Bills: SB 1169, SB 1285, SB 1583, SB 1611, SB 1898, SB 1976, SB 2160, SB 2161, SB 2658, SB 2661, SB 2662, SB 2692, SB 1055, SB 1359, SB 2660

Keywords: water service, sewer service, public utility, joint operation, infrastructure, municipality, compliance, groundwater management, water conservation, district planning, environmental regulation, sustainability, groundwater, conservation, fees, agricultural uses, water regulation, wastewater treatment, environmental testing, pollutants

Transcript Highlights:

• This is an affidavit relating to the regulation of mold assessors and remediators.
• What's being regulated is much more than a parent's night out situation.
• Commissioners said they do not have the authority to regulate courier services.
• Through the regulations passed and that are presented in this bill today.
• So regulating couriers brings its own challenges. Challenges.

Bills: SB650, HB3667, SB28, HB3201, SB1184, HB1800, SB 28

Keywords: permit issuance, regulatory framework, business operations, efficiency, application process, lottery, gambling, internet gaming, mobile application, criminal offenses, lottery regulations, occupational licensing, fraud prevention, criminal background checks, lottery couriers, SB 1184, Texas Alcoholic Beverage Code, wine collection seller, collectible wine, vintage wine

Transcript Highlights:

• It also requires the local groundwater conservation districts or authorities be notified when groundwater
• You know, we don't want to over-regulate groundwater since it is privately owned.
• Well, they adhere to the groundwater production limits that are based in several different groundwater
• Several different groundwater conservation districts in which they do business.
• Farmers and ranchers, you know, frankly, are using a lot more groundwater than cities.

Bills: HB4530, HB4931, HB5559, HB5560

Keywords: water rights, Texas Water Trust, water bank, environmental conservation, water quality, instream flows, aquifer, water injection, Edwards Aquifer, environmental regulation, groundwater, Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, water conservation, drought, utility regulation, water use restrictions, Public Utility Commission, civil penalties, drought contingency, environmental protection

Summary: The Committee on Natural Resources met with a quorum present and first took up several pending bills for reconsideration and committee substitute adoption. House Bill 2692, relating to codification and clarification of local laws concerning the San Antonio River Authority, was reported favorably to the full House and sent to the Committee on Local and Consent Calendars by an 11-0 vote. House Bills 1407, 1520, 1535, 2970, 4153, 291, 3663, and 3915 were also reconsidered or laid out as pending business, with committee substitutes adopted where needed and each bill reported favorably, generally by unanimous vote, to the full House and then to Calendars or Calendars/Calendars-related referral as applicable. The committee then heard House Bill 4530, which would expand the Texas Water Trust framework to include groundwater rights, require Texas Water Development Board review and approval of groundwater dedications, and notify local groundwater districts when groundwater rights are placed in the trust. The bill’s author and witnesses from the Environmental Defense Fund, The Nature Conservancy, and Chispa Texas supported the measure as a conservation tool and a way to create a clear process for voluntary donations; a Texas Water Development Board witness testified neutrally. The bill was left pending. House Bill 4931, relating to an aquifer storage and recovery project in Medina County, drew support from the author, the Medina County judge, and a regional water alliance witness, who described severe stress on the Edwards Aquifer, low levels at Medina Lake, and the need for a local water-supply tool. The bill was left pending. House Bill 5559, which would clarify enforcement of drought contingency plans for investor-owned water utilities and involve the PUC in model plan development, received support from groundwater district representatives but also concerns from water company and utility witnesses about enforcement authority, approval procedures, and potential conflicts with existing obligations to provide continuous service; the committee substitute was withdrawn and the bill was left pending. House Bill 5560, which would raise the maximum civil penalty for certain groundwater conservation district enforcement actions from $10,000 to $25,000 per violation, prompted debate over whether current law is already sufficient; supporters said the higher cap would better deter overpumping, while opponents argued existing penalties are already severe. That bill was also left pending, and the committee adjourned subject to call of the chair.

