Relating to permit fees for groundwater wells imposed by the Southeast Texas Groundwater Conservation District.
Summary
SB 1055 amends the Special District Local Laws Code to increase the maximum permit fee that the Southeast Texas Groundwater Conservation District may charge for groundwater wells. Under current law, the district’s fee cap is one cent per thousand gallons of groundwater withdrawn; the bill raises that ceiling to seven cents per thousand gallons for any purpose. The measure is narrowly focused on this one groundwater conservation district and does not create a statewide fee change.
The bill also provides for its effective date. It takes effect immediately if it receives the constitutionally required two-thirds vote in each chamber; otherwise, it becomes effective on September 1, 2025. The bill passed the Senate unanimously and passed the House with a substantial majority, indicating it was enacted and became effective immediately.
Impact
SB 1055 changes the legal authority of the Southeast Texas Groundwater Conservation District by allowing it to assess higher permit fees on groundwater withdrawals. This affects well owners, water users, and other parties subject to district permitting, while leaving the district’s overall fee structure otherwise intact. The amendment directly revises Section 8868.153(c) of the Special District Local Laws Code and increases the district’s revenue-raising capacity for groundwater management and related administrative functions.
Sentiment
The overall sentiment around SB 1055 appears favorable. The Senate passed the bill 31-0, and the House approved it by a wide margin, suggesting broad legislative support for the district’s request to raise its fee cap. The absence of committee transcript debate in the provided materials also suggests the bill was not highly controversial in the recorded proceedings.
Contention
The main point of potential contention is the higher cost to groundwater users, since the bill increases the maximum fee from one cent to seven cents per thousand gallons withdrawn. That change could be viewed as a burden on permit holders, agricultural users, businesses, or other water consumers in the district. The recorded House vote shows some opposition, with 29 nays and four present not voting, indicating that while the bill was broadly supported, not all members agreed with the fee increase.