Print 🖨

The House Committee on Natural Resources met on March 5, 2019, to take up HB 478 (Phelan), HJR 81 (Phelan), HB 925 (Springer), HB 1044 (Zwiener), and HB 1066 (Ashby).  HB 726 (Larson) was on the agenda but was not taken up by the Committee.

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 925 (Springer) Relating to the composition of the board of directors of the Gateway Groundwater Conservation District.

  • Springer – All member counties of Gateway Groundwater Conservation District would like legislation to be updated so each county has two board members.

 

HB 925 left pending.

 

HB 478 (Phelan) Relating to the funding of flood planning, mitigation, and infrastructure projects.

HJR 81 (Phelan) Proposing a constitutional amendment providing for the creation of the flood infrastructure fund to assist in the financing of drainage, flood mitigation, and flood control projects.

  • CSHB 478 laid out
  • Phelan – Flooding activity does not respect municipal or county lines. Current system does not have the appropriate coordination among regions.
  • This bill will provide for regional coordination and planning for flood projects.
  • Create Flood Infrastructure Fund (FIF) to provide loans for flood projects. Will also provide matching funds necessary for local communities to get federal funds.
  • If local communities do not coordinate regionally they will not receive state assistance.
  • Flood mitigation and control projects will be science and engineering based.
  • Local entities must trust each other.
  • CSHB 478 appropriates around $3b from ESF.
    • This is necessary for serious Harvey recovery.
    • This is not like SWIFT, there will not be reinvestment and will not be a 20 year corpus. This is meant to be spent within the next few years.
  • Plan is flexible, allows anyone to come together and cooperate.
  • Hinojosa will file bill in the Senate.
  • Ramos – Why are large municipalities excluded?
    • Phelan – they aren’t excluded.
    • Ramos – Bill says something about 85% threshold?
    • Phelan – There are maybe 60 counties in that range, those are counties that generally wouldn’t even think of joining this. I wanted them to know if they came to the table they got precedence. But this is a statewide bill, and no one is excluded.
  • Larson – It is important to do this regionally. If done individually by county it will not get done. I am not saying what the cause is, but the effect is we are going to continue to have large storms. Counties have always done this on their own and it won’t work. It is more sustainable for the state to step in on the front end rather than reacting to storms.
    • Phelan – The infrastructure from damages from Harvey now means that it will take less rain to flood those areas. It will start with projects to get us back to where we were before the storm. Legislature gets stuck in 2-year patterns, I hope we can break out of that.

 

HB 478 – Public Testimony

Scott Norman, Texas Association of Builders – Support

  • This bill is a priority for TAB.
  • This is not just a coastal issue, it is a statewide issue.

 

Peyton McKnight, ACEC Texas – Support

  • Regional aspect is the most important part of this bill, cooperation between political subdivisions is paramount to this being successful.
  • Most funding will not be repaid, most projects are not revenue producing.

 

Dean Robbins, Texas Water Conservation Association – Support

  • Strong support, Phelan has worked with relevant agencies and local authorities and has put together a very good bill.

 

David Montagne, Sabine River Authority – Support

  • Poor or small counties often do not have the resources for flood management, this bill will help with that.
  • Larson – During some of our hearings you talked about the floods before Harvey, those floods do not get much attention unless there is a loss of life or national media attention. But we have had several of those in the last few years. Best part about this bill is that it addresses all parts of the state.
    • Montagne – The Ike inflows from the Gulf are still the largest on record for Orange, TX. There have been 3 tremendous floods and the tax base is not big enough to support recovery and maintenance. Today there will be floods from 5-6 inches because the infrastructure is so damaged.

 

Wes Birdwell, Texas Floodplain Management Association – Support

  • Appreciate the focus and broad nature of the bill.

 

Matt Phillips, Brazos River Authority – Support

  • Support creation of fund to provide funding for future flood recovery projects, especially if it gets funding out sooner rather than later.
  • Support the aspects of the bill focusing on water supply.
  • Larson – A lot states store when it is wet and use when it is dry. There should be thought about grabbing a portion of the water, and however you can store it whether putting it underground or some other method.

