AN ACT to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 4 and Title 69, relative to the board of ground water management.
SB0720 reorganizes 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 well drillers and pump installers from the western, middle, and eastern grand divisions of the state. Those industry members must have at least five consecutive years of active well-drilling experience in Tennessee, serve staggered initial terms, and may serve no more than two consecutive terms, with alternate members also appointed to fill vacancies or attend in place of absent members from the same grand division.
The bill also expands and clarifies the board’s duties. Before the issuance of a well driller’s license or installer’s license, the board must review applications, administer the approved licensure test, interview applicants, and recommend approval or denial to the commissioner. In addition, the board must review complaints and violations of adopted rules and recommend remedies, and it must review continuing education classes and programs and recommend approval of those programs and continuing education points. The commissioner serves as chair, the director of water resources serves as secretary, and the board must meet at least quarterly.
The bill amends Tennessee Code Annotated Title 69 and makes related changes to Title 4 governing state boards and commissions. It removes the board from one statutory list of entities and adds it to another, reflecting its reconstituted status. The practical effect is to preserve the board as an advisory and licensing-review body while formalizing its membership structure, appointment process, alternates, and reporting role in groundwater regulation and professional licensing.
The general sentiment reflected in the legislative history is strongly favorable. The bill passed the Senate Energy, Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee 9-0 and the Senate Finance, Ways and Means Committee 10-0, indicating broad bipartisan support and little visible opposition. The available record does not include committee debate, but the unanimous votes suggest the measure was viewed as a routine administrative update to improve board operations and licensing oversight rather than a controversial policy change.
No major points of contention are evident in the available materials. The only potentially sensitive issue is the bill’s decision to reserve the three voting board seats for licensed well drillers and pump installers with substantial in-state experience, which gives industry professionals a central role in licensing and enforcement recommendations. However, the unanimous committee votes indicate that any concerns about representation, appointment authority, or board composition were not significant enough to generate recorded opposition.
The bill amends Tennessee Code Annotated §§ 69-10-107 and related provisions in Title 4 to vacate and reconstitute the Board of Ground Water Management, change its membership and appointment structure, and codify its advisory role in licensing, complaints, and continuing education. It also updates the state’s board/commission listings to reflect the board’s new status. The affected parties are the Department of Environment and Conservation, the commissioner of environment and conservation, the director of water resources, licensed well drillers and pump installers, and applicants for driller/installer licenses and continuing education approval.
The bill appears to have been received positively and without controversy in committee. It advanced unanimously through the Senate Energy, Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee and the Senate Finance, Ways and Means Committee, suggesting broad support for the administrative reorganization and licensing oversight changes. No recorded testimony or floor debate is provided, but the voting history indicates a consensus that the bill was a practical governance update.
No significant contention is documented in the available record. The only arguable point of debate is the composition of the reconstituted board, which places three voting seats with experienced industry professionals and gives state officials ex officio, nonvoting roles. That structure could raise questions about industry influence versus public oversight, but the unanimous committee votes suggest those concerns were not prominent in the legislative process.