Video & Transcript Research : 'groundwater conservation'

Page 1 of 328
TX

Texas 89th Regular

Water, Agriculture, and Rural Affairs May 5th, 2025

Water, Agriculture and Rural Affairs

Transcript Highlights:
  • HB 1633 was filed to strengthen the evaluation criteria used by groundwater conservation districts in
  • HB 1633 was filed to strengthen the evaluation criteria used by groundwater conservation districts in
  • HB 1633 was filed to strengthen the evaluation criteria used by groundwater conservation districts in
  • I want to point out that a number of groundwater conservation districts all around the state do have
  • It was filed to enhance the Post Oak Savannah groundwater conservation.
Summary: The Senate Water, Agriculture, Rural Affairs Committee heard several bills focused on groundwater management, water infrastructure, and agricultural land conservation. SB 612 would limit certain water districts in Hidalgo, Cameron, and Willacy counties from charging developers pipeline construction fees above actual, documented costs; the committee substitute removed a developer challenge mechanism to preserve district discretion over construction standards. HB 1633 would require groundwater conservation districts to consider registered exempt wells when reviewing or amending permits, and testimony from landowners, district representatives, and advocacy groups largely supported the bill as a way to protect domestic and livestock wells from drawdown caused by large export projects. HB 1689 would clarify that export fee revenues may be used for well operability, alternative water supplies, and aquifer monitoring, including through interlocal cooperation, and HB 3058 would give the Post Oak Savannah Groundwater Conservation District authority to use export fees for county road improvements and environmental programs tied to well inspection and groundwater management. HB 2018 would clarify that the Texas Farm and Ranchland Conservation Program is intended to purchase conservation easements only on working agricultural lands, with support from cattle raisers and Farm Bureau representatives. The committee also considered HB 29, which would require large water systems to validate water loss audits and submit mitigation plans; a committee substitute removed the water-loss threshold and adjusted the timeline for more detailed validation. Public testimony on the bills was generally supportive, with several witnesses describing declining well levels, road damage from export projects, and the need to preserve agricultural land and local water supplies. The committee adopted committee substitutes and voted favorably on HB 29, HB 1689, HB 2018, SB 612, and SB 3058, recommending several of them for the local and uncontested calendar; HB 1633 was left pending awaiting a committee substitute.
TX

Texas 89th Regular

Senate Committee on Water, Agriculture, and Rural Affairs May 5th, 2025

Water, Agriculture and Rural Affairs

Transcript Highlights:
  • HB 1633 was filed to strengthen the evaluation criteria used by groundwater conservation... districts
  • When considering an application for a groundwater permit, groundwater conservation districts (GCDs) must
  • I want to point out that a number of groundwater conservation districts all around the state do have
  • It was filed to enhance the Post Oak Savannah Groundwater Conservation District's ability to support
  • Gary Westbrook, manager for the Post Oak Savannah Groundwater Conservation District.
TX

Texas 89th 2nd C.S.

Natural Resources Aug 21st, 2025

Natural Resources

Transcript Highlights:
  • Would you, they're called groundwater conservation districts.
  • Yes, I think that is a key purpose of a groundwater conservation district is to conserve groundwater.
  • Would you, they're called groundwater conservation districts.
  • 276 Yes, I think that is a key purpose of a groundwater conservation district is to conserve groundwater
  • Navigation districts, groundwater conservation districts.
Bills: HB24, HB27
Summary: The committee met to hear House Bills 27 and 24 on groundwater issues in East Texas, with members and witnesses focusing on a proposed large-volume groundwater export project and the need for more science before major permitting decisions are made. HB 27, which was within the special session call, would direct the Texas Water Development Board to conduct a hydrogeologic study of the aquifers in the affected area and temporarily pause new export permits while the study is underway. HB 24, a separate bill that would limit certain production and export permits to 5% of modeled available groundwater, was laid out but the chair said it would not be moved out of committee. Testimony on HB 27 was largely supportive, though some witnesses were neutral. Supporters, including representatives from a water supply corporation, the Trinity River Authority, Environmental Defense Fund, and the Texas and Southwestern Cattle Raisers Association, said the region lacks enough hydrologic data, that the proposed pumping could affect private wells, surface water, and local economies, and that the state needs better information on sustainable yield and groundwater-surface water interaction. Several witnesses emphasized that groundwater conservation districts need clearer tools and better data, while also noting concerns about property rights and the rule of capture. Committee members discussed the scale of the proposed project, the absence of a groundwater conservation district in Houston County, and the possibility that the study should examine desired future conditions and maximum sustainable pumping rather than only modeled available groundwater. The committee adopted the committee substitute for HB 27 and voted it out favorably to the full House with a recommendation that it do pass, be printed, and be sent to the Committee on Calendars. The roll call was unanimous, 11 ayes and 0 nays. After the vote, members briefly reflected on the complexity of the issue and the need to continue working on broader groundwater policy in the interim and next session. HB 24 was discussed later in the meeting, but no final action on that bill was taken in the portion provided.
TX

Texas 89th 2nd C.S.