 

Taylor Landin, Greater Houston Partnership – Support

  • Harvey reminded people about the danger of flooding.
  • Flooding events are frequent and a statewide issue.
  • Cutting through red tape and unnecessary bureaucracy will help these funds get on the ground faster.

 

Auggie Campbell, West Houston Association – Support

  • Appreciate the leadership of Phelan and the Committee on taking steps toward solving flooding.
  • A better statewide plan will bring in more federal funds.
  • Make sure program includes non-structural as well as structural projects.
  • Ramos – You mentioned there are some communities not entitled to fed grants, which are entitled?
    • Campbell – There is a threshold for federal FEMA dollars that the Hill Country and the Valley do not quite meet.

 

Laura Huffman, Nature Conservancy – Support

  • HB 478 is a terrific piece of legislation.
  • 95% of people impacted by Harvey want to rebuild differently and rebuild with greater resiliency, use natural infrastructure to reduce impact.
  • Natural infrastructure can be just as effective as traditional infrastructure. Would be beneficial to lay out more clearly in the bill what non-structural and natural infrastructure projects are.
  • Ramos – Examples of natural infrastructure?
    • Huffman – Different in urban and coastal. For example, in Houston could be constructed wetlands, tree planting, open spaces, or pocket prairies. In coast could be a large ranch, which is considered a living shoreline, or restoring oyster reefs.
  • Nevarez – What is a pocket prairie?
    • Small tracts, parking lots or vacant lots, which are planted with native seeds to create small prairies. These can have beneficial impacts on flooding.
  • Farrar – Oysters create nice bays and estuaries in addition to surge control
    • Everyone benefits form clean water

 

Jim Campbell, San Antonio River Authority – Support

  • Bexar regional watershed partnership has been successful.
  • River authorities can play important role.

 

Ed Wolff, Houston Association of Realtors – Support

  • Will take a lot of effort to get back to pre-flood base.
  • State, federal, and local governments can come together to fund these important measures.

 

Michael Bloom, Texas Section of American Society of Civil Engineers – Support

  • Strongly support infrastructure fund and funds from the ESF.
  • TWDB should be in driver’s seat for critical rules.
  • Protection and prevention is impossible, it is only possible to reduce risk.
    • Risk reduction should be a key criteria in giving money.
  • Flood risk reduction is not revenue producing, important to be aware of that.
  • No project should make anyone else’s risk worse. Consistent with FEMA “no rise” policy.
  • Capturing flood water and using it for drinking water is very challenging and possibly not even feasible. Would suggest not making that an application requirement as it might be overly burdensome.

 

David Fuentes, Hidalgo County Commissioner Precinct 1 – Support

  • Hidalgo County did not qualify for federal flood assistance after significant flooding event.
    • Met the FEMA individual assistance threshold but did not receive any public assistance despite getting 34 inches of rain.
  • Trying to leverage $188m form bond election against no-interest loans, but time is pressing.
  • People are in desperate need of assistance, the quicker this legislation can get out the better.
  • Dominguez – How many projects od you have?
    • Fuentes – Quite a few on the engineering side, none are shovel-ready yet.

 

General Counsel for Texas Aggregates and Concrete Association – Support

  • In support because TACA makes concrete and cement.

 

Deborah January-Bevers, Houston Wilderness – Support

  • Support the bill, will provide flooding relief.

 

Adrian Shelley, Katy Prairie Conservancy and Bayou Land Conservancy – Support

  • Need a non-structural and nature-based infrastructure solution.

 

Cyrus Reed, Sierra Club – Support

  • Have suggested language to clarify language on non-structural aspects that would be eligible for funding.
  • Bill would go a long way to solving flooding problems.

 

Phelan closing remarks

  • Bill is supported by business interests and Sierra Club, touches all the bases.
  • Need long-term planning and need action now, those can both happen.
  • Let professionals at TWDB work with local professionals handle what projects should be completed, the legislature should not be too prescriptive.
  • Most floods do not get national attention, those are still devastating to those communities. This bill will help with those kinds of events.
  • Oliverson – I would like to support this bill. Are there any socio-economic credentialing criteria for the economic status of the people around the project?
    • Phelan – Only criteria I have has to do with the median income of the county. As far as regional planning, it is not good policy to base funding on income, floods can happen just as easily as to a rich person as a poor person.

