Transcript Highlights:

• Our clients are irrigation districts, water conservancies, the state of Utah and Idaho themselves, and
• , and even conservation is included within the Water Supply Development Revolving Fund as well.
• “Madam Chair, again, this is in order to conserve water, is that what I’m getting from this?
• Conserve water and not allow as much irrigation as somebody would want?”
• “Okay, but that’s in order to conserve water in the surrounding area.

Bills: HB2024, HB2053, HB2097, HB2116, HB2117

Keywords: stormwater, recharge mapping, water resources, groundwater, appropriation, Arizona, irrigation, non-expansion areas, water management, agriculture, HB2116, Colorado River, litigation fund, water rights, Arizona water law, general fund appropriation, state budget, interstate water compact, Colorado River Compact, water litigation

Summary: The committee began with member and staff introductions, then heard House Bill 2024, which would expand the Water Infrastructure Finance Authority’s water supply development definition to include snowpack augmentation and related planning and facility work. Supporters argued cloud seeding and drone-based silver iodide deployment could increase snowpack and water supply at relatively low cost, while opponents raised concerns about weather modification, uncertainty in the science, and possible environmental or health effects. After debate, the committee approved HB 2024 on a 6-4 vote, with some members expressing reservations and requesting more information before floor consideration. The committee next considered House Bill 2053, which would direct the Arizona Department of Water Resources to update stormwater recharge mapping statewide and provide $100,000 for the work. The sponsor and ADWR said the bill would expand on prior state-land mapping and help identify recharge opportunities on private land; ADWR was neutral and said it could do the technical mapping but could not make legal determinations about appropriable surface water rights. Salt River Project opposed the bill’s language on surface-water rights, arguing that determinations about unappropriated water belong to the courts and that site-specific recharge projects could affect downstream rights. The committee adopted the Griffin amendment and then passed HB 2053 as amended on a 6-4 vote. Chelsea McGuire of WIFA then gave a broad presentation on the agency’s revolving funds, conservation grants, and long-term augmentation efforts, describing past investments, current grant awards, and seven potential augmentation projects under development. She said WIFA’s current budget ask was essentially for no additional cuts, while members asked about costs, project qualifications, and public-private structure. The committee then took up House Bill 2097, which would impose a six acre-feet-per-acre groundwater pumping cap in irrigation non-expansion areas, add reporting and well-measurement requirements, and set a $150 penalty for violations. ADWR said the bill could require additional staffing and that the cap and substitution provisions had technical concerns; environmental groups argued the cap was too high and could still encourage overpumping, while supporters said it would finally place a limit on INA pumping. HB 2097 passed 6-4. Finally, the committee heard House Bill 2116, which would appropriate $1 million to the Colorado River Litigation Fund; the sponsor described it as a contingency for ongoing Colorado River negotiations, and the committee moved the bill forward after brief discussion.

Transcript Highlights:

• of water rights for environmental and conservation purposes.
• The Nature Conservancy in Texas has worked here for over 60 years to preserve the lands and waters on
• We're going to close the regulatory gap, strengthen conservation, protect regional water planning, and
• Of course, we want to conserve. It is our business to work in water. The water disappears.
• What are your members doing to conserve water and make sure they're staying within the rules?

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:

• Romero: voluntary dedication of water rights for environmental and conservation purposes.
• conservation mechanisms beyond surface water.
• The Nature Conservancy in Texas has worked here for over 60 years to preserve the lands and waters on
• Of Ashley Myers: course, we want to conserve. It is our business to work in water.
• What are your members doing to conserve water and make sure they're staying within the rules?

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:

• OK, Senate Water Committee on Agricultural, Water, Rural Affairs, come to order.
• Water district will cooperate, which is most of the water districts and irrigation district.
• And the mitigation plan currently in Gonzales County by the Gonzales County Underground Water Conservation
• If you got no water. I like to say in this committee, you can't live without water or bees.
• validate the results of the water loss audits and submit water loss mitigation plans.

Bills: HB2018, HB1633, HB1689, SB612, SB3058

Keywords: agricultural conservation, land preservation, environmental protection, wildlife habitat, Texas Farm and Ranch, groundwater conservation district, Texas Water Code, water permit, permit amendment, groundwater permit, water rights, aquifer, well registration, exempt wells, beneficial use, water conservation, groundwater quality, well plugging, Hill Country Priority Groundwater Management Area, surface water resources

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.

