Relating to the criteria considered by groundwater conservation districts before granting or denying a permit or permit amendment.
Summary
HB 1633 amends the Texas Water Code provision governing how groundwater conservation districts evaluate applications for groundwater permits and permit amendments. The bill directs districts, before approving or denying an application, to consider whether the application meets statutory and fee requirements, whether the proposed use would unreasonably affect existing groundwater or surface water resources, existing permit holders, or exempt registered wells, whether the water will be put to a beneficial use, and whether the use is consistent with the district’s approved management plan.
The bill also preserves and clarifies several specific considerations related to conservation and groundwater protection. It requires districts to consider whether the applicant agrees to avoid waste, conserve water, protect groundwater quality, and follow well-plugging guidelines when a well is closed. In addition, it retains a special consideration for wells in the Hill Country Priority Groundwater Management Area when water is proposed for ponds, lakes, or reservoirs intended to enhance landscape appearance.
Impact
HB 1633 changes the criteria groundwater conservation districts must review when deciding whether to grant or deny a permit or permit amendment under Chapter 36 of the Water Code. It expands the list of affected interests to include registered wells exempt from permitting, and it reinforces district authority to evaluate impacts on existing water resources, permit holders, conservation, and groundwater quality. The bill affects groundwater conservation districts, permit applicants, existing permit holders, and owners of exempt registered wells, while leaving the broader permitting framework in place.
Sentiment
The bill appears to have been broadly supported and noncontroversial. It passed the House 146-0 and the Senate 31-0, with no recorded opposition in the available voting history. The absence of committee transcript material also suggests there was little public dispute or debate reflected in the record provided.
Contention
No major points of contention are evident in the available materials. The only potentially sensitive policy issue is the added requirement that districts consider impacts on wells registered with the district but exempt from permitting, which could be viewed as expanding protections for certain water users. Another narrow issue is the continued special scrutiny for landscape-appearance water uses in the Hill Country Priority Groundwater Management Area, but the unanimous votes indicate these provisions were not politically divisive.