Transcript Highlights:

• It also requires the local groundwater conservation districts or authorities be notified when groundwater
• This is important because we need more tools in Texas to be able to conserve groundwater.
• , and this is a mechanism for being able to conserve groundwater in a way that will do that.
• groundwater conservation districts in which they do business.
• Groundwater districts don't have administrative penalty authority like the TCEQ or the PUC.

Bills: HB 4530, HB 4931, HB 5559, HB 5560

Keywords: water rights, Texas Water Trust, water bank, environmental conservation, water quality, instream flows, aquifer, water injection, Edwards Aquifer, environmental regulation, groundwater, Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, water conservation, drought, utility regulation, water use restrictions, Public Utility Commission, civil penalties, drought contingency, environmental protection

Transcript Highlights:

• Chairman, Senate Bill 1056 is a small groundwater. Conservation District.
• The Southeast Texas Groundwater Conservation District was created in 2003.
• Reasonable is the basis for all rate-making regulations, and awarding rate case expenses to one side
• So at that point, EPA made a determination not to carry forth with regulations for these hormones.
• Groundwater availability drops off dramatically in the western portions of the county.

Bills: SB1169, SB1285, SB1583, SB1611, SB1898, SB1976, SB2160, SB2161, SB2658, SB2661, SB2662, SB2692, SB1055, SB1359, SB2660

Keywords: water service, sewer service, public utility, joint operation, infrastructure, municipality, compliance, SB 1285, bats, bat protection, wildlife protection, Texas Parks and Wildlife Code, Parks and Wildlife Code Section 63.101, hunting bats, bat possession, bat sales, bat trade, pest control, licensed pest control professional, animal control officer

Transcript Highlights:

• Senate Bill 2661 allows members of groundwater conservation districts to enforce their rules by setting
• If any groundwater districts have ever assessed a $10,000 a day penalty on anyone.
• The TCEQ is not getting tested like the groundwater conservation... ...districts are.
• This has led to costly litigation and placed additional strains on groundwater supplies.
• Senate Bill 1055 by Nichols, relating to the management plans adopted by groundwater.

Bills: SB1169, SB1285, SB1583, SB1611, SB1898, SB1976, SB2160, SB2161, SB2658, SB2661, SB2662, SB2692, SB1055, SB1359, SB2660

Keywords: water service, sewer service, public utility, joint operation, infrastructure, municipality, compliance, SB 1285, bats, bat protection, wildlife protection, Texas Parks and Wildlife Code, Parks and Wildlife Code Section 63.101, hunting bats, bat possession, bat sales, bat trade, pest control, licensed pest control professional, animal control officer

Transcript Highlights:

• Chair. 2661 members groundwater conservation districts enforce their rules by setting reasonable penalties
• This led to a costly litigation and placed additional strains on groundwater supplies.
• I represent a number of groundwater conservation districts in support of Senate Bill 2662.
• And if you're dealing with a groundwater district, the groundwater district has illegally imposed a moratorium
• Relating to the management plans adopted by Groundwater Senator Nichols, Senate Bill 1055.

Bills: SB 1169, SB 1285, SB 1583, SB 1611, SB 1898, SB 1976, SB 2160, SB 2161, SB 2658, SB 2661, SB 2662, SB 2692, SB 1055, SB 1359, SB 2660

Keywords: water service, sewer service, public utility, joint operation, infrastructure, municipality, compliance, SB 1285, bats, bat protection, wildlife protection, Texas Parks and Wildlife Code, Parks and Wildlife Code Section 63.101, hunting bats, bat possession, bat sales, bat trade, pest control, licensed pest control professional, animal control officer

Transcript Highlights:

• Other areas have groundwater as a big option.
• by exempting from groundwater conservation district, or GCD, permitting requirements groundwater wells
• We are the only entities that can regulate groundwater, and we do that the best we can.
• Again, we support brackish groundwater development.
• We support brackish groundwater project initiatives and protecting our fresh groundwater supplies for

