AN ACT to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 4 and Title 69, relative to the board of ground water management.
HB0894 restructures Tennessee’s Board of Ground Water Management, effective July 1, 2025. The bill vacates and reconstitutes the board as a five-member advisory body to assist the commissioner of environment and conservation in preparing rules. The new board includes two ex officio, nonvoting state officials—the commissioner (or designee) and the director of water resources (or designee)—and three voting members who are licensed as both water well drillers and pump installers, with one member from each grand division of the state.
The bill also creates three alternate members, one for each grand division, who may serve when a regular member is unable to attend or a vacancy occurs. It sets appointment authority, staggered initial terms, three-year terms thereafter, limits members to two consecutive terms, and allows current members to be reappointed under the new structure. The commissioner serves as chair and the director of water resources as secretary, with quarterly meetings, quorum rules, and travel reimbursement provisions.
In addition to board reorganization, HB0894 expands the board’s role in licensing and oversight. Before a well driller’s or installer’s license is issued, the board must review applications, administer the approved licensure test, interview applicants, and recommend approval or denial to the commissioner. The board must also review complaints and violations of adopted rules and recommend remedies, and it must review continuing education classes and programs and recommend approval of those offerings and continuing education points.
The bill amends Tennessee’s statutory provisions governing state boards by removing the board of ground water management from one list of boards and adding it to another, reflecting its updated status under Title 4. Overall, the legislation changes both the composition and administrative responsibilities of the board, while preserving the commissioner’s ultimate authority over licensing decisions and rulemaking.
The bill appears to have been broadly supported, passing key committees with strong margins and clearing the House and Senate floor votes. The only notable committee-level opposition shown in the record was a single no vote in the House Government Operations Committee and an 11-nay vote on the House floor, suggesting limited but present concern. The main points of discussion likely centered on board composition, the role of industry members versus state officials, and the extent of the board’s authority over licensing, complaints, and continuing education.
HB0894 amends Tennessee Code Annotated Title 69 and related board-governance provisions in Title 4 to reconstitute the Board of Ground Water Management and expand its advisory and licensing-review functions. It changes who serves on the board, how members are appointed, term limits, and how alternate members are used, while also assigning the board new responsibilities for reviewing license applications, complaints, violations, and continuing education programs. The bill affects the Department of Environment and Conservation, licensed well drillers and pump installers, and applicants for those licenses, but leaves final licensing authority with the commissioner.
The overall sentiment around HB0894 was favorable. It moved through subcommittee and committee review with strong or unanimous votes at most stages, and it ultimately passed both chambers. The floor votes indicate some opposition, but not enough to prevent passage, suggesting the bill was generally viewed as a routine or constructive administrative update rather than a controversial policy change.
The main areas of potential contention were the board’s composition and the balance between industry representation and state oversight. Because the bill gives three voting seats to licensed well drillers/pump installers while making the commissioner and water resources director ex officio nonvoting members, some lawmakers may have questioned whether the board is sufficiently independent or sufficiently expert-driven. Another possible point of concern was the board’s expanded role in reviewing complaints, violations, and continuing education, which increases its influence over licensing standards and professional discipline. The recorded votes show limited opposition, indicating these concerns were present but not dominant.