Prop 6 and hb

Janu

ary

23, 2

014 PROP 6 AND HB 4: FINANCING,

PRIORITIZING, AND CONSERVING TEXAS WATER IN THE 83rd TEXAS LEGISLATURE

ELIZABETH A. FAZIO, J.D., LL.M. DIRECTOR,HOUSE NATURAL RESOURCES COMMITTEE

GULF COAST WATER CONSERVATION SYMPOSIUM

6 Other Pieces of Conservation Legislation:

HB 857HB 1461HB 3604 HB 3605SB 198

SB 1

BIG SESSION FOR CONSERVATION IN TEXAS 83rd Legislative Session


annual water audits consumer notice of water loss

water conservation plans water loss and

financial assistance

drought resistance landscaping

$ education

$ instream

flow studies

2


HOUSE BILL 857Rep. Lucio III and Sen. Ellis

AN

NU

AL

WA

TE

R L

OS

S A

UD

ITS

3

HOUSE BILL 1461Rep. Aycock and Sen. Fraser

CU

ST

OM

ER

NO

TIF

ICA

TIO

N –

SY

ST

EM

WA

TE

R L

OS

S


4

HOUSE BILLS 3604 & 3605Rep. Burnam and Sen. Hegar

WA

TE

R C

ON

SE

RV

AT

ION

PLA

NS


– Requires implementation of both DCP and WCP

– Strengthens requirements for entities receiving financial assistance* from the TWDB:• water loss mitigation• BMPs• industry standards and certifications

*mitigation must be in SWP if entity is using SWIFT

Drought Contingency Plans vs. Water Conservation Plans

5

– Ensures that HOAs cannot prohibit use of drought-resistant landscape or water-conserving natural turf.

– Allows HOAs to require the homeowner to submit a plan for such use. LA

ND

SC

AP

ING

SENATE BILL 198Sen. Watson and Rep. Dukes


6

SENATE BILL 1Sen. Williams and Rep. Pitts

–Water Conservation Education & Other• $1,000,000 education grants (Avg FY approp is $4.68M)• $2,000,000 for matching grants on ag irrigation

metering.

– Environment and Instream Flow Studies• $2,000,000

CO

NS

ER

VA

TIO

N A

PP

RO

PR

IAT

ION

S


7

How has financing and prioritization been addressed for the 2012 SWP?

“Trio of Bills”• Senate Joint Resolution 1 (Prop 6)– Constitutionally creates the SWIFT and SWIRFT

Voter approval in November 5th, 2013 general election by 73%.

• House Bill 1025– Authorizes a one-time $2B transfer from the Rainy Day

Fund to the SWIFT.

• House Bill 4– Provides for the structure, administration, and oversight of

the funds.


8

HOUSE BILL 4Rep. Ritter and Sen. Fraser

• Maximized Financial Structure– $2B cash active management in SWIFT– Revenue bonding authority in SWIRFT + existing

General Obligation bonding Authority

• Administration – BIG ON CONSERVATION– Embraces conservation and reuse projects as part of overall

strategy to meet future needs and recognizes the need to ensure rural areas are supported; and

– Requires the regional and statewide prioritization of projects in the financing of the state water plan.


OV

ER

VIE

W

9

LEVERAGED MODEL WITH EXISTING TWDB PROGRAMS


HB

4 F

INA

NC

IAL

ST

RU

CT

UR

E

10

CONSERVATION• Use of the Fund

• Eligibility

• Prioritization of Projects by TWDB


HB

4 A

DM

INIS

TR

AT

ION

Independence CreekCopyright © 2010 Photographs by Charles Kruvand, from The Living Waters of Texas, Texas A&M University Press

11

“TARGETED GOAL”

During the life of any 5-year SWP, the board shall undertake to apply:

• 10% rural areas*• 20% water conservation or reuse^

*agricultural water conservation ^agriculture irrigation projects


SW

IFT

US

E O

F F

UN

DS

12

FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE

Applicant must:

• submit and implement a water conservation plan

• complete a water infrastructure financing survey.

*All projects must be included in the state water plan


SW

IFT

ELI

GIB

ILIT

Y

13

PRIORITIZATIONTwo-Tiers: Regional and Statewide

• Regions must prioritize projects within each respective region using a uniform template developed by stakeholders committee– 5 minimal criteria

• TWDB must develop a point system for the prioritization of projects at the time of its request for financial assistance, including: – high consideration factors– 7 other factors