Transcript Highlights:

• The Senate Water Committee on Agriculture, Water, and Rural Affairs comes to order. Call the roll.
• conservation district (GCD) must consider when reviewing a permit application for water use.
• they replaced the water well, but we were out of water for about almost a year.
• Plan currently in Gonzales County by the Gonzales County Underground Water Conservation District is inadequate
• to validate the results of the water loss audits and submit water loss mitigation plans.

Bills: HB2018, HB1633, HB1689, SB612, SB3058

Keywords: agricultural conservation, land preservation, environmental protection, wildlife habitat, Texas Farm and Ranch, groundwater conservation district, Texas Water Code, water permit, permit amendment, groundwater permit, water rights, aquifer, well registration, exempt wells, beneficial use, water conservation, groundwater quality, well plugging, Hill Country Priority Groundwater Management Area, surface water resources

Bills: HB 16, HB 1618, HB 2692, HB 2712, HB 2970, HB 3609, HB 3628

Keywords: water infrastructure, Texas Water Development Board, financial assistance, water supply projects, rural municipalities, water access assessment, aquifer storage, Edwards Aquifer, water injection, environmental regulations, groundwater management, San Antonio River, pollution control, flood management, water quality, conservation district, bonds, utility rates, ratemaking, water services

Bills: HB 16, HB 1618, HB 2692, HB 2712, HB 2970, HB 3609, HB 3628

Keywords: water infrastructure, Texas Water Development Board, financial assistance, water supply projects, rural municipalities, water access assessment, aquifer storage, Edwards Aquifer, water injection, environmental regulations, groundwater management, San Antonio River, pollution control, flood management, water quality, conservation district, bonds, utility rates, ratemaking, water services

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:

• Our water districts have invested a lot of money in conservation and preservation.
• If we think that we're not being conservative, you should see my water bill in DFW.
• Tarrant Regional Water District alone saves 26 billion gallons of water each year through conservation
• For example, if conservation or another water management strategy enables a community to push their water
• going into the system, even if you're reusing and conserving water.

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:

• So our water districts, I think, are doing a good job at conservation, at making sure that we're not
• Our water districts are investing a lot of money in conservation and preservation.
• I think that we're not being conservative; you should see my water bill in DFW.
• For example, if conservation or another water management strategy enables a community to push their water
• Conserving water. So you do need a lot of additional water for high growth areas. I can't say...

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:

• But we need water. We need water. water and the Rio Grande River ain't cutting it.
• pulling up water.
• Primary water source.
• Water is a primary source of water for cities, agriculture, and industry.
• Under current law, the North Texas ground water conservation district issues permits for groundwater

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:

• But today, I sit here as Vice Chair of Water Trust Board.
• So The story of water in 2017, our distribution of the Water Trust Board was zero.
• So, what that does for projects is that the Water Trust Board opens the notice of intents.
• The Water Trust Board, NMFA, NMFA Oversight, we all get our job completed by December.
• But what I might add to this is that all the water and wastewater projects that go through the Water

Bills: HM26, HB243, HB109

Keywords: insects, ecosystem, education, public awareness, wildlife conservation, state agency involvement, New Mexico, equine welfare, animal rescue, shelter funding, trust fund, veterinary care, water project fund, water project finance act, New Mexico Finance Authority, water infrastructure, water grants, water loans, regional water planning, water rights adjudication

Transcript Highlights:

• able to use the water for beneficial reuse locally where we, where we use the water is a huge advantage
• water rates from one particular water company.
• The unexpected water bills.
• So we have a water system.
• Everybody wants water, needs water.

Bills: HB 29, HB 685, HB 1633, HB 1689, HB 1690, HB 1918, HB 2010, HB 2500, HB 2608, HB 2626

Keywords: water audit, water loss, water loss mitigation plan, municipally owned utility, municipal utility, water conservation, Texas Water Development Board, TCEQ, Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, water leakage, leak detection, billing data accuracy, utility validation, water audit validation, water scarcity, water management, infrastructure, public utility, conservation plan, administrative penalty

Transcript Highlights:

• Concern by the stakeholders and Gonzalez Underground Water Conservation District.
• I'm the Vice President of Conservation at the San Antonio Water System.
• The bill further suggests that water loss mitigation plans be rolled into the conservation plans that
• Water conservation is required to be done every five years in a very public way.
• As someone who serves on the Water Conservation Advisory Council, we like to see progress.

