The Texas Water Development Board held a stakeholder meeting to discuss implementation of the Texas Water Fund, as created by SB 28 88(R). The TWDB is looking for stakeholder feedback, including information that would inform the TWDB on funding prioritization and about administration of the programs to which funds may be transferred. On March 1, Senator Charles Perry wrote a letter of legislative intent for SB 28, which was discussed in this meeting. The letter can be found in its entirety here. An entire list of the type of feedback the TWDB is looking for can be found here.
This report is intended to give you an overview and highlight 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.
Bryan McMath, Interim Executive Administrator and GR Director TWDB
- This meeting is an open forum; strongly encourage questions/comments/concerns
Kathleen Ligon, Program Supervisor
- Will be providing an update on the implementation of SB 28 – the Texas Water Fund
- Are in the middle of the informal pre-rulemaking process
- Are focusing on the following areas:
- TWF for financial assistance
- New Water Supply for Texas Fund
- Statewide Water Public Awareness Program
- The board is not here, this is an informal meeting; this is informational and about data-gathering
- Funding commitments from the TWDB total $35,552,934,357
- $11b from the CWSRF; have received $3b in requests for this funding cycle
- $3b from the DWSRF
- Texas Water Fund was passed in SB 28 88(R); created New Water Supply Fund and Statewide Water Public Awareness Account
- SB 30 gave $1b to the TWF; SJR 75 a quarter needs to be spent to the New Water Supply Fund
- SB 28 has a number of parameters; ensuring funding rural projects, munis under 150k population eligible, water conservation, among others
- New Water Supply for Texas Fund was created to fund desal projects, water treatment, aquifer storage and recovery projects, and related projects
- Texas Water Fund Assistance $750m:
- Financial Assistance Options by Program:
- Rural Water Assistance Fund; designed for rural political subdivisions; which has a new definition since last legislative session
- Water Assistance Fund/Water Loan Assistance Fund; loans/grants for many types water/wastewater
- State Water Implementation Fund for Texas; are some federal requirements, no grants, are subsidized loans, limited to 30-year term
- Texas Water Development Fund; $6b in GO bonding authority, subsidized loans, can be used for many different project types
- State Participation; funding and temporary state ownership interest in a regional water, wastewater, or flood control project; up to 34 year repayment term
- Water conservation/water loss projects via:
- Rural Water Assistance Fund
- Water Loan Assistance Fund
- Projects for regulatory compliance via
- Drinking water and Clean Water State Revolving Fund
- Want feedback on what types of projects are in need of funds
- Looking for feedback on the following questions:
- Would you be in favor of a combined solicitation for multiple programs
- What factors should be considered when offering grants?
- How should loan subsidies be determined
- What are the greatest needs?
- Overviews Sen. Perry’s legislative intent letter; got some clarity from this letter
- Primary to finance new water supply to reduce dependance on groundwater resources
- Acquisition regional inter-state compacts and other vehicles
- Does not want to use any experimental technology
- Is not just for projects in the state water plan; intent to do projects maybe bigger than the state water plan
- Not contrary to regional water plans; not intended to replace this process
- Statewide Water Public Awareness program; request for application for a statewide public awareness campaign is the first step
- Looking for feedback on how to make this most effective
- Implementation Timeline:
- March 19 request for applications for the SW Public Awareness program
- March 20 stakeholder meeting
- April 10 board work session in Lubbock
- April 11 board meeting; will consider proposed rules
- April 30 survey responses deadline
- New Water Supply Fund rule this summer
- Fall will focus on whatever funding solicitation the board decides to go with
Questions & Answers
- First Speaker – Need to focus on brackish ground water; notes the work of North Alamo Water Supply
- Cyrus Reed, Lonestar Sierra Club – in the legislation, were appreciative of the inclusion of looking at water loss and water conservation; concerned there will not be a focus on these projects; may be too much of a focus on other things
- Cyrus Reed, Lonestar Sierra Club – Would appreciate set asides for those types of projects; could use the water loss audits in HB 3605
- TWDB Staff – These funds are great candidates for conservation projects; can do grants specifically for conservation
- TWDB Staff – Have not talked about those specifically identified projects, early in development of approaches; have discussed using water loss audits, are kicking off technical assistance in water loss control program which will validate those audits; now are going through state revolving fund fees
- Cyrus Reed, Lonestar Sierra Club – Have a specific figure to use for the awareness campaign? Is a part of the $1b
- TWDB Staff – $2m per year for a maximum of 5 years
- Cyrus Reed, Lonestar Sierra Club – Are looking for other sources of funding for that project?