Land & Resource Management Mar 27th, 2025

Land & Resource Management

Transcript Highlights:
  • That water conservation plan and whether that district would have an unreasonable impact on the conservation
  • no issue with doing water conservation plans.
  • As a layperson, I interpret the term water conservation plan.
  • You don't have to have a water conservation plan.
  • I work a lot with the groundwater conservation districts on tools that they need, but growth is also
Bills: HB24
TX

Texas 89th 2nd C.S.

Natural Resources Apr 23rd, 2025

Natural Resources

Transcript Highlights:
  • by exempting from groundwater conservation district, or GCD, permitting requirements groundwater wells
  • fall within the well spacing area assigned under groundwater conservation district rules.
  • Lastly, the committee substitute prohibits a groundwater conservation district from collecting export
  • TAG represents 91 of the 98 groundwater conservation districts from around the state.
  • I'm the general manager for Lone Star Groundwater Conservation District.
Summary: The Committee on Natural Resources heard House Bill 2109, which would remove certain long-proposed reservoir projects from the state water plan after 50 years without progress. Chairman Van Deaver and many landowners, local officials, timber interests, and conservation advocates testified in support, arguing that the Marvin Nichols Reservoir has burdened Northeast Texas landowners for decades with the threat of eminent domain, depressed property values, and uncertainty over homes, farms, ranches, schools, churches, and cemeteries. Supporters also said the project would flood tens of thousands of acres, require extensive mitigation, harm timber and agriculture, and that Texas now has better alternatives such as conservation, reuse, aquifer storage and recovery, and desalination. Several members expressed sympathy for the affected families and questioned whether a project could remain in the plan indefinitely without progress. Opposition came from North Texas water interests, including the North Texas Commission, Tarrant Regional Water District, and the Texas Water Association, who argued that the bill would interfere with the state’s long-term water planning process and remove needed future supply options for a fast-growing region. They said Region C faces major projected shortages by 2070, that conservation and reuse have already delayed the need for new supplies, and that reservoirs remain one tool in the state’s water-planning toolbox. TWDB staff explained the existing inter-regional conflict process and noted that the substitute would affect several unique reservoir sites, not just Marvin Nichols. After testimony, Chairman Van Deaver closed by urging passage of the bill, but the committee withdrew the substitute and left HB 2109 pending. The committee then took up House Bill 5188, a brackish groundwater bill. The author said the bill would reduce permitting burdens for wells in designated brackish groundwater production zones, and the committee substitute added requirements on monitoring, groundwater-rights ownership, and allocation of pumpage limits while removing some exclusions and export-fee provisions. Texas Wildlife Association testified against the bill, warning that the exemptions could weaken groundwater conservation districts’ ability to protect freshwater resources and surface-owner rights. San Antonio Water System testified in favor, saying brackish groundwater is a key future supply and that the substitute would help speed development of desalination and brackish projects. The Texas Alliance of Groundwater Districts testified neutrally but raised concerns about reduced district oversight, especially around injection-well exclusions and the loss of export fees, and said discussions on the bill were ongoing.
TX

Texas 89th Regular

Natural Resources Apr 23rd, 2025

Natural Resources

Transcript Highlights:
  • Water Development Board from groundwater conservation districts, also known as GCDs.
  • The committee substitute requires that groundwater conservation districts (GCDs) within brackish groundwater
  • Groundwater Conservation District rules.
  • I'm the General Manager for Lone Star Groundwater Conservation District.
  • groundwater conservation districts and stakeholders.
TX

Texas 89th Regular

Natural Resources Apr 23rd, 2025

Natural Resources

Transcript Highlights:
  • while balancing conservation and development of groundwater using the best available science.
  • Starr County Drainage and Groundwater Conservation District.
  • Under current law, the North Texas ground water conservation district issues permits for groundwater
  • So House Bill 3525 seeks to amend the Enabling Act for North Texas Groundwater Conservation District.
  • For North Texas Groundwater Conservation District.
TX

Texas 89th Regular

Natural Resources Aug 21st, 2025

Natural Resources

Transcript Highlights:
  • near the Natchez and Trinity Valleys Groundwater Conservation District.
  • Groundwater conservation districts.
  • Would you agree that their entire purpose is to conserve groundwater?
  • Yes, I think that is a key purpose of a groundwater conservation district: to conserve water.
  • To be in a groundwater district, but not the defense. of the Groundwater Conservation District.
Bills: HB24, HB27, HB24, HB27
TX

Texas 89th 2nd C.S.

Natural Resources May 21st, 2025

Natural Resources

Transcript Highlights:
  • We'll rely on groundwater for this water supply.
  • I show you registered as Doug Shaw on behalf of the Upper Trinity Groundwater Conservation District testifying
  • I'm the general manager of the Upper Trinity Groundwater Conservation District.
  • This bill was filed to enhance the post-Oak Savannah's groundwater Conservation District's ability to
  • support essential infrastructure tied to groundwater conservation and district operations.
TX

Texas 89th 2nd C.S.