Bills: HB29, HB685, HB1633, HB1689, HB1690, HB1918, HB2010, HB2500, HB2608, HB2626, HB29

Keywords: water audit, water loss, water loss mitigation plan, municipally owned utility, municipal utility, water conservation, Texas Water Development Board, TCEQ, Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, water leakage, leak detection, billing data accuracy, utility validation, water audit validation, water scarcity, water management, infrastructure, public utility, conservation plan, administrative penalty

Transcript Highlights:

• water for beneficial purposes.
• usage and their water rates from one particular water company, leading to much higher bills than they
• You guys do great work in trying to address the water needs and water infrastructure, and I know this
• is supposed to be a water session.
• Everyone wants water and needs water.

Bills: HB29, HB685, HB1633, HB1689, HB1690, HB1918, HB2010, HB2500, HB2608, HB2626, HB29

Keywords: water audit, water loss, water loss mitigation plan, municipally owned utility, municipal utility, water conservation, Texas Water Development Board, TCEQ, Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, water leakage, leak detection, billing data accuracy, utility validation, water audit validation, water scarcity, water management, infrastructure, public utility, conservation plan, administrative penalty

Transcript Highlights:

• Senate Bill 1624 would allow for water rights to be held in the trust for the purpose of water conservation
• Since surface water rights have a use them or lose them principle, holding them in a trust for conservation
• Um, making the water bank and water trust more flexible will only help the state meet its water needs
• So every time you replace a water line, that's conservation right there.
• Um Wimberley Water Supply Corporation supports a healthy economic groundwater conservation district.

Bills: HB 5208, SB 863, SB 1243, SB 1624, SB 1965, SB 2660, SB 2702, SB 2885

Keywords: water filtration, public drinking water, health and safety, well maintenance, water quality, Edwards Aquifer, water conservation, reclaimed water, aquifer storage, environmental protection, public utility agency, dissolution, local government, regulatory framework, municipal authority, Texas Water Bank, Texas Water Trust, water rights, water banking, instream flow

Transcript Highlights:

• Senate Bill 1624 would allow for water rights to be held in the trust for the purpose of water conservation
• Since surface water rights have a use them or lose them principle, holding them in a trust for conservation
• That aside, we were able, subsequently, in 2020, after spending over $1 million on water conservation
• So every time you replace a water line, that's conservation right there.
• Wimberley Water Supply Corporation supports a healthy economic groundwater conservation district.

Bills: HB5208, SB863, SB1243, SB1624, SB1965, SB2660, SB2702, SB2885

Keywords: water filtration, public drinking water, health and safety, well maintenance, water quality, Edwards Aquifer, water conservation, reclaimed water, aquifer storage, environmental protection, public utility agency, dissolution, local government, regulatory framework, municipal authority, Texas Water Bank, Texas Water Trust, water rights, water banking, instream flow

Transcript Highlights:

• Under Chapter 36 of the Water Code, the legislature has already called upon groundwater conservation
• surface water—I'm assuming most of those water rights are allocated to Tarrant County Regional Water
• or develop their water.
• water changes ownership hands as it moves from surface water to groundwater.
• HB 24 would help ensure that groundwater conservation districts can't permit an amount of water that

Bills: HB24, HB27

Keywords: groundwater, conservation, water permits, sustainability, resource management

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.

Transcript Highlights:

• and water conservation at that moment of creation.
• no issue with doing water conservation plans.
• districts to have water conservation plans.
• You don't have to have a water conservation plan.
• , to conserve water.

Bills: HB24

Keywords: groundwater, conservation, water permits, sustainability, resource management

Transcript Highlights:

• So it's Texas Water Code 16315, um.
• Water, sewer systems, all of that is sewer, electricity.
• Um, so you said you provide water and sewer to some.
• It's all grazed cows, and they don't want water.
• Our water is supplied by a co op, but we do provide the roads.

Bills: HB24

Keywords: groundwater, conservation, water permits, sustainability, resource management