- TWDB Staff – Correct
- Cyrus Reed, Lonestar Sierra Club – Sen. Perry’s letter – could consider giving a leg up to projects that have gone through the water plan process
- Cyrus Reed, Lonestar Sierra Club – TCEQ has not done a good job in looking at the unused water right permits; any process the TWBD can work with TCEQ to identify unused permits? Could be an opportunity for new water there; for example, unused steam plants
- TWDB Staff – Do not know if we have done analysis on that; typically reserve demand under that category – could be something to look at
- Jason, Locally Laid Egg Company – Working on new technologies for water, advocating for funding for technology we are developing; looking for a set-aside for prototypes, wages, staff, travel and per-diem; grant to our company; no expectation of ownership; believe this technology could be a real advantage for the state
- Note: sound to the meeting was cut off for a period of time
- Doug White, NGL Water Solutions – Are working to provide a new source of water, overviews their recycled discharge projects in other states; want to produce an option of new water and engage whatever municipality to provide water
- Elizabeth McGreevy, Project Bedrock – Concerned about brush clearing as an option for this type of funding; should not prioritize brush clearing, should focus on nature-based solutions or regenerative ranching
- TWDB Staff – Brush control is just one of the options, do not think there are many of those project types anymore
- Buddy Garcia – Currently a brackish option in the; could funding be used for an expansion of water in small communities with an existing plant?
- First Speaker – Are many municipalities in this area that want to focus on brackish water; need to focus on regionalization; more expensive to do surface water treatment
- TWDB Staff – All of our financial assistance programs focus on regionalization and concerning expansion, are some programs with restrictions on that
- Justin Johnson, University of Texas Geology – Awareness program could be more than just a campaign, could also be a program; statute itself is vague on this
- TWDB Staff – Program is in line with existing initiatives
- TWDB Staff – What program actually looks like has not been determined yet; this is the first time we have funding for this type of program
- Justin Johnson, University of Texas Geology – Would like to see people be able to know what the water situation is where they live
- Justin Johnson, University of Texas Geology – Will this be a program with just a piece of it being the campaign?
- TWDB Staff – Yes, correct
- TWDB Staff – Switched to utility-based planning in the last water plan; could build on the data we have provide
- Speaker – Rural community definition; how does the new fund benefit very small communities who would not qualify for anything else?
- TWDB Staff – There is a big distinction between a population of 10k and those with a very small population
- TWDB Staff – State Revolving Fund and Rural Water Assistance Fund would already serve the communities you are referring to
- Eric Hall, HR Green – Will the new Texas Water Fund be utilized to augment the funding available for the Board’s Tech Assistance Programs (AMPSS, WUTAP, Others)? The need and demand for the Tech Assistance is pretty high across the State
- TWDB Staff – There are opportunities to expand the reach of that program
- Eric Hall, HR Green – I am aware that each standing program that will be augmented by the Tex Water Fund has its own ranking criteria; will the Board consider reviewing and adjusting the ranking methods used to apply for each of the existing programs, with the goal of keeping these new State $$ unencumbered as much as possible?
- TWDB Staff – We do not have ranking criteria right now; are still discussing what that would look like for this fund; would consider approval of other federal/state funds as an attribute
- Speaker – Encourage the board to discuss the value of water in relation to the economic vitality of the state in their awareness program
- Stephen Cortes – What bearing does Senator Perry’s legislative intent letter have on the implementation of the New Water Supply for Texas Fund? Especially with regard to water conservation? It sounds like SB 28 still covers water conservation strategies, but not under the $250 million portion?
- TWDB Staff – That is correct; conservation projects could be covered under other funds; the intent letter only applies to a section of the legislation
- Speaker – Asks about technical assistance
- TWDB Staff – Will cover a wide range of services; will target based on need of applicant; would solicit feedback from rural communities on what type of assistance they need?
- Carlos Gonzalez – Will these funds be administered thru a separate PIF program?
- TWDB Staff – Use different mechanisms; request for applications may be through a different avenue
- Speaker – Discussed desalinization projects and the difficulties that come from the process; could focus funding on projects with the best practices? Litigation would be reduced and projects would be more efficient
- Cindy Burchfield – Is there any possibility of establishing a program under this umbrella to “fast-track” funding for communities that have a sudden and complete loss of water? When there is no other source. And possibly prioritize certain aspects of the funding process, such as environmental reviews that currently take 6 months or more
- TWDB Staff – Currently use SRF funding for emergency projects; is a separate stream
- TWDB Staff – Have provisions that offer procedures for if there is an emergency, can streamline the process
- Texas Water Infrastructure Network – Contemplated how much capitalization will be used to leverage more projects? $1b is not a large amount given the needs of the state
- TWDB Staff – Yes, agree $1b is a small amount given the needs of the state; want to remind this is a pot of revenue that can be given to existing programs
- TWDB Staff – Demonstrating need across the state will be important especially next legislative session
- Texas Water Infrastructure Network – Audio was unclear during their comments/next question; want to ensure flexibilities
- TWDB Staff – Have a list of the need out there, and agree, do not need to make this harder than it needs to be; do not want competing projects among our programs; have considered subsidies in terms of project completion, and do not want that to happen
- Carlos Gonzalez – Is there a timeline for a potential “Request for Application” solicitation?
- TWDB Staff – Likely in the fall
- Buddy Garcia – Are funds eligible for investor-owned utilities to access as well?
- TWDB Staff – Are generally not eligible for some funds, but are eligible for the SRF