Bills: HB1523, HB2109, HB2694, HB3525, HB3898, HB4646, HB5188, HB5219, HB5320, HB5651, HB5655, HB5659, HB5662, HB5672

Keywords: aquifer conservation, Class V injection well, environmental regulation, groundwater protection, municipal water supply, temporary prohibition, water management, reservoir construction, state water plan, Texas Water Code, environmental impact, Brazoria Drainage District, commissioners, elections, vacancies, resignation, HB 3525, North Texas Groundwater Conservation District, groundwater permit, permit amendment

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.

Transcript Highlights:

• for groundwater wells that are located within a brackish groundwater production area designated by the
• The committee substitute requires that groundwater conservation districts (GCDs) within brackish groundwater
• Groundwater Conservation District rules.
• We are the only entities that can regulate groundwater, and we do that the best we can.
• We support brackish groundwater project initiatives and protecting our fresh groundwater supplies for

Bills: HB1523, HB2109, HB2694, HB3525, HB3898, HB4646, HB5188, HB5219, HB5320, HB5651, HB5655, HB5659, HB5662, HB5672

Keywords: aquifer conservation, Class V injection well, environmental regulation, groundwater protection, municipal water supply, temporary prohibition, water management, reservoir construction, state water plan, Texas Water Code, environmental impact, Brazoria Drainage District, commissioners, elections, vacancies, resignation, HB 3525, North Texas Groundwater Conservation District, groundwater permit, permit amendment

Transcript Highlights:

• Secondly, the groundwater moves, groundwater movement, pumping from inside and outside the district pulls
• In closing, it is of utmost importance to our groundwater this that groundwater resources be protected
• Surface water contaminants getting into the groundwater.
• So our role as the regulator, we ensure that ASR...
• For North Texas Groundwater Conservation District.

Bills: HB1523, HB2109, HB2694, HB3525, HB3898, HB4646, HB5188, HB5219, HB5320, HB5651, HB5655, HB5659, HB5662, HB5672

Keywords: aquifer conservation, Class V injection well, environmental regulation, groundwater protection, municipal water supply, temporary prohibition, water management, reservoir construction, state water plan, Texas Water Code, environmental impact, Brazoria Drainage District, commissioners, elections, vacancies, resignation, HB 3525, North Texas Groundwater Conservation District, groundwater permit, permit amendment

Transcript Highlights:

• Groundwater Conservation District. you, Mr.
• Groundwater Conservation District.
• Representative Troxler, is the groundwater district supportive of this as well? Yes, yes.
• The Southeast Texas Groundwater Conservation District consists of four counties.
• It's estimated to be the 11th largest groundwater district in the state.

Bills: HB3115, HB5671, HB5693, SB790, SB1055, SB1302, SB1504, SB1625, SB1663, SB2692

Keywords: Cow Creek Groundwater Conservation District, groundwater, water wells, domestic well, livestock well, exempt well, metering device, well meter, groundwater conservation district, Special District Local Laws Code, Water Code, Section 36.117, groundwater regulation, water rights, aquifer management, municipal utility, retail public utility, groundwater export, water supply contract, election

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.

Bills: HB3115, HB5671, HB5693, SB790, SB1055, SB1302, SB1504, SB1625, SB1663, SB2692

Keywords: Cow Creek Groundwater Conservation District, groundwater, water wells, domestic well, livestock well, exempt well, metering device, well meter, groundwater conservation district, Special District Local Laws Code, Water Code, Section 36.117, groundwater regulation, water rights, aquifer management, municipal utility, retail public utility, groundwater export, water supply contract, election

Transcript Highlights:

• What's your groundwater conservation district over there?
• development of brackish groundwater.
• And the only way you can protect your right, your rights in your groundwater is to have a groundwater
• Are, are there any of these brackish groundwater production zones that are not within a groundwater district
• actions to protect groundwater quality.

