Print 🖨

House Committee on Natural Resources met on March 12, 2019 to take up a number of bills. This report covers only HB 807 (Larson), HB 817(Tracy King), and HB 1617 (Larson),

This report is intended to give you an overview and highlight of the discussions on the various topics the committee took up. It is not a verbatim transcript of the hearing but is based upon what was audible or understandable to the observer and the desire to get details out as quickly as possible with few errors or omissions.

 

HB 807 (Larson) – Relating to the state and regional water planning process.

Larson opening comments

  • State has been split into 16 regions, which has provided benefits but has caused some problems.
  • Problems are mainly with cooperation between regions, this bill would encourage inter-regional cooperation.
  • Bill will create inter-regional planning council with one member from each region.
    • Council will develop statewide strategies.
    • Look at innovative strategies like aquifer storage or other strategies in lieu of taking land out of productivity and flooding it.
  • It is getting more difficult to build reservoirs due to environmental concerns, we may need to accelerate timelines on some of those projects.
  • Council will set a per-capita goal for conservation within regions.
  • Create consistency in resource management between regions.

HB 807 left pending.

 

HB 1617 (Larson) – Relating to the deadline by which the Texas Water Development Board is required to identify and designate brackish groundwater production zones for certain areas of the state.

Larson opening comments

  • Goes back to HB 30 from 2015. TWDB designated certain zones that would produce over 50,000 gallons over a 30 year period.
  • Deadline was set in 2015 for 2022, but funding was suspended last session. Funding is now in the base budget which will allow for identification of new areas.
    • Deadline will be extended from 2022 to 2032.
  • This will take pressure off the freshwater column.
  • There are 43 or 44 brackish desalination plants. These studies are identifying areas and determining saline content.
  • This is the fastest growing part of growing our water resources. It is really the only option we have, in West Texas this will be the only option as aquifers are depleted.

HB 1617 left pending.

 

HB 817 (Tracy King) – Relating to a restriction on permits authorizing direct discharges of waste or pollutants into water in certain areas of the Edwards Aquifer.

King opening comments

  • Carried a similar bill two years ago that encompassed a much larger area and did not pass. This bill covers only the Nueces River watershed.
  • Portions of Nueces and Frio have been designated as ecologically unique because they carry little or no nutrients like nitrogen and phosphorus and are thus very clear and pristine.
  • HB 817 would prevent wastewater from being introduced into the streams. If wastewater is introduced it would degrade the quality of the water.
  • Once you get south of San Antonio, wastewater is probably cleaner than the water already in the river. This is not the case further north in the Hill Country, where the existing river water is cleaner than the wastewater.
  • There are 5 wastewater treatment facilities in the area affected. None of those facilities discharge treated wastewater to surface waters.
  • Treated water can be used for land application or reused for non-potable purposes.
  • Larson – The in-stream flow for most of the basins in the state are the out-flows coming out of the wastewater treatment plants. Bed-to-banks legislation is very specific that you have to put that water back in the river for other use. The Frio and Nueces is some of the cleanest water in the US, but it is hypocrisy if through bed-to-banks we tell certain people to release their flows for other people downstream to use. We need to sit down and figure out if we are taking a source of water from the City of Corpus Christi and other places Choke Canyon flows into.
    • King – Most of the cases where there is treated water they are not discharging into pristine waters. My understanding is we are not taking any water away from Corpus Christi because there is nobody discharging right now.

 

Public testimony

Con Mims, Nueces River Authority – For

  • This bill only applies to the part of the Edwards Aquifer contributing zone that is within the Nueces River basin.
  • Edwards Aquifer contributing zone is rural and not experiencing rapid growth.
  • 4 rivers in this region are designated as ecologically unique. This bill is crafted to preserve that uniqueness.
  • Augmenting river flows with treated water is not desirable in this region due to the ecological uniqueness.
  • All counties affected by this bill have adopted resolutions supporting this bill.

 

Annabell McNew, Texas Hill Country River Region – For

  • Any discharge of wastewater would harm the rivers and damage the economy.
  • Tourism is one of the most significant economic drivers for Uvalde County.