SW

IFT

PR

IOR

ITIZ

AT

ION

14

Decade of need

Feasibility

Viability

Sustainability

Cost effectiveness


MIN

IMU

M C

RIT

ER

IA T

O B

E U

SE

D B

Y S

TAK

EH

OLD

ER

S

REGIONAL PRIORITIZATION

15

Serves large population

Assists both urban and rural

Provides regionalization; OR

Meets high % of water users’ needs


HIG

HE

ST

CO

NS

IDE

RA

TIO

N T

O B

E C

ON

SID

ER

ED

BY

TW

DB

PRIORITIZATION OF THE PROJECTS

16

Local financial contribution

Financial capacity of applicant to repay

Ability to leverage with local and federal funding

Emergency need

Readiness to proceed

Projected effect on water conservation

Priority given by region


OT

HE

R F

AC

TO

RS

TO

BE

CO

NS

IDE

RE

D B

Y T

WD

B

PRIORITIZATION OF THE PROJECTS

17

CONSERVATION

“Demonstrated or projected effect of the project on water conservation” • Prevention of water loss; and• Filing of a water loss audit which

demonstrates accountability for reducing water loss and increasing efficiency in the distribution of water.


SW

IFT

PR

IOR

ITIZ

AT

ION

How will it all work together?

8.3 million

acre-feet of water short in repeat drought of record by 2060

16 regional

waterplanning groups

9 million acre-feet of water supplied by 2012 SWP recommended strategies

562 recommended strategies produced by regional planning groups

$53.1 billion in

capital costs are needed to implement the plan

46 million

people in Texas by 2060

19

2012 SWP STRATEGIES % OVERALL


20

CO

NS

ER

VA

TIO

N B

Y T

HE

NU

MB

ER

SO

VE

RA

LL

IRRIGATION AND MUNICIPAL CONSERVATION OUT OF $53B

• Out of the TOTAL capital cost of the plan:

– Irrigation $902M or 1.7% Overall– Municipal $24M or 0.05% Overall


20

12

SW

P C

AP

ITA

L C

OS

TS

M

AJO

R C

ON

SE

RV

AT

ION

- $

21

Other Surface Water; 54%

Municipal Conservation, 0.02%

New Major Reservoirs; 15%

Reuse; 10%

Groundwater; 8%

Groundwater Desalination, 2.77%

Seawater Desalination; 6%

Surface Water Desalination, 0.05%Conjunctive Use; 1%

Aquifer Storage and Recovery; 2%


CO

NS

ER

VA

TIO

N B

Y T

HE

NU

MB

ER

SR

EQ

UE

ST

ED

2012 SWP CAPITOL COST% REQUESTED OUT OF $27B

22

CONSERVATION SOLUTIONS

• Reducing Water Loss Systems• Educational Programs• Customer-side Municipal Water

Conservation Programs– Such As Retrofitting Toilets and Other Water-

Using Devices With Low Flow• “PACE-like” Programs

CO

NS

ER

VA

TIO

N I

DE

AS

FO

R F

UT

UR

E S

WP


23

PROCEED WITH CAUTION

• Article III, Sec. 52(a) is known as “the gift clause.” – “shall have no power”…”to lend its credit or to

grant public money or thing of value in aid of, or to any individual, association, or corporation…”

– Prohibits the use of public funds for private benefit

TH

E G

IFT

CLA

US

E


24

DEFINE PUBLIC PURPOSE

• Texas caselaw supports 4-part test in defining “public purpose:”1. Does the expenditure serve a public purpose?2. Are there sufficient controls on the expenditure to

ensure that the public purpose will be carried out;3. Is the public protected in the use of the public funds to

accomplish the intended result; and4. Has adequate consideration passed to the political

subdivision making the expenditure?PU

BLI

C P

UR

PO

SE

V.

PR

IVA

TE

BE

NE

FIT


25

What is the past, present, and future for SWIFT?


Agency

Rulemaking

Other Timelines

26

PAST: TWDB AND THE SWIFT

• Governance changes: 3 full-time TWDB Members

• Agency restructure into 6 planning divisions• Ag and Rural Ombudsman has been

appointed, Doug Shaw• Public rulemaking process is underway


AG

EN

CY

27

PRESENT: SWIFT PROCESS

• Regional stakeholders adopt uniform standards (Dec 2013)

• TWDB public work sessions– Conroe– Lubbock– Harlingen

• Draft regional prioritization (June 2014)• Draft SWIFT rule (approx. June 2014)• Final regional prioritization (September 2014)• Final SWIFT rule (approx. December 2014 ,but no later

than March 2015)

RU

LEM

AK

ING


28

FUTURE: SWIFT AND SWP

• Regional plans due December 2015*Along with new prioritization

• State Water Plan published January 2017


OT

HE

R T

IME

LIN

ES

29

Janu

ary

23, 2

014 QUESTIONS?ELIZABETH A. FAZIO, J.D., LL.M.DIRECTOR, HOUSE COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES

P.O. BOX 301872, E2.104AUSTIN, TX 78769

TELEPHONE: (512) [email protected]


mailto:[email protected]

Prop 6 and hb

News & Politics

Transcript of Prop 6 and hb