The Texas House took its first step toward revising a priority Senate bill last week. The changes were lauded by the state’s water community.
As water legislation advances in the Texas Legislature, a sharp divide has surfaced over how the state should safeguard and grow its water supply.
The Texas House last week took its first step toward tinkering with legislation already approved unanimously by the Senate. Their changes set up protracted negotiations between the two chambers and dozens of water advocacy groups that all have opinions on how billions of dollars should be spent over the next decade.
At a Thursday House committee hearing, the state’s water community showed overwhelming support for changes to a Senate bill proposed by state Rep. Cody Harris, R-Palenstine. His proposals provide more flexibility over what kind of water projects can be funded in the future.
That committee hearing offered a first look into how negotiations between the state House and Senate may go in the final month of the legislative session. Lawmakers in both chambers have put forth legislative packages to address the state’s looming water crisis. So far, much of the attention this legislative session has been focused on the Senate, where state Sen. Charles Perry, R-Lubbock, has pushed his solution to the state water crisis that calls for a major investment to create new water supply through a Senate resolution.
For months, water advocacy groups and water utility managers have suggested Perry’s proposal is too prescriptive and puts too much focus on creating new water supply. His resolution calls for 80% of new revenue to be put toward projects such as desalination, which cleans sea and brackish water well enough to drink. The remaining 20% would be distributed for water infrastructure repairs, conservation programs and flood mitigation. These are tasks that experts say Texas is already billions of dollars and years behind on improving. The resolution has not been debated by either chamber yet.
On Thursday, Harris presented changes to Perry’s priority legislation that would remove such a formula and place decision-making authority with the Texas Water Development Board. It also expands funding eligibility to include water reuse, reservoir projects permitted by the state, and conveyance projects to transport water. It also allows money to be used for the Flood Infrastructure Fund, the Economically Distressed Areas Program, and the Agricultural Water Conservation Fund.
“Through this bill, we prioritize small, rural and failing utilities by explicitly stating the fund can be used to provide grants to those systems and providing additional resources for technical assistance,” Harris said.
Sarah Kirkle with the Texas Water Association spoke in favor of the changes to Perry’s bill, and thanked Harris for his willingness to work with the water community.
“Overall, this bill provides additional tools in the toolbox to support the diverse needs of Texas communities,” Kirkle said. “But, it depends on additional funds to make it successful.”
Jed Murray, director of government relations for the Texas International Produce Association, told the committee that the bill doesn’t do enough to address the needs in South Texas and the Rio Grande Valley. The area has experienced severe water scarcity in recent years, which has upended agricultural production in the region. Murray said water in the Valley comes from the Rio Grande River, and they need to upgrade infrastructure to conserve it. New water supply projects won’t help them, he said.
“New water is a great idea, but we won’t get new water quick enough to save our growers,” Murray said. “To do that, we have to figure out how we can conserve and redo our infrastructure.”
However the legislation shakes out, voters likely will be asked to approve spending $1 billion a year for the next decade. But another possible wrench in the progress is a tug-of-war over constitutional amendments. For weeks, Texas House Democrats have stalled progress on constitutional amendments, leveraging one of their few powers in an attempt to extract concessions from Republicans on other issues this session.
The House proposal to ask voters for the money could be debated as early as Tuesday, a test to see if Democrats hold the line.
Perry Fowler, executive director of the Texas Water Infrastructure Network, said the Legislature must come together to tackle the water crisis.
“If there’s one thing that brings everyone together, no matter the party, it’s water,” Fowler said. “I don’t think anyone wants to go back to their district and say they stood in the way of doing something truly generational.”
It’s unclear whether Perry will accept the changes to his signature proposal, which he spent more than a year drafting. Neither Perry or Harris responded to interview requests from the Tribune.
Perry has talked about creating new water supplies for a long time in the Capitol, and his proposals this year are consistent with his goals. Perry has repeatedly said this session that creating new sources of water must be the top priority. If they don’t create these new sources now, Perry has said, the opportunity won’t be there in the future.
At the same time, water experts say both creating new water and protecting the existing supply are important. They also say the decision on how the money is split shouldn’t be up to lawmakers.
“Both are very important,” said Robert R. Puente, CEO for San Antonio Water System. However, he added, “Whether you concentrate on one or the other, I think depends on your water utility.”
Puente points to two cities with different needs — San Antonio and Corpus Christi.
Corpus Christi “needs water tomorrow,” Puente told the Tribune. The city is betting on seawater desalination, which will separate salt from seawater so it can be used for drinking water. It has four pending permits for the projects with the state’s environmental agency.
Unlike Corpus Christi, San Antonio is focused on what Puente calls “lost water” or repairing and replacing infrastructure so that water is not lost through leaks and breaks. He said their focus lies there because San Antonio has been able to diversify its water sources to include water conservation, water recycling, desalination and storing excess water underground during wet periods, allowing it to be withdrawn during droughts. The utility has been able to reduce its water consumption by 49% in the last 40 years.
While San Antonio has led in water strategies, the city lost 19.5 billion gallons of water in 2023 because of aging water infrastructure and extreme heat.
Lee Blaney, an environmental engineering professor with the University of Maryland Baltimore County, said losing water to leaking water pipes is a national problem — around 6 billion gallons of treated water is lost every day in the U.S. Part of the solution has to be fixing the infrastructure, Blaney said.
“We can create new drinking water supplies but, if we’re still losing so much water due to outdated infrastructure, shouldn’t we focus on improving the distribution system?” Blaney said.
Even as water organizations have explained the shape Texas’ water system is in, there hasn’t been the appetite to do a full overhaul of Texas’ water infrastructure. Blaney said it would be difficult and costly to update the distribution system. Everything would need to be dug up in order to reach the pipes underground, he said.
“I think the long-term disruption that comes with such updates is one of the primary reasons why we haven’t invested in that direction just yet,” Blaney said. “But we can’t keep patching the system over and over. It’s going to lead to bigger issues that are more difficult to address in the future.”
Puente said SAWS has doubled its leak detection team since 2023, hired new crews to respond faster, and launched a $215 million project in 2022 to install automated water meters across San Antonio. Puente said this strategy helps the utility be proactive, instead of reactionary, but the utility and others need funding to continue this work.
Amy Hardberger, director for the Center for Water Law and Policy at Texas Tech University, said the price of some methods to create new water or treat it can be expensive. The water supply now is already in the system, she said, and its loss through aging infrastructure can be prevented by maintenance and repair.
“That’s not water we have to go buy and move somewhere or treat,” Hardberger said. “Infrastructure replacement is not inexpensive, but it is less expensive than some of the new supply options.”
A Texas 2036 report estimated that the state needs nearly $154 billion by 2050 for water infrastructure, including $59 billion for water supply projects, $74 billion for leaky pipes and infrastructure maintenance, and $21 billion to fix broken wastewater systems.
Source: Jayme Lozano Carver and Alejandra Martinez, The Texas Tribune
Photo Credit: Texas lawmakers are debating how prescriptive to be in legislation that would spend about $1 billion a year over the next decade to secure the state’s water supply. Credit: Justin Hamel for The Texas Tribune
