Relating to water losses reported by certain municipally owned utilities to the Texas Water Development Board; authorizing administrative penalties.
HB 29 requires certain large municipally owned utilities in Texas—those providing potable water through more than 150,000 service connections—to do more than simply file an annual water audit with the Texas Water Development Board. Within 180 days after filing an audit, the utility must complete a validation of the audit to check for inaccuracies in the data used. Within one year, it must also develop and submit a water loss mitigation plan to the board. The bill further requires a more detailed validation every 10 years beginning no later than December 31, 2030, and each such review must examine whether leakage-reduction strategies are appropriate and whether billing data are accurate.
The mitigation plan must be incorporated into the utility’s water conservation plan and reported on annually. It must include specific goals for one-, three-, five-, and ten-year water loss reduction, descriptions of projects or programs, estimated water and financial savings, and cost estimates. If a utility is subject to the 10-year validation, it must update those goals based on the new findings. The bill also requires that validations be performed by qualified outside individuals meeting training or experience standards, and not by board staff or the person who prepared the audit.
HB 29 changes the Water Code by adding new compliance duties for a narrow class of municipally owned utilities and by tying water audit reporting to formal mitigation planning and ongoing conservation reporting. It also authorizes the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality to assess a $25,000 administrative penalty if a utility fails to submit the required mitigation plan. The bill took effect immediately after passage, indicating it received the necessary vote threshold or was otherwise enacted without delay.
The overall sentiment around the bill appears strongly supportive and noncontroversial. The recorded votes were overwhelmingly favorable in both chambers, with no recorded Senate opposition and only minimal House opposition on earlier votes. The final concurrence vote in the House was unanimous among those voting, suggesting broad agreement on the need for improved water-loss accountability and conservation planning for large municipal utilities.
The main point of potential contention is the added compliance burden on municipally owned utilities, especially the requirement to hire qualified validators, prepare detailed mitigation plans, and update them over time. However, the vote history suggests that any concerns about cost, administrative workload, or regulatory oversight did not generate significant opposition. The bill’s supporters appear to have framed it as a water-conservation and accountability measure aimed at improving data accuracy, reducing leakage, and strengthening long-term water management.
HB 29 amends the Texas Water Code by creating new validation and mitigation-plan requirements for municipally owned utilities with more than 150,000 service connections that file annual water audits. It also links those plans to existing water conservation planning requirements and authorizes a $25,000 administrative penalty for failure to submit the required water loss mitigation plan. The bill primarily affects large city-owned water utilities, the Texas Water Development Board, and the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, while leaving smaller utilities outside its scope.
The bill appears to have enjoyed broad bipartisan support and little visible controversy. House and Senate votes were overwhelmingly in favor, with no recorded Senate opposition and only a small number of House no votes on earlier readings. The final House concurrence vote on Senate amendments was unanimous among those voting, suggesting the measure was viewed as a practical water-management and accountability bill rather than a partisan issue.
The principal area of contention is the added regulatory and administrative burden on large municipally owned utilities, which must now pay for outside validation, prepare detailed mitigation plans, and periodically update them. Some stakeholders could also be concerned about the $25,000 penalty for noncompliance and the requirement that validations be performed by certified or experienced outside persons. Even so, the vote record indicates that any such concerns were limited and did not prevent strong legislative approval.