 

HB 478 and HJR 81 left pending.

 

HB 1066 (Ashby) – Relating to extensions of an expired permit for the transfer of groundwater from a groundwater conservation district.

  • Bill provides for extension of transfer permit to align with timeline of a production permit.
  • Bill benefits both permit holders and districts.
  • Legislation is a TWCA consensus recommendation, was agreed upon after extensive process that included a number of stakeholder groups.
  • Bill has been carried with unanimous support from House and Senate last few sessions but has not yet been signed into law.
  • Ramos – Why do transfer permits expire before the production permit?
    • Ashby – That is the way the statute was written.
    • Ramos – Why was it written that way?
    • Ashby – I do not know.
  • Larson – Whole concept is syncing the transfer and production permits. It is more of a financial concern, it would be difficult for a bank to make a loan if the permits were not aligned.

 

HB 1066 – Public Testimony

Judith McGeary, Farm and Ranch Freedom Alliance – Against

  • There are ways to solve this and aligning the permits makes sense, but there are concerns.
  • Problems with Vista Ridge permit renewals, they are waiting for this bill to pass and will try to get a permit extension before they start pumping.
    • Useful amendment would be to say this bill only kicks in 6 months before the permit is set to expire.
  • Permits currently in place should be excluded.
  • Ramos – Why would an organization want to get the production and not the transfer permit?
    • McGeary – This is speculation, what Vista Ridge is trying to do is extend there 30 year permit to 40 years. I believe it is a funding problem, but they deny that. I think they also think once the effects of the pumping on the aquifer becomes clear there will be public backlash, so they want an extension now.

 

James Lee Murphy, League of Independent Voters – Against

  • HB 1066 meant to solve a perceived problem of unaligned permits; problem is “perceived” because the bill does not address the real problem.
  • Special interests and private investors have been working to profit off the backs of local communities.
  • Austin-based consultants have “hijacked” the state water plan.
  • HB 1066 should be amended to include protections for tax payers.
  • Legislature must take steps to protect groundwater.

 

Steve Kosub, San Antonio Water System – Support

  • Current statute leaves possibility that permits expire at different times.
    • Creates situation where water can be transferred but not produced or produced but not transferred.
  • Require a groundwater district to extend an expiring transfer permit to conform to the remaining term of an operating permit.
    • Kosub – Extended transfer permit continues to be subject to conditions under which it was initially granted.
  • Important to point out this change would not automatically extend the export authorization for another 30 years. The transfer would only be extended for the time the operating permit remains in effect.
  • Expiration of transfer permit before operating permit creates unnecessary uncertainties.
  • Ramos – Weren’t the districts the ones who made the decisions to grant the permits, isn’t it a local decision?
    • Kosub – The legislature has mandated the term of a transfer permit must be no less than 30 years. Operating permits are generally pretty short, 1-5 years. So there is now a circumstance where the two permits were issued simultaneously but expire at different times.

 

Michele Gangnes, Simsboro Aquifer Water Defense Fund – Against

  • Agree with Mrs. McGeary’s observations on the Vista Ridge case.
  • Grandfathering could be a solution to those concerns.
  • McGeary has put forward sensible proposals.

 

Ken Kramer, Sierra Club – On

  • Concerned with applying legislation retroactively to existing permits.
  • This legislation should only affect future permits and should consider another strategy for existing permits that are out of sync.
  • Concept of the legislation is sound.

 

Stacey Steinbach, Texas Water Conservation Association – Support

  • TWCA tries to reach consensus on issues by creating committees, for example the Groundwater Committee.
    • 90% of voting members must support a bill’s language in order for it to be approved.
  • Districts need certainty in their permit terms, it is not possible to get funding for projects without certainty.

