and they evolve based largely upon the needs of their customers
  • Sometimes referred to as quasi-state agencies, sometimes agents of the state
  • Do not regulate surface water, but control large amounts of surface water through projects
  • 1985 legislature put river authorities under Sunset review, scheduled for review and audit process in 1991
  • Interim review led to repeal of Sunset legislation in 1989, but TCEQ was specified to have power of continuing review of river authorities
  • Rules required entities to have independent management audit every 5 years, or to have an auditor on staff
  • 2001, legislature created Texas Water Advisory Council which provided additional oversight of water authorities
  • 83rd session authorized LBB to periodically review river authorities
  • Request that whatever action is taken would avoid duplication of review, perhaps if management audit does not serve purpose then perhaps abolish
  • Request to also minimize cost, some entities have small staffs and tiny budgets
  • Keffer – What led up to interim study?
    • In 1985, river authorities were simultaneously put under Sunset review and audit, but repealed before any entities were actually reviewed under Sunset
  • Frank – “That’s my understanding”

 
Phil Wilson, General Manger of Lower Colorado River Authority, on HB 1290

  • Sunset process certainly a “potential tool” to achieve transparency
  • Other tools exist however, such as LBB periodic review passed last session and periodic audits, hearings may also be held at any time
  • LCRA does not oppose HB 1290, but important to realize costs and potential implications of Sunset review
  • Understands that provision against dissolution of river authorities is to help protect river authorities’ credit and bond making ability, but reviews could nonetheless have adverse economic effects
  • Anything that could produce uncertainty and, thus, higher capital costs is not a small consideration, particularly for larger provider like LCRA
  • State could meet transparency goals through existing legislative tools
  • Hope that all river authorities are “all in” and covered when HB 1290 moves forward
  • Keffer – How long have you been at LCRA?
    • 13 months
  • Keffer – Are complaints generally focused on water level in lakes?
    • We receive complaints and comments from “both sides,” big focus is electricity
    • Water is about 4% of LCRA revenue, drought conditions increase complaint volume
  • Keffer – Does it help at all when you explain what lakes were actually built for?
    • Thinks they understand, but not sure people feel “any better”
  • Burns – Your concern is that Sunset review would adversely affect the credit and bond market?
    • Yes, municipal debt market wants to know that market is certain
  • Frank – Do you know of a situation when Sunset has caused uncertainty and higher rates?
    • River authorities are different from state agencies, agencies are backed up behind state credit ratings and river authorities are not
    • Primary concern is not to send uncertain signals to marketplace
  • Frank – So State does not stand behind any of the debt?
    • No

 
Bill Peacock, Texas Public Policy Foundation, for HB 1290

  • Suggestion that authorities might also be reviewed for fiscal efficiency

 
Chair Keffer, closing

  • Appreciates the very serious nature of the conversation, will be talking with each river authority to ensure harm is not promulgated
  • Will make sure wording addresses financial issues, wonders if 1980s repeal of Sunset review was bond related
  • However, Texas evolves and it behooves legislature that Texas has the best information and “everybody rowing in the same direction” to ensure water is available in the future
  • Rep. Tracy King – Wants someone from Sunset Commission to testify

 
Ken Levine, Director of Sunset Commission Staff, resource

  • Tracy King – Notice that Sunset has requested 10 to 13 FTEs to conduct reviews, is that accurate
  • No, it is not, miscommunication between Sunset and LBB, should be 4 FTEs
  • Will be corrected in next iteration of bill
  • Tracy King – Given FTE number drop, was there also a miscommunication on the cost?
  • No, cost is determined on projected number of hours needed to conduct reviews
  • Tracy King – What was the cost estimate?
  • A little over $500k, under not considering travel expenses and benefits etc.
  • Tracy King – So a little under $130k per analyst?
  • “I wish,” number calculated on all costs involved, Supervisory personnel and administrative costs included, as well as LBB required multiplier for benefits, “about 29%”
  • Tracy King – Seems high for 4 analysts and related costs
  • Would be happy to go over it, same calculation used for anything legislature asks Sunset to do that is a departure from the norm
  • Frank – So you’re asking for an increase of 4 FTEs, what is your current staff?
  • 31 FTEs when fully staffed, currently 24 positions filled, loss of FTEs typical in Sunset process
  • Significant increase, would be happy to discuss details from river authority review that Sunset is familiar with
  • Not looking to make more money, but if Sunset is given more work they need the people to do it
  • HB 1290 pending

 
HB 1275 – Keffer, Relating to the audit of river authorities by the state auditor's office.

  • Another bill ensuring a thorough and consistent review of river authority operations
  • Creates a review process via the State Auditor’s Office
  • Hopefully can make this less burdensome, but this review is the legislature’s link to review of river authorities

 
Gregory Ellis, Bandera County River Authority, on HB 1275

  • Will not repeat testimony, but BCRA is already subject to this type of audit due to Groundwater Conservation District status

 
Dean Robins, Texas Water Conservation Association, on HB 1275

  • Keffer – You did bring up the 1985 review, do you know why that Sunset review is repealed
  • Once did, but it has been some time since

 
Chair Keffer, closing

  • Looking forward to working with entities to make this as streamlined and painless process as possible
  • HB 1275 pending