Below is the HillCo client report form the June 26 Texas Water Development Board (TWDB) work session.
The TWDB met to consider authorizing proposed amendments and publication of draft rule 31 TAC Chapter 363 Sections 353.3, 356.10, 367.2, and proposed addition of subchapter M to SWIFT and SWIRFT.
Todd Chenoweth, TWDB Staff
- Proposed Rule published July 11, 2014 in Texas Register:
- Four ways for public to comment on the rule- email, letter, webpage comments, attend one of three work sessions for oral comment (San Antonio-July 24th, San Angelo-August 13th, Fort Worth-August 21st)
- Comment period closes September 1st 2014 and final rule will be ready December 2014
- New subchapter inserted into Chapter 363 to cover state water implementation fund for Texas in order to avoid duplicating rules.
- Concern over definition of “water plan project”- intended to be a broad definition in order to allow alternative projects eligibility to be scored by regional planning groups.
- Reuse and Conservation:
- Definition of water conservation includes reuse. Public comments have questioned whether reuse should be contained within the definition of water conservation or given a separate definition. The TWDB encourages public comment/suggestions on the issue.
- 50 point maximum allocated toward 4 criteria for project priority consideration scoring:
- Why was it capped at 50 point max for the 4 criteria on highest consideration? In order to allow rural projects to effectively compete against urban projects in the consideration point system.
Bech Bruun, Director, TWDB
- Proposed insertion by Executive Administrator for preamble- “The board solicits public comment on what additional efforts or processes that it might undertake to apply funding to rural political subdivisions, agricultural water conservation, water conservation, and reuse. Additionally, the board solicits public comment on what additional factors, if any, should be included within the prioritization criteria consistent with HB 4” (Adopted)
- “The proposed rule implements HB 4 to the extent that issues related to, or contained within, the legislation are not fully reflected in the proposed rules. It is the intent of the board to solicit public comment on all issues that may be germane to HB 4” (Adopted)
- “ The Executive Administrator may make non-substantive and grammatical changes to conform with Texas Register style and formatting requirements, and may insert the most up to date public hearing scheduling and location information” (Adopted)
Ashley Croswell, Environment Texas
- Proposes TWDB reconsider the way points are given to a project that spans multiple regions under subsection L of the prioritization criteria. Multi-region projects should be given additional consideration and higher prioritization.
Paul Weatherby, Middle Pecos Groundwater Conservation District
- Applicants should be required to have hydro-geological proof that project areas have the sustainability to support their particular project for the duration of the project and ensure a water supply for 200 hundred years after the conclusion of the project.
Ken Kramer, Sierra Club
- How will the set asides for rural (10%) and conservation (20%) mesh with the $27 billion, 50 year budget goal? Prioritization of certain projects and set aside allocation in certain instances will detract from the $27 billion goal.