BILL WOULD CREATE ONE BILLION DOLLAR FUNDING SOURCE FOR WATER SUPPLY
(AUSTIN) — Funding for water needs under the new framework passed this session must be weighted towards increasing supply rather than fixing infrastructure, said the sponsor of a measure to create a reliable, annual funding source to build state water projects through 2075. The Senate Finance Committee on Wednesday heard testimony on HJR 7, sponsored by Lubbock Senator Charles Perry, which would ask voters to amend the state constitution and dedicate $1 billion in state sales tax revenue towards water supply and infrastructure each year. As it was passed out of the House the measure was silent on how the Texas Water Development Board would allocate this money between the two categories, but the version considered in committee Wednesday would require that 80 percent of the funds go towards developing new water supply rather than towards repairs of leaky infrastructure. Given the looming water shortage facing the state over the next fifty years, Perry said that the funds must be directed mostly into supply projects. “It will be weighted majority more for supply, or we did not get supply funded,” said Perry. “This would be probably the last train out on water conversations for a long time, and if we don’t meet that need we will have missed our boat.”
Perry is also the author of SB 7, a comprehensive state plan that seeks to meet the water needs of the growing Texas population over the next fifty years. Experts predict the cost of supplying these needs could approach or even exceed $150 billion, and Perry says that under the status quo, the state looks to be short six million acre-feet of water by 2050. Annual usage in Texas today is around 15 million acre-feet. While the state is losing billions of gallons of water through these leaks, it’s a proverbial drop in the bucket when it comes to the state’s overall needs. “If we could stop all leaks today, it produces 463,000 acre-feet,” he said. “That’s less than six percent of the total water supply needs – and it’s not actually increasing supply, it’s just extending existing supply.”
Perry allowed that the current split in the Senate proposal will likely come down as the House and Senate negotiate the measure in conference committee. He was adamant, however, that most of the funds should be directed towards creating new supply and protected through specific language in the state constitution. With the majority of leaky infrastructure located in the state’s most populous cities, he worries that the process would end up favoring urban projects rather than benefiting all 254 counties in Texas. “The political pressures of just that sheer population would shove most of that money towards fixing leaking pipes and the state would’ve missed the opportunity with the limited funds available to actually address a supply need that is critical to continue the “Texas Miracle” as we know it for decades to come,” said Perry.
The new funding stream, if approved by voters, wouldn’t begin until the 2028-2029 biennium and would run for 16 years after that. That’s about twice as long as the House version. Perry said that the term needs to be as long as it is due to the nature of planning and construction of major water projects. “In sixteen years, I anticipate, based on conversations with regional river authorities and other water provider groups, there will be significant movement and some “wins”, if you will, on actual supply, but it won’t happen in eight years,” said Perry. “We’re on a two-year cycle, right, and people think in two-year segments and I don’t want an eight-year window to stop, and see several billion dollars implemented, but no water moving. I want to give it the time to come to maturity.”
Though the new funding source, if approved by the voters, wouldn’t kick in for three years, the Senate’s version of the state budget includes $2.5 billion to capitalize the new water fund. The budget is still in negotiations between the two chambers, but the House and Senate versions included the same amount for water funding for the next biennium.
###