Senate Water & Rural Affairs – March 11, 2019

The Senate Committee on Water & Rural Affairs met on March 11 to take up and consider SB 6, SB 7, SB 8, and SB 563 related to disaster management and flood planning. Bills left pending during the hearing were voted on at the end before the committee adjourned.

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.

 

Votes taken on bills at the end of the hearing

• SB 6 voted out (7-0) to the full Senate
• SB 7 voted out (7-0) to the full Senate
• SB 8 voted out (7-0) to the full Senate
• SB 563 voted out (7-0) to the full Senate

 

SB 6 (Kolkhorst) Relating to emergency and disaster management, response, and recovery.

• Kolkhorst – SB 6 as filed contains three major components based on the recommendations in the report of the Governor’s commission to rebuild Texas.
  • First, the bill requires TDEM to create disaster model response guides that would provide information to local governments on issues relating to debris management, obtaining federal disaster funding, coordinating the ability of short-term and long-term housing, and obtaining assistance with volunteer organizations. Bill requires TDEM to provide this guide in the disaster training it already provides.
  • Second, the bill requires TDEM to work with the comptroller to develop contracting standards for disaster mitigation contracts, specifically debris management.
  • Finally, bill directs TDEM to establish a workgroup to study and develop a proposal for training and credentialing emergency manager directors. Division would coordinate with any institution of higher education to develop this program.
• Kolkhorst- Committee substitute:
  • Requires input from TCEQ on the catastrophic management plan and training.
  • Adds the Lt. Gov. & Speaker as recipients of the emergency management workgroups report.
  • Adds HB 6 by Representative Morrison to the bill.
• Kolkhorst – Bill is a work in progress, expects edits to be made.
• Perry – Regarding the creation of a certification for emergency management, counties already participate in an emergency management training, is this above and beyond that or an addition to that?
  • We are really good at reacting to disasters and saving people, but the aftermath of the storm is what we need to focus on.

Committee substitute adopted.

 

Wes Birdwell, Texas Floodplain Management Association

• Testifies in support of the bill.

 

Steven Bednarz, Texas Soil and Water Conservation Board

• Present as a resource witness.

 

Bill Kelly, Director of Government Relations for Mayor Turner

• For the bill.
• Suggests adding sediment to the wet debris study.
• Suggests including city and county as stakeholders in the debris studies.
• Kolkhorst – Points out that adding sediment is a good suggestion.

 

Donna Warndof, Harris County Legislative Relations

• For the bill.
• Kolkhorst – Anecdote on citizen who volunteered boats to help people during Harvey. Should there be a data base of these spontaneous volunteers?
  • However, there should be confidentially provisions to prevent the leak of their personal information.
• Taylor – There was an app that the Cajun navy used which allocated resources throughout the coast. Believes that the state should use the app as a model to build a database.
• Alvarado – How will this bill help the workflow between all the agencies throughout all levels of government?
  • The bill includes a new role for the state, instead of relying on a local-to-federal relationship.
  • Bill Kelly, Director of Government Relations for Mayor Turner – The debris management is also critical because it is proactive in managing natural disasters.
• Kolkhorst – We need to be able to pull in experts to establish best practices in contracts.
• Kolkhorst – If we have another storm, we have a lot of experience right now. However, as time goes on without a disaster, we lose that experience. This bill keeps the continuity of training and knowledge.

 

John Sullivan, President of DRC Emergency Services

• For the bill.
• Prevent contracts work to keep prices low during peace time and prevent the rise in costs during disaster response time.
• Every community does not need a prevent contract, but they should be able to use the city’s prevent contract.
• Asks to keep the private sector involved in the process.
• Taylor – Would it not be worthwhile for the state to negotiate some of these contract deals?
  • Kolkhorst – I have a bill in business & commerce that would involve the CPA in disaster contract standards. There might be a way to put it in this bill as well, but I did not want to load down SB 6.
• Taylor – Points out that smaller entities do not have the ability to negotiate these contracts.
• Emphasized that contractors need to be held accountable for good performance.

 

SB 6 left pending until the end of the hearing.

 

SB 7 (Creighton) Relating to flood control planning and the funding of flood planning, mitigation, and infrastructure projects.