Bills: HB 937, HB 2078, HB 2080, HB 3322, HB 3350, HB 4212, HB 4630, HB 4896, HB 4951, HB 5348, HB 5675, SB 565, SB 971, SB 1662, SB 2124

Keywords: special districts, notice requirements, Water Code, government transparency, public meetings, meeting notice, transparency, public engagement, notice, elections, groundwater management, water conservation, joint planning, environmental impact, desired future conditions, groundwater, conservation district, environmental quality, regulatory review, water utility

Transcript Highlights:

• This allows for a petition and hearing process. ...groundwater districts to amend brackish groundwater
• of brackish groundwater.
• The only way you can protect your rights in your groundwater is to have a groundwater conservation district
• Are there any of these brackish groundwater production zones that are not within a groundwater district
• So if we're doing production in an area that's not in a groundwater district for brackish groundwater

Bills: HB937, HB2078, HB2080, HB3322, HB3350, HB4212, HB4630, HB4896, HB4951, HB5348, HB5675, SB565, SB971, SB1662, SB2124

Keywords: special districts, notice requirements, Water Code, government transparency, public meetings, meeting notice, transparency, public engagement, notice, elections, groundwater management, water conservation, joint planning, environmental impact, desired future conditions, groundwater, conservation district, environmental quality, regulatory review, water utility

Transcript Highlights:

• I hear the concerns also about over-regulation.
• The previous regulation is conclusively presumed valid to have occurred in a.
• Additionally, builders are concerned about developing under newly passed regulations.
• To regulate all of the concerns that you have, but they chose to enforce it anyway.
• We don't regulate the number of bedrooms.

Bills: HB24, HB2015, HB2149, HB2559, HB2701, HB2797, HB3172, HB24

Keywords: zoning, public notice, local government, residential development, protests, water conservation, municipal utility districts, Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, environmental regulation, groundwater management, nonconforming uses, zoning regulations, land use, property rights, municipal authority, municipal moratorium, development moratorium, property development, subdivision, site plan

Transcript Highlights:

• Regulations. Businesses like stability as well.
• Operators from overly restrictive local regulations that exceed the established NFPA standards.
• I work a lot with groundwater conservation districts on tools that they need.
• Ninety-nine percent of the drinking water for rural Texans actually comes from groundwater.
• . availability study from any developer that uses groundwater for a subdivision.

Bills: HB24, HB2015, HB2149, HB2559, HB2701, HB2797, HB3172, HB24

Keywords: zoning, public notice, local government, residential development, protests, water conservation, municipal utility districts, Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, environmental regulation, groundwater management, nonconforming uses, zoning regulations, land use, property rights, municipal authority, municipal moratorium, development moratorium, property development, subdivision, site plan

Bills: SB 243, SB 1586, SB 1891, SB 1959, SB 2159, SB 2568

Keywords: wastewater treatment, environmental permits, Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, package plant, environmental protection, water utilities, sewer services, ratemaking, regulatory authority, Class A B C D utilities, rate proceedings, financial integrity, aquifer, Edwards Aquifer, water injection, environmental regulation, groundwater management

Transcript Highlights:

• decades to get to it, but I'm, I'm concerned for whatever reason that that well may pollute my groundwater

Bills: SB 1150, SB 763, SB 1061, SB 1146, SB 1198

Keywords: concrete plants, environmental regulation, permit process, air quality, Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, SB 1061, uranium mining, production area authorization, TCEQ, Water Code, groundwater, groundwater conservation district, restoration table value, restoration values, contested case hearing, Chapter 2001, mineral rights, surface owners, notice requirements, environmental permitting

Transcript Highlights:

• conservation districts of known groundwater contamination.
• groundwater withdrawals from the environmentally sensitive Edwards Aquifer.
• Permissive authorizations for counties in a priority groundwater management area.
• At this time, the district has reviewed 21 groundwater availability certifications.
• Statute that says if there is not adequate groundwater available, you shall deny it.