 

Ellen Berky, League of Independent Voters – Against

  • Agrees with reasoning of previous witnesses who are opposed.
  • Allegations that water politics in Texas are a little bit “shady”.
    • Berky – Find it odd that a public utility pays people to lobby the legislature, possibly against the interest of its own customers.
  • Allowing a transfer permit to be renewed automatically would serve the state badly.
  • Ramos – Would you oppose that current permits stay grandfathered into whatever the agreement was at the time it was given?
    • Berky – No, I am suggesting the bill is severely flawed and I am not sure it can be rewritten. It has been influenced by the same people (the San Antonio Water System) that has “bullied” smaller communities. This is really bad policy.

 

Stan Mitchell, SAMBA Coalition – Against

  • This bill will continue the corruption of SAWS.
  • Larson – Stay focused on the bill, not conspiracies about agencies.
    • Mitchell – I would think that an agency in violation of Texas law would be of interest to the Committee.
    • Larson – This is a water committee, we are not a city council.
    • Mitchell – Then I would like to withdraw my presentation. But this bill begins with SAWS, it is important to note that.

 

Leah Martinsson, Texas Alliance of Groundwater Districts – On

  • TAGD has not yet established a position on the bill.

 

Ashby closing remarks

  • This bill does not provide for indefinite permit renewal, it aligns the term with the operating permit.
  • District has a lot of leeway in terms of making changes to operating permits in relation to the renewals of those permits.
  • This bill is not about a specific project, the insinuation that a member from deep East Texas cares about what is going on with SAWS and the Vista Ridge project is ridiculous.
  • Price – We heard some comments about a fear of lack of transparency, if there was a concern with regard to export matters that would come up frequently in that context. I think this mainly goes to the syncing of operating permits with export permits, there would be opportunities to voice concerns at the point when the operating permit is being issued?
    • Ashby – Yes the public is intimately involved and there is ample opportunity for public comment with the operating permit.
  • Harris – You have spent your career fighting for the interests of rural areas, so is the accusation that your bill allows the grabbing of rural water from big cities false?
    • Ashby – Yes it is false, and there would have been a large number of water districts here to oppose this bill if that were true.

 

HB 1066 left pending.

 

HB 1044 (Zwiener) Relating to permits for certain injection wells that transect a portion of the Edwards Aquifer.

  • SB 483 (Campbell) is identical.
  • Aquifer storage and recovery is an innovative water management strategy.
  • Will allow storage of water during wet periods for use during dry periods.
  • Focused on city of Buda.
  • Metcalf – Buda will be running the ASR?
    • Zwiener – Yes.
  • Larson – This is a little more complicated tan some other ASRs, but long term this will be great storage for future water needs along the I-35 corridor.

 

HB 1044 – Public Testimony

Jane McFarland, League of Women Voters – Support

  • Injection and storage of fresh water for municipal use is a forward-thinking method of water storage.

 

Micah Grau, Assistant City Manager for City of Buda – Support

  • Buda is one of the fastest growing cities in Texas, growth has exceeded 120% since 2010.
  • Growth brings challenge of infrastructure to meet needs. Need new and innovative ways to manage water supplies.
  • Ramos – Speak to additional conservation effort either underway now or upcoming?
    • Grau – Buda has a robust conservation program, we have seen a reduction in use per capita by roughly 15%. We have a fairly aggressive marketing campaign targeted at outdoor water use.

 

Blake Neffendorf, Buda Water Resource Coordinator – Support

  • Under current statute Buda is not authorized to use any aquifer other than Edwards for ASR, this bill will allow the use of additional resources.
  • ASR system would protect against water quality and flooding issues.
  • Dominguez – Giving increasing size of Buda, what would you do if you were not allowed to use the aquifer?
    • Neffendorf – We receive in-term sources from San Marcos, if we are not able to use this we would have to seek additional in-term sources or find new sources.

 

James Dwyer, self – Support

  • Edwards Aquifer is unreliable for Buda during drought, need flexibility.

 

Zwiener closing remarks

  • Will give Buda crucial flexibility in their water supply needs.

 

HB 1044 left pending.

 

Metcalf – HB 726 will not be taken up, Chairman Larson is continuing to work on the bill.

 

Committee adjourned.