• Creighton – SB 7 as filed creates the funding mechanism to bring Texas tax dollars back to the state, maximize federal recovery funds, and creates the Texas Infrastructure Resilience Fund. TIRF will be administrated by the TWDB and will be the State’s answer for recovery from Harvey and mitigation for the future. The bill utilizes an existing account at the TWDB and expands the use of this fund. The flood plain management account will be renamed TIRF and will contain four different accounts:
  • Flood Plain Management Account would maintain current existing duty of the floodplain management account. Existing funds will remain in the account with the same revenue streams.
  • Harvey Recovery Account only exists to disburse state dollars to meet any local match requirements for federal dollars that are approved. This will only include outstanding public assistance costs and hazard mitigating grant program costs.
  • Flood Plan Implementation Account would fund future mitigation projects included in the statewide flood plan created by SB 8.
  • Federal Match Account would be used by projects partnering with the army corp of engineers.
• Creighton – The bill also includes several protected provisions, such as:
  • Political subdivisions applying for the fund must put up at least 25% of the remaining non-federal share.
  • The fund would be transparent by putting information on projects online.
  • TIRF will be overseen by an oversight committee comprised of three house members, three senate members, the comptroller, and the director of TDEM.
• Creighton – Committee substitute:
  • Ensures that all community development block grants for disaster recovery will be utilized first.
  • Requires a 75%-25% cost share in the Harvey Account and the Mitigation Account.
  • Requires the board to make sure that the applicants are able to meet local obligations.
• Kolkhorst – In future natural disasters, if the state wants to participate in some help, the Harvey Account will be a mechanism to utilize the TIRF Fund, correct?
  • There has been some talk about the precedent this sets, but I do not see the Harvey bucket creating a precedent. As this will be managed under the TWDB, there will be application to use the fund prior to the state flood plan coming into effect; but, it will all merge together once those trigger mechanisms enact the flood plan that we plan to pass this session.
• Kolkhorst – Does the hurricane Harvey account create grants and loans?
  • Depending on what the local entity needs. The intent is to provide a grant for the non-federal match assistance. For the most part, and for the recovery effort, we imagine these will be grants.
• Kolkhorst – Comments on the benefit of SB 7.
• Rodriguez – Would the costal spine barrier be an eligible project under the Harvey account?
  • That would fall under the Federal Match Account.

 

Nim Kidd, Texas Division of Emergency Management

• Perry – I’ve heard that if Texas puts money out, they are out of the running for federal dollars. I’ve also heard that if Texas doesn’t put money in, they are out of the running for federal dollars. Could you give a little bit of perspective on how we can achieve our goals without having federal money pulled back?
  • If we were to take the money we are talking about today and put it clear to projects, and the language was not clear that it was to be used for the state share or the non-federal match, I could see were we would get into the place where we would have to fight for federal dollars.
  • The way I see this layout today, it has been clearly articulated that the funds have to be used for the non-federal share for these projects.
• Taylor – Points out that Texas is a donor state to the federal government. We are just asking for some of our tax dollars back.

 

Augustus Campbell, West Houston Association and Houston Stronger

• For the bill.
• Thanked the committee for their efforts and expressed appreciation for the framework the bill provides.

 

Marlisa Briggs, North Houston Association

• For the bill.
• Supports the fact that the structure of the bill is a regional solution.
• The state has given and given, and it is time to get our fair share back.

 

Al Haines, North West Houston Chamber of Commerce

• For the bill.
• Grateful that the committee is inserting the state as a major player in managing disasters.

 

David Perkins, Texas Aggregates & Concrete Association

• For the bill.
• See this bill as an important step in creating a significant funding effort to build resiliency for communities coming forward.

 

Mary Anne Piacentini, Katy Prairie Conservancy

• On SB 7.
• Recommends that nature based, and natural infrastructure projects are included as eligible for the TIRF.
• Perry – I would hope this is a strategy that is on the table.
• Rodriguez – Could you describe what is encompassed in nature based and natural infrastructure projects?
  • Large scale projects like land conservation and also small projects like adding rain barrels.

 

Wes Birdwell, Texas Floodplain Management Association

• For the bill.

 

Cyrus Reed, Lonestar Chapter of the Sierra Club

• On SB 7.
• Wants to ensure that all cost-effective approaches are taken into consideration in this bill.
• Suggests looking at water code section 16.451 and expanding the definition of flood control projects to include acquisition of land, easements, and other property for non-structural flood mitigation and drainage.
• Would like to see stakeholders involved in making these decisions.

 

Taylor Landin, Greater Houston Partnership

• For the bill.
• Highlighted that a number of business organization support these measures.

 

Myron Hess, National Wildlife Federation

• For the bill.
• Comments on the importance of considering the full spectrum of flood control projects.
• Urges the committee to consider providing environmental flows.

 

Paul Crowson, Private Citizen

• For the bill.
• Plats in the county declare right of ways in neighborhoods in or out of a flood plain.
• Provided a map to the committee, believes they should clarify what is a flood plain and what is not.

 

Donna Warndof, Harris County Legislative Relations

• For the bill.
• Definition of federal programs should be clarified.
• Recommends including provisions such as requiring a project to show their OEM obligations and including no adverse impact criteria.