Natural Resources Mar 26th, 2025

Natural Resources

Transcript Highlights:
  • If it's groundwater versus surface water, the groundwater is going to have more pollutants in it naturally
  • continue to be a problem and it's even more exacerbated with the drought because if you're getting groundwater
TX

Texas 89th Regular

Natural Resources Mar 26th, 2025

Natural Resources

Transcript Highlights:
  • We represent 91 of the 98 groundwater conservation districts.
  • I show you registered as Gregory Ellis on behalf of the Lost Pines Groundwater Conservation District.
  • There are 98 groundwater conservation districts in the state of Texas. cover about 70% of the state,
  • Yet, groundwater conservation districts cannot directly deny groundwater production; they can only...
  • All of these people are going to be impacted, but they're not in that single groundwater conservation
TX

Texas 89th Regular

Natural Resources Mar 26th, 2025

Natural Resources

Transcript Highlights:
  • Groundwater versus surface water; the groundwater is going to have more pollutants in it naturally occurring
  • continue to be a problem, and it's even more exacerbated with the drought because if you're getting groundwater
OK

Oklahoma 2026 Regular Session

Energy REVISED Mar 5th, 2026

Energy

Bills: SB1928, SB259
Summary: The committee took up two water-related bills, both on committee substitutes with titles stricken. Senate Bill 259, carried over from the prior year, was described as a shortened version of earlier language that removed some provisions seen as burdensome and eliminated funding for the Water Resources Board. The author said the bill aims to recognize that water extends beyond property lines, add measuring requirements for permitted users, and preserve water for future generations while exempting domestic uses and pasture/livestock taps. After no questions or debate, the committee passed SB 259 by a vote of 7-1. The committee then heard Senate Bill 1928, which creates a voluntary five-year flex allocation program beginning January 1, 2027. The author said the program is intended to help existing permit holders measure and use water more efficiently without requiring new permitting or mandatory metering, and noted the proposal mirrors House language. He also explained that the original 200% annual cap had been reduced to 150% in the committee substitute. The bill passed 10-0. At the close, the chair noted both bills were heard to help develop broader water policy for Oklahoma and encouraged continued cooperation among interested parties. The committee then adjourned.
TX

Texas 89th 2nd C.S.

Natural Resources May 7th, 2025

Natural Resources

Transcript Highlights:
  • Groundwater Conservation District. you, Mr.
  • Under current law, TCQ is only allowed to notify private well owners and groundwater conservation districts
  • Groundwater Conservation District.
  • The Southeast Texas Groundwater Conservation District consists of four counties.
  • What this bill would do is allow this groundwater conservation district to raise the production fee rate
Summary: The Committee on Natural Resources heard testimony on a series of water, utility, and groundwater-related bills. Early items included HB 5693, which would let Drainage District 7 hold board elections in November of odd-numbered years when a countywide election is occurring, and HB 5671, which would update the Johnson County Special Utility District by clarifying board eligibility, allowing bond issuance, and removing redundant TCEQ approval language to reduce costs and delays. Both bills were left pending after brief testimony from bill sponsors and local witnesses. The committee also heard SB 1504, which would update the Gulf Coast Authority to allow video-conference participation in meetings, and SB 1302, aimed at closing a TCEQ permitting loophole that allowed dischargers with prior denials or suspensions to reapply through an automated process without meaningful review. SB 2692 drew substantial discussion: it would change the signature threshold for outside-city-limits customers appealing municipal utility rates to the PUC by customer class. Valero supported the bill as a way to avoid requiring large-volume users to gather signatures from unrelated residential customers, while the City of Corpus Christi opposed it, arguing that lowering the threshold to one customer could trigger expensive appeals costing $500,000 to $1 million. A PUC witness said such cases are increasing and that the agency would need additional staff under the fiscal note. SB 790, creating a simplified PUC complaint process for small water and wastewater billing disputes, and SB 1663, expanding TCEQ notice requirements for nearby residents when groundwater contamination is discovered, were also heard and left pending. Additional bills included HB 3115, clarifying that the Cow Creek Groundwater Conservation District cannot require meters on exempt domestic or livestock wells; SB 1055, raising the Southeast Texas Groundwater Conservation District’s production fee cap from 1 cent to 7 cents per 1,000 gallons; and SB 1625, requiring private water and wastewater utilities to report cybersecurity incidents to TCEQ and DIR. The committee then took up pending business and adopted a substitute for SB 7, which made several changes to water fund use, eminent domain coordination, and EDAP-related provisions, and voted 10-0 to report it favorably. The committee also adopted a substitute for HB 2347, a county water conservation program bill, and reported it favorably 9-1. HB 5675 and SB 2476 were each reported favorably 10-0. The meeting concluded with adjournment.