Tennessee House Bill HB0375

Tennessee 2023-2024 Regular Session

• Introduced: 1/23/23
• Refer: 2/1/23
• Refer: 1/30/24
• Refer: 2/7/24
• Refer: 4/17/24
• Chaptered: 5/13/24
• Passed: 5/13/24

Caption

AN ACT to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 64, Chapter 1, Part 6, relative to the Tennessee Duck River development agency.

Impact

The amendment of the code has significant implications for how water systems operate in the relevant counties. By instituting a per thousand-gallon membership fee, the bill ensures that financial resources are allocated towards essential programs and projects linked to water management in the Duck River watershed. The bill may lead to enhanced collaboration among local governments and public utilities, creating an infrastructure for more effective water resource management.

Summary

House Bill 0375, known as the act to amend Tennessee Code Annotated regarding the Tennessee Duck River development agency, focuses on the governance and funding structure for the agency responsible for managing water resources from the upper Duck River watershed. The bill modifies existing regulations by establishing a technical advisory committee composed of representatives from various water systems and outlines a new fee structure for finished water pumped from this watershed. This fee is intended to cover the agency's operating costs and support regional water supply programs.

Sentiment

Overall, the sentiment surrounding HB 0375 appears to be supportive among stakeholders focused on sustainable water resource management. Proponents view the bill as a beneficial framework that will strengthen water supply operations and improve regional coordination. However, there may be some concerns raised regarding the financial implications for smaller water systems, which could see increased operational costs due to the membership fees.

Contention

Notable points of contention include discussions over the drafting of the membership fee and the governance of the technical advisory committee. Some stakeholders argue that the fee structure could disproportionately affect smaller systems that may struggle with the added financial burden. Additionally, the changes to the technical advisory committee's composition and voting may prompt concerns about equitable representation and the influence of larger water systems in decision-making processes.