 

Bill Kelly, Director of Government Relations for Mayor Turner

• For the bill.
• Thanked the committee for their efforts and gave examples of projects that Houston is currently working on.

 

Committee substitute adopted.

SB 7 left pending until the end of the hearing.

 

SB 8 (Perry) Relating to state and regional flood planning.

• Perry – SB 8 is the state flood plan. Specifically, it intends to coordinate with all the bottomed-up approach projects that have been discussed today. SB 8 creates a flood bank on a watershed basin.
• Perry – Committee substitute:
  • Simply adds two words based on LBB recommendations. Pg. 3 16.062 Section 2 says “provide technical to the flood planning groups”. LBB recommended adding “technical and financial assistance”
• Perry – TWDB will have oversight role. Meant to have a bottom up approach to state flood planning.
• Rodriguez – Will the U.S. Water & Boundary Commission be included in the input process?
  • It is not specific that TWBD needs their input, but I hope they will be.
• Rodriguez – After the regional planning group comes up with their plan, will there only be one hearing?
  • The one public hearing you are talking about is in regard to adoption. There would be many opportunities for other public hearings along the way.
• Rodriguez – Would there be an opportunity for more than one public hearing for the adoption?
  • I would say that one is adequate, we will try to make sure that people have a voice somewhere along the process.
• Perry – SB 8 will give TWDB oversight on how some of these projects are ranked. Their goal would be to make sure we are not flooding our neighbors and to ensure everyone has a voice. Through that process, I think we can alleviate some of the public concerns.

 

Wes Birdwell, Texas Floodplain Management Association

• For the bill.
• This is a resilience bill that starts to build a long-term impact.

 

Donna Warndof, Harris County Legislative Relations

• For the bill.
• Curious to know how TWDB plans to utilize the role of entities that currently exist, e.g., the flood control district.
• Looks forward to talking to committee about the criteria that would be good in a flood plan for regional projects.

 

Cyrus Reed, Lonestar Chapter of the Sierra Club

• On the bill.
• Recommendations:
  • Making sure there is criteria in the bill that mentions non-structural flood control as an eligible category for the planning process.
  • Change the language about water development from where possible, to where appropriate and possible.
  • Direct the State Flood Plan Implementation and Advisory Committee to hold a public hearing semi-annually.
• Perry – If you can make a flood project a water supply development tool, we are going to do that. Points out that he is very serious about water supply development. Flood planning is first priority, but water supply can work in tandem.

 

Myron Hess, National Wildlife Federation

• For the bill.
• Would like to see clarification in the bill regarding the potential for flood control projects to meet environmental flow needs.
• Acknowledges that some basins will have to be subdivided, would like to see guidelines that address how they are going to coordinate across subdivisions to avoid adverse impacts.
• Perry – I am with you on supply being used as an environmental mitigation during droughts.

 

Paul Crowson, Private Citizen

• For the bill.
• Witness’ house flooded because a large land owner covered up a creek near to his home.
• Areas not in a flood plain should be addressed just as seriously as if they were in a flood plain.

 

Peter Lake and Jeff Walker, Texas Water Development Board

• Johnson – In looking at the 5-year cost projections, after this plan will be developed and implemented, will we continue to see flat cost annually or will they go down once the system is up and running?
  • We anticipate the costs will be flat on an ongoing basis.
• Johnson – So there is no startup cost that will go down over time?
  • We do not anticipate that. The numbers reflect a ramp up as we start building the resources and the capabilities that we will need.
• Johnson – The cost under technology are listed in terms of cost per full time employee for software. We don’t have a software cost per employee, do we?
  • We do have one, but I do not believe that is included here.
• Johnson – Are these technology costs simply contracts with vendors?
• Johnson – And that will be out for bid at the appropriate time, correct?

 

SB 8 left pending

 

SB 563 (Perry) – Relating to the reporting of information about the use of federal money for flood research, planning, and mitigation projects.

• Perry – Over the next 20 years, there is a potential to have an excess of $20+ billion dollars of federal, state, and local dollars. Today, we do not have one consolidated place of organizing and reporting those dollars, therefore, we do not have a place to hold the agencies that have jurisdiction over how those dollars are spent. This bill seeks to have a better process to knowing what the dollars are and make better stirs of it.

 

Wes Birdwell, Texas Floodplain Management Association

• For the bill.
• Understanding what the funds we have is outstanding, thank you.

 

Paul Crowson, Private Citizen

• For the bill.
• Provided anecdote of his house flooding and the mitigation efforts that should have been in place.

 

SB 563 left pending

 

Votes taken on pending business

• SB 6 voted out (7-0) to the full Senate
• SB 7 voted out (7-0) to the full Senate
• SB 8 voted out (7-0) to the full Senate
• SB 563 voted out (7-0) to the full Senate