Relating to the review and updating by the Texas Water Development Board of guidance principles and rules related to certain plans adopted or approved by the board.
Summary
HB 3628 would require the Texas Water Development Board to review and update the guidance principles and related rules for the state water plan and the state flood plan on a five-year cycle, matching the existing five-year cycle for adoption of those plans. The bill also directs the board to coordinate with other state agencies when developing or revising those principles, including the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, the Department of Agriculture, the Parks and Wildlife Department, the General Land Office, the Texas Division of Emergency Management, and the State Soil and Water Conservation Board, depending on the plan involved.
The bill further creates exceptions to the general Government Code rule-review requirement that normally requires agency rules to be reviewed every four years. For rules adopted under the water plan and flood plan provisions, that separate four-year review schedule would not apply. Instead, the board would follow the bill’s specific five-year review-and-update timeline. The act would take effect September 1, 2025.
Impact
HB 3628 would amend multiple provisions of the Water Code governing the Texas Water Development Board’s oversight of state water and flood planning. It would not create new substantive water rights or funding programs, but it would change the timing and process for reviewing guidance principles and rules tied to the state water plan, regional water planning, and the state flood plan. The bill would also override the default rule-review schedule in Section 2001.039(b), Government Code, for these specific rules, making the Water Code’s five-year cycle controlling.
Sentiment
The available context suggests the bill was generally procedural and technical in nature, with no recorded committee testimony or floor vote details indicating strong public controversy. Its focus on aligning rule review with existing planning cycles likely makes it a housekeeping measure intended to improve administrative consistency. The bill was reported through the legislative process far enough to reach the House, but its last recorded action was being laid on the table subject to call, which indicates it did not advance immediately at that stage.
Contention
No committee transcript or vote record is provided, so there is no documented opposition or support to identify from the available materials. The only likely point of policy interest is the bill’s decision to exempt these rules from the standard four-year review requirement, which could matter to stakeholders who prefer more frequent oversight or, conversely, to agencies and water-planning interests that want reviews synchronized with the five-year planning cycle. Any contention would likely center on administrative flexibility versus more frequent regulatory review.
Similar
Relating to the review and updating by the Texas Water Development Board of guidance principles and rules related to certain plans adopted or approved by the board.
Relating to the review and updating by the Texas Water Development Board of guidance principles and rules related to certain plans adopted or approved by the board.