Print đź–¨

House Natural Resources met on April 27 to take up a number of bills. This report covers HB 1926 (Wilson), SB 152 (Perry et al.), HB 2426 (Murr), HB 2851 (Lucio III), HB 2905 (Morrison), and SB 1160 (Taylor et al.). A video for part one of the hearing can be found here and part two can be found here. The full schedule can be found here and the witness list can be found here.

 

This report is intended to give you an overview and highlight of the discussions on the various topics taken up. It is not a verbatim transcript of the discussions 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.

 

SB 1160 (Taylor et al.) (CS) – Relating to the creation of the Gulf Coast Protection District; providing authority to issue bonds; providing authority to impose fees; providing authority to impose a tax; granting the power of eminent domain.

  • Paul – District will be able to receive federal funds and create a coastal barrier to protect Galveston from surges
  • Will help support projects in Orange and Jefferson Counties
  • Will have two directors from Harris, one director from each county in the district, one from small cities, and one from the ports, one for environmental concerns, and others appointed by the Governor
  • Have to have tax rate capped at 5% on 100 along with eminent domain authority
  • Walle – The mechanism to pull down federal funds is in the bill?
    • Yes, along with other requirements
  • Walle – The contracts are signed with the US Army Core of Engineers?
    • Yes
  • Walle – Who is in it?
    • 5 counties are for it; Harris, Galveston, Chambers Orange, and Jefferson County
  • Walle – The federal government is debating infrastructure build at the federal level, would we be ready?
    • With this we would be ready, if not, we have to go through the process later
    • There is a water bill in 2022 that could fund if this doesn’t
  • Walle – Time is imminent, especially with hurricane season

 

Bob Mitchell, President of the Bay Area Houston Economic Partnership – For

  • Represent about 800,000 citizens
  • A permanent solution is needed for storm surges
  • Creates a clear local funding mechanism for the project
  • Cannot afford to delay with storms imminent
  • Protects all of Texas distribution infrastructure and oil and gas reserves
  • Region provides 27% of the GDP in Texas
  • Bill is good for the whole state

 

Timothy Vail, US Army Colonel – Resource

  • Texas GLO would be entity signing agreements in regard to this
  • Price – Do you consider the impact of rainfall?
    • Yes, multiple complex of gate structures and analyzing outflows in levee systems
    • Designed for 25 year and 100 year rainfall events for closed and open gate

 

Michel Bechtel, Mayor of Morgan’s Point – For

  • Critical to create a nonfederal local sponsor to secure Congressional appropriations in the Houston ship channel region
  • Time is critical
  • Storm surge increases on the top end of Galveston bay because it gets shallower

 

Sally Bakko, Director of Governmental Relations for Galveston – For

  • Storm surge suppression system project protects coastline and economy
  • 73% of manufactured goods are transported by trucking in Texas
  • In 2017, Texas farms were 3rd in agricultural projects sold
  • 92% of firms exporting Texas goods were small businesses
  • Essential to be queued up for federal funding
  • 5 named storms hit Louisiana in 2020, protection is vital

 

Jed Webb, Galveston County Governmental Relations – For

  • Defending at coast is the best defense
  • After Ike in 2008, research for a coastal spine project was worked on
  • Final report to fortify critical infrastructure is pending
  • Community-based makeup of the board will ensure it remains a local issue with their input
  • Federal government requires local sponsor, this bill does that

 

Hector Rivero, President of the Texas Chemical Council – On

  • Industry is supportive of the concept
  • Would like to see more guardrails on the financial mechanisms in the bill
  • Will it be a consistent rate across the board? Certainty is key
  • King – Discussions about guardrails are ongoing?
    • Yes

 

Paul, in closing

  • Larson – exiting project but has seen guard rails like this before. Asked about the 2.5 cents
    • Maintenance was estimated to be about that based off of property tax
  • Larson – Would you bracket that down to 3 cents, so it doesn’t go up to 5?
    • District would set the rate
    • Forbidden from going over 5, but willing to talk about a cap
  • King – Thinks this is a great project that needs to get done

SB 1160 left pending

 

HB 2905 (Morrison) – Relating to public-private partnerships to design, develop, finance, construct, and receive financial assistance for certain water-related projects.

  • Texas population is going to grow by 1,000 people per day until 2070
  • 2017 state water plan needs $63 billion for drinking water needs
  • American Society of Civil Engineers gave our water infrastructure a C
  • In order to keep pace, we need to ensure public entities have all the tools they need
  • Entities currently eligible can contract with a private partner
  • Does not mandate private capital participation, simply allows for it
  • Can assist state and local public entities lessen debt issuance for a needed project
  • Public private partnerships bring more resources online

 

Carlos Rubinstein, Principal of RSAH20 – For

  • Implemented SWIFT program while I was on the board
  • Critical in calculating the capacity of ability to lend out funds
  • Loans must be made to political subdivisions, does not change this
  • Mandate use for p3
  • A political subdivision can still get benefits in entering a public private partnership with this bill
  • Permissible cost sharing assists in capacity for development of projects

 

Morrison, in closing

  • Bill is a way to get projects done in a permissible way

HB 2905 left pending

 

HB 2426 (Murr) – Relating to water quality protection areas.