 

Mike Urrutia, Guadalupe-Blanco River Authority – On

  • GBRA opposed similar legislation last session due to restrictions on existing GBRA wastewater treatment plants and limitations on future sites needed for growing populations.
  • On the bill because it only relates to the Nueces River, but have concerns about unintended environmental consequences of the bill.
  • High quality wastewater treatment facility can be a benefit for surface waters.

 

Allan Bloxsom, Cow Creek Water District – For

  • Tourists and river floaters do not want to see pollutants enter the river.
  • Nueces and Frio rivers cannot be compared to the Trinity.
  • Support the bill which is limited to a unique area of the upper Nueces.

 

Margo Denke Griffin, Friends of Hondo Canyon – For

  • Treated wastewater has been exposed to food and human waste. Many substances in wastewater have been shown to be endocrine disruptors and have been shown to disrupt the reproductive behaviors of amphibians.
  • These are some of the few remaining clean rivers in Texas.
  • There are currently no wastewater facilities discharging in the area affected by the bill, but this is soon going to change.

 

David Galindo, TCEQ – Resource

  • Larson – What is the regimen TCEQ goes through before they approve a discharge permit?
    • Galindo – We write permits to meet both federal and state requirements. State water quality standards are based on numeric criteria to protect from algae growth, phosphorus and nitrogen. Wastewater discharge does contain phosphorus and nitrogen, and some streams are more susceptible to those minerals than others. We apply chlorophyll criteria. With these criteria we see very limiting criteria for phosphorus.
    • Larson – In layman terms what does that do?
    • Galindo – It limits the amount of phosphorus and decreases the risk there will be a detrimental impact.
  • Dominguez – Does this kind of discharge happen in other streams in Texas?
    • Galindo – Yes, we have around 1800 discharge permits throughout the state.
    • Dominguez – Do you think this type of water would affect fishing or fish life downstream?
    • Galindo – Our quality standards have criteria to protect aquatic life.
  • Oliverson – In regard to wastewater permitting, does TCEQ look at levels of compounds out of trace minerals, for example narcotics, psychotropic medications?
    • Galindo – We do not screen for pharmacological pollutants, a lot of those do not have approved test methods and there is emerging research on the effects of those chemicals.
    • Oliverson – But at TCEQ you don’t really screen for those even if there are concerns?
    • Galindo – No.
    • Oliverson – What happens with private permit grants in the event that something goes wrong, for example a flood?
    • Galindo – They are subject to the same requirements for flood protection as a large municipality.
    • Oliverson – Do inspections happen regularly?
    • Galindo – yes they are subject to our enforcement and inspection protocol.
  • Harris – Are your discharge requirements the same for the Trinity as the Frio or Nueces? Trinity is not suitable for recreation in the way the Nueces and Frio are.
    • Galindo – Technology requirements would be the same for both locations, but water quality requirements are site-specific and would be different for each location.
    • Harris – A previous witness said only 2 out of 7 landowners were notified by TCEQ about a new permit, is that accurate, and is it standard practice for a small portion of landowners to be contacted?
    • Galindo – When we evaluate the applications there are requirements for the pertmitee to identify everyone adjacent to the facility and one-mile downstream of the outfall location.
  • Ramos – How many inspectors do you have?
    • Galindo – Will have to get back to you on that.
    • Ramos – Is there currently any wastewater being discharged? The bill reads that there can be no “new permits”.
    • Galindo – There are 5 land application permits in the contributing zone, I know of one pending application, and that one pending is the only proposed discharge that I know of.
  • Larson – Would be interesting to see TCEQ pick up new technologies as they evolve.
    • Galindo – That is a process we go through with our water quality standards, to make sure they are up to date.
    • Larson – Would plants be required to retrofit their plants to meet new criteria?
    • Galindo – Yes the facilities are required to meet any new water quality standards.

 

King closing comments

  • All counties affected have passed resolutions in support.
  • This bill does not affect any pending permits.

HB 817 left pending.