The House Committee on Natural Resources met today to discuss State Water Implementation Fund Texas (SWIFT) and the Texas Supreme Court’s decision in EAA v. Day case decision.
- In the EAA v Day case, Day, a South Texas rancher asked for more water for farming and ranching; the court had to decide whether or not landowners also own the water beneath their land; court ruled that landowners do have right to pump as much water as they wish from aquifers below them and that the same rules should apply to groundwater that apply to oil and gas
- Subject to reasonable regulation by the state
Carlos Rubenstein, Chairmen, Texas Water Development Board
- From a 6 member board to now a 3 member board
- The board met all of the given HB 4 tasks
- Water conservation is the cheapest strategy to implement
- A couple conservation projects have been proposed in the first window
- Texas Water Development Board meetings are now being taken place all over Texas instead of just at its headquarters in Austin
- The board has been receiving applications for funding since November
- They have a capacity to take in applications of about 800 million dollars a year for the next 10 years
- Working very closely with the Safekeeping Trust – in charge of investment of the 2 billion dollars
- How money will move from swift to SWIRFT– relying on revenue bonds from SWERFT
- Allow for bond enhancement agreements
- Decisions
- 1st round maximum, a subsidy 35.5% rate reduction
- These subsidies is what SWIFT is intended to fund
- Deferred loans – will serve as a great incentive
- Last incentive under HB 4 is board participation
- No rate subsidies
- The board is also aimed at selling SWIFT bonds this fall
- What occurred during first window of applications
- 48 applications asking for 5.5 billion dollars
Q/A
- Rep. Ashby asked about the long term cash flow of SWIFT
- Rubenstein feels really good about it while placing an emphasis on protecting the $27 billion dollars over 50 years
- Next round/window is approximately in 6 months – which is used to check on proposed projects
- Rep. Frank asked how many projects can be accomplished with the $800 million dollar cap
- 800 million dollars in capacity = not sure how many projects
HB 163 – Larson, Relating to interstate cooperation to address regional water issues.
- Due to the fact that Mexico’s water is federally owned, creating dialogue with them would open up huge opportunities to bring water to Texas
- Contemplates the governor appointing two members
- The proposed bill would allow for a lot of opportunity to bring more water to Texas
- Rep. Larson also wants to create dialogue with Oklahoma because of how much water is in the Eastern part of the state
- Emphasized the issue with water getting all the way down to the Gulf of Mexico without any economic benefit in US Territory
- Best template for a multi-state dialogue is the Energy Council
- Requested to move passage
Carlos Rubenstein, Chairmen, Texas Water Development Board
- Neutral about the bill
- Water deliveries to the Rio Grande
- Linkage was created by the 1944 Treaty on the Rio Grande River
- Mexico is obligated to deliver a minimum amount of 350,000 acre feet a year to the U.S.
- When Mexico does not meet the obligation, Texas hurts the most
- There have been several 5 year cycles where Mexico does not meet the need
- Ashby asks about the 4 states that surround us and if we are involved in any litigation with them
- Only New Mexico – only had to go to supreme court 3 times
- Sued on the Colorado River and won
- Currently suing on the Rio Grande River
- The 1944 Treaty states that after a given cycle, if a state does not meet the specific water requirement; they must tack on the owed amount in the next cycle
Public Testimony
Kevin Ward, General Manager, Trinity River Authority
- Support the bill
- A lot of Texas water leaves Texas everyday
- More dialogue with other states, the better off Texas is
- Currently, there are multiple attempts to buy water from surrounding states
- There currently is no dialogue with Oklahoma
Bill Mullican, Resource Witness, Water Planter
- Support the bill
Bill Norris, President, Norris Leal Engineering
- Support the bill
- Suggested Texans need to work together in-state as well as out-of-state to adopt more water resources
Ed McCarthy, Attorney, Water Law Issues
- The case (EAA v. Day) did not determine if water taken from land is compensable
- Court didn’t tell us how to calculate or what the penalties would be if ruled compensable
- The case provided that water is indeed a property right
- Also says if the property is damaged by the government – that it is compensable
- Groundwater districts have the authority to regulate groundwater
- McCarthy believed this is the most important regulation
- Biggest solution to our water problems going forward will have to do with groundwater conservatories and reservoirs
- We have increased our reservoir capacity but not sufficiently
- Problem we have is that some people in the same district are not willing to share water (politically influenced)
- A practice that is not scientifically supportive
- Rep. Keffer agrees that ground water should be regulated locally but doesn’t want it to get in the way of state water conservation ideas
- Rep. Larson agrees that the groundwater district should issue permits regarding aquifers but believes they have no say regarding what the property owner does with that water
- Believed that pooling orders is not the best idea
- Rep. Keffer wanted to see an intermediary put in place on the issue of groundwater
Greg Ellis, Attorney, Groundwater Conservation Districts
- Represents 25 districts
- Everything underground in Texas is considered groundwater
- Groundwater makes up 16% of the water used in Texas
- Conservation is essential
- GCD’s can grant new permits, and also deny new permits
- Granted 14 acre feet permits
- Oil and gas model does not work for an aquifer practice
- Rep. Larson wants to see more scientific approaches to this issue rather than politics involved
Bill left pending