Bills: SB863, SB1190, SB1261, SB1413, SB1624, SB1662, SB1663, SB1855, SB1967, SB2124, SB2204, SB1623

Keywords: Edwards Aquifer, water conservation, reclaimed water, aquifer storage, environmental protection, water loss, municipally owned utilities, Texas Water Development Board, administrative penalties, water audit, water infrastructure, water supply, state water plan, water management strategies, water financing, municipal bonds, revenue bonds, public debt, obligations, TWDB

Transcript Highlights:

• conservation districts of known groundwater contamination.
• groundwater withdrawals from the environmentally sensitive Edwards Aquifer.
• "SB 1190" because it will help to reduce the pressure on groundwater exports.
• Fortunately, that particular land is enabled to have groundwater and have tanks.
• I'm the executive director of the Texas Alliance of Groundwater Districts.

Bills: SB863, SB1190, SB1261, SB1413, SB1624, SB1662, SB1663, SB1855, SB1967, SB2124, SB2204, SB1623

Keywords: Edwards Aquifer, water conservation, reclaimed water, aquifer storage, environmental protection, water loss, municipally owned utilities, Texas Water Development Board, administrative penalties, water audit, water infrastructure, water supply, state water plan, water management strategies, water financing, municipal bonds, revenue bonds, public debt, obligations, TWDB

Summary: The Senate Committee on Water, Agriculture, and Rural Affairs heard several water-related bills, with testimony focused on drinking water quality, groundwater contamination notice, flood infrastructure funding, water rights conservation, and utility service areas. SB 1662 would limit TCEQ’s advance notice to public water systems to no more than 24 hours before testing after a consumer complaint, to reduce the chance of temporary treatment affecting results. SB 1663 would allow TCEQ to notify private well owners, groundwater conservation districts, and nearby residents by direct means about known groundwater contamination, rather than relying mainly on first-class mail and annual reporting. SB 2124 would move the deadline for publishing the Texas Groundwater Protection Committee’s annual report from April 1 to June 1. Witnesses on the first two bills described long-running water quality problems and delayed notice in their communities and supported the measures. No opposition was recorded, and each bill was left pending for a later vote. The committee also heard SB 1967, which would expand eligibility for Flood Infrastructure Fund financing to multipurpose projects that both reduce flooding and create water supply. Senator Hinojosa and Hidalgo County representatives described the Delta Reclamation Project as a shovel-ready example that would capture flood and drainage water, treat it, and produce new potable supply while also providing detention and flood mitigation. A Sierra Club witness also supported the bill, saying such projects could help manage floodwaters and reduce polluted discharges to bays and estuaries. The bill was left pending. A lengthy and divided discussion followed on SB 1413, which would expand the streamlined expedited release process for landowners seeking removal from a water or sewer CCN in additional counties. Senator Nichols said the bill was a property-rights measure aimed at legacy monopolies and bad actors who use CCNs to hold landowners hostage, while supporters described cases where developers could not get timely service, including fire flow, or were asked to fund infrastructure without reasonable recoupment. Opponents from rural water corporations and utility associations argued the bill would undermine investment in water infrastructure, strand debt, and weaken the return on planned expansion. PUC and TCEQ resource witnesses explained that compensation is handled case by case through appraisal and can include stranded costs, planning, design, construction, and some legal fees, but members noted the statute is unclear and discussed possible committee substitute language. Public testimony was closed with the bill left pending. Later, SB 1624 would allow the Texas Water Trust within the Texas Water Bank to hold donated water rights for conservation purposes and protect them from use-it-or-lose-it cancellation, and SB 863 would address Edwards Aquifer utilities that straddle the aquifer boundary by allowing them to continue using Edwards water within their certificated areas under specified conditions. Both bills were laid out, received no public opposition in the hearing, and were left pending.