Bill: HB 928, 84(R) - 2015

Bill Caption

Relating to state and local planning for and responses to drought.

Fiscal Notes

No significant fiscal implication to the State is anticipated. 

Bill Analysis

(The second chamber sponsor is Hinojosa.)

HB 928, if passed, would make a number of changes to the Water Code as it relates to local preparation for potential drought. There are three major sections of the bill, each of which will be described in turn.

Section one would modify Section 10.010 of the code in part by cleaning up some of the language, and by eliminating a task force which was implemented in 2003). It would also enlarge the responsibilities of the Texas Commission on Environmental Policy to include assisting with drought preparedness strategies, monitoring of new technologies, and developing new and relevant methodologies.

Section two would modify Section 11.1272 of the code and relates to the updating of contingency plans submitted by wholesale water suppliers, retail public water suppliers, or irrigation districts. Further details describe that these plans are to be monitored by TCEQ.

Section three would modify Subchapter C, Chapter 16 of the code by adding a new section (16.0552) which would introduce language regarding best management practices. These practices would be developed as a collaboration between the TCEQ and the Water Conservation Advisory Council.

EDIT: The senate committee report version of the bill would make two additional changes. It would require that two board members represent investor owned utilities, and it would state that member terms last eight to nine years, as opposed to the seven or eight years currently in code.

Vote Recommendation Notes

We recognize that management of water resources, particularly in times of drought, is a legitimate function of the state. That said, there is nothing particularly noteworthy about HB 928 as regards our principles. Eliminating the 2003 task force would be prudent and best practices could make the regime more efficient. On the other hand increasing TCEQ responsibilities could have marginal costs. Ultimately, we find HB 928 to be mostly related to state procedure. We are neutral on the bill.  

EDIT: The additional changes made in the senate version make the bill marginally worse. Extending board member terms by a year might hurt transparency and accountability in a minor way. Such a change is problematic and should be removed, though it is not significant enough to change our neutral stance.

Source URL (retrieved on 04/18/2024 10:04 PM): http://reports.texasaction.com/bill/84r/hb928?print_view=true