  • Murr – Specifically relates to the North and South Llano Rivers
  • Considered some of the cleanest in the state of Texas
  • Requires inspection of these rivers to avoid degradation in water quality
  • No permits in place that would be impacted, a proactive approach to conservation

 

Ruth Russell, Self – For

  • Worried about potential dangers on the river
  • Landowner and on board of the watershed alliance
  • A rock quarry runoff would cause erosion
  • Millions of dollars have been contributed to its conservation
  • Pilot program already protects Brazos, seeking the same for the Llano

 

Tyson Broad, Cofounder of The Llano River Watershed Alliance – For

  • Protects against impairments as a result of quarries
  • Important economic, environmental, and cultural concern
  • Llano considered second cleanest river in the state
  • Source of Junction’s drinking water and economic engine
  • Recreational fishing is a driver as well, estimated that bass fishing generates $74 million and support hundreds of jobs
  • Rivers are being utilized by people instead of state parks

 

Earl Lott, TCEQ – Resource

  • King – Are there any gravel mining permits pending on effected parts of river?
    • No
    • There are three authorized facilities in the area
  • King – Have you had any issues with those?
    • No

 

Murr, in closing

  • The quarry down river from Junction shouldn’t be affected
  • Only source of water for the town

HB 2426 left pending

 

SB 152 (Perry et al.) (CS) – Relating to the regulation of groundwater conservation districts.

  • Chapter 36 requires districts to provide effected persons opportunity to contest, bu can approve permit without hearing
  • Effected landowners have no reasonable opportunity to hear of action
  • Protects private property rights and provides tools for transparency
  • Requires notice of a permit that will prevent the drilling of a well due to spacing rules
  • Rules for how and when notices will be required
  • Landowner can petition rulemaking
  • Alternative to filing a lawsuit is made as a result
  • Attorney fee provision has been removed

 

Leah Martinsson, Texas Alliance of Groundwater Districts – For

  • In support of the committee substitute, originally didn’t like the engrossed version
  • Puts informal rules into formal rules, access to landowners is provided
  • Notice provision is a good thing as well
  • Gives districts flexibility on implementation

 

Sarah Kirkle, Texas Water Conservation Association – On

  • Neutral because consensus on notices was not reached
  • Other two provisions received a 90% threshold for petitioning and who is included in the management plan

 

Carlos Rubinstein, Principal of RSAH20 – For

  • Petitions from within district property owners is transparent
  • Denying a petition would require explanation
  • Greater local control
  • Provides for specific notice requirements is also transparent
  • Sustainable management is met

 

Ty Embrey, Multiple Groundwater Districts – For

  • Positive changes to chapter 36 that helps in the future

 

Judith McGeary, Farm and Ranch Freedom Alliance – On

  • The notice provision that the website notice is contrary to rural understanding
  • Actual direct notice would be more sufficient

 

Gregory Ellis, Multiple Groundwater Districts – For

  • The bill goes with the most recently adopted future condition
  • Solves a problem that resulted in litigation

 

Billy Howe, Texas Farm Bureau – For

  • Good for landowners
  • Talked favorably about bill

 

Perry, in closing

  • Need to come up with solution that works for ground water conservationists and landowners

SB 152 left pending

 

HB 2851 (Lucio III) (CS) – Relating to the consideration of modeled sustainable groundwater pumping in the adoption of desired future conditions in groundwater conservation districts.

  • Continued need to assess natural resource allocation
  • Seeks to require the TWDB to calculate more data for long term plans
  • Maximum amount of groundwater in perpetuity to be measured
  • Total estimated recoverable storage is what can be factored, this will provide districts with another data point they must consider before adopting future conditions
  • Max amount of water technically feasible for being taken from an Aquaphor
  • Model sustained pumping
  • Exempts the Ogallala aquifer and the Vellum aquifer, low and nonchargeable
  • No fiscal note

 

Gregory Ellis, Multiple Groundwater Districts – For

  • Another data point is key to analyze
  • As water gets pumped, you can increase recharge to make more water available

 

Leah Martinsson, Texas Alliance of Groundwater Districts – For

  • Will continue to expand on improved science
  • Adds a factor to consider, doesn’t mandate anything

 

Wade Oliver, Self – For

  • Geoscientist
  • Model sustained groundwater pumping is the technology we are talking about
  • Bill provides important information on the preservation of groundwater

 

Ty Embrey, Multiple Groundwater Districts – For

  • Year 16 of GMA process, will be helpful in deliberations

 

Carlos Rubinstein, Principal of RSAH20 – For

  • The fragility of our water supply is noticed
  • Sources are declining with increased growth
  • Water planning and financing efforts should be commendable
  • Future conditions plan for a draw down
  • Better science needs to be implemented to sustain our resources
  • Models in perpetuity are needed

 

Judith McGeary, Farm and Ranch Freedom Alliance – For

  • Concerned about what will happen when land is passed on to posterity
  • Data facilitates understanding and good conversation
  • In it for the long haul, aka perpetuity

HB 2851 left pending