The Committee on Water, Agriculture & Rural Affairs met in public session and advanced a package of bills touching groundwater management, flood‑mitigation funding, municipal water‑loss reporting, financing tools for large water projects and utility service‑area rules. The hearing included extended public and invited testimony on Senate Bill 14 13, which would expand the counties in which landowners can petition the Public Utility Commission to remove property from a utility certificate of convenience and necessity (CCN). Several other bills were left pending for later votes.

Why it matters: The panel’s actions affect when and how residents are notified about water contamination, which projects qualify for flood‑infrastructure funding, how large systems document and correct water loss, and whether landowners trapped in legacy CCNs can seek relief. Those items have implications for rural and urban growth, utility investments and water availability across multiple Texas regions.

Key discussion: CCN decertification (Senate Bill 14 13)

Senator Charles Nichols, the bill’s author, framed SB 14 13 as primarily a private‑property issue, saying, “To me, this bill is more of a private property rights issue than it is a water or wastewater issue, and it is supported by the cattle raisers and the farm bureau both.” Nichols walked committee members through the bill’s history, noting a 2011 law that created an expedited process for some counties and arguing the state should add counties that have since grown.

Developers and landowner advocates testified in favor. Tyler Leonard, an attorney for the Texas and Southwestern Cattle Raisers Association, said the bill “allows landowners to get out of a CCN that is not serving their property without being held hostage for payment, subpar service, or no service at all.” Multiple builders described projects that were delayed or terminated after CCN holders declined to provide capacity or asked developers to fund and donate infrastructure.

Utilities and rural water providers opposed expanding the expedited release. Brian McManus, general manager of East Rondo Water Supply Corporation, warned that expanding the statute statewide would “undermine community investments in infrastructure” and could chill borrowing for projects that require long lead times and revenue‑backed debt. Several witnesses said the current compensation process at the Public Utility Commission exists but that outcomes can be uncertain and case‑specific.

The committee’s questioning focused on balancing the rights of property owners who lack service against the need to protect utilities’ investments and customers who already pay rates to support infrastructure. Natalie Scott, an attorney who represents landowners in decertification cases, explained the compensation process and appraisal steps now used when a utility claims stranded costs.

Flood infrastructure and dual‑purpose projects (Senate Bill 19 67)

Senate Bill 19 67 would amend Chapter 15 of the Texas Water Code to make multipurpose flood‑mitigation projects — those that both mitigate flood risk and create new water supplies — explicitly eligible for funding from the Flood Infrastructure Fund administered by the Texas Water Development Board. David Fuentes, Hidalgo County commissioner and a board member of Hidalgo County Drainage District No. 1, described the Delta Reclamation Project and said the district’s pilot work demonstrated the ability to treat and use captured flood flows; he said the project could yield “at least 12,000 acre‑feet of water for potable and nonpotable uses.”

Water‑loss reporting for large utilities (Senate Bill 11 90)

SB 11 90 would require large water systems that meet a customer threshold to validate water‑loss data and submit mitigation reports when losses exceed thresholds established by the Texas Water Development Board. Supporters pointed to audit findings that municipal losses statewide are substantial and to the American Water Works Association standards used to set thresholds. San Antonio Water System and others said they do not oppose the bill’s goals but asked for refinements to the threshold and to the validation process to avoid duplicative consultant costs. Lone Star Sierra Club supported the measure but suggested clarifying administrative penalties to avoid burdening ratepayers.

Notification and testing (Senate Bills 16 62 and 16 63)

Senate Bill 16 62 would limit the timeframe in which the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) may notify a public water system before sampling a well after a consumer complaint, authorizing TCEQ to notify a system no more than 24 hours before testing in those circumstances. Consumer witnesses from Wilson County described instances in which water suppliers performed temporary treatments after receiving notice and before TCEQ inspections, leaving residents concerned that tests did not reflect the initial conditions.

Senate Bill 16 63 would expand TCEQ’s authority to notify private drinking‑water well owners and groundwater conservation districts of known groundwater contamination by any direct means — mail, email or door hangers — and would require notice to residents within a one‑mile radius of known contamination. Supporters said the change would speed awareness and response in affected areas.

Financing term changes for large regional projects (Senate Bill 12 61)

A committee substitute to SB 12 61 would extend the available term for Texas Water Development Board financing from 30 to 40 years for qualifying projects and permit political subdivisions to pursue open‑market financing for up to 50 years. Proponents, including river authorities working on large regional projects, said the longer terms reduce annual debt service and shift a greater share of costs to future customers as growth materializes; critics in discussion warned against matching financing terms to asset life without safeguards to prevent higher long‑term costs.

Groundwater availability certifications and plat approval (Senate Bill 18 55)

SB 18 55 responds to confusion about what constitutes “credible evidence” of groundwater availability for subdivisions that rely on groundwater. The bill directs TCEQ to define credible evidence by rule and clarifies that counties and municipalities must act on plat applications that do not meet TCEQ requirements. Groundwater districts and their legal counsel urged the change, saying it gives local officials clearer authority to deny plats when evidence falls short and helps prevent developments in locations without reliable water.

Other items

The committee also heard bills that adjust the Texas Groundwater Protection Committee reporting deadline (Senate Bill 21 24), clarify water‑trust rules for conservation uses (Senate Bill 16 24), allow certain TWDB programs exemptions from Texas GRAMA management standards (Senate Bill 22 04), and resolve limited technical issues for utilities that straddle the Edwards Aquifer Authority boundary (Senate Bill 8 63).

Votes at a glance (committee action)

- Senate Bill 34 (committee substitute) — committee substitute adopted; committee reported the substitute do pass to the full Senate (favorable report). Tally recorded in transcript: 9 ayes, 0 nays.
- Senate Bill 2,078 (committee substitute) — committee substitute adopted and reported favorably (tally reflected in transcript: 8 ayes, 1 nay in one recorded vote).
- Senate Bill 16 24 (committee substitute) — committee reported favorably to the full Senate (9 ayes, 0 nays).
- Senate Bill 16 62 — committee reported favorably to the full Senate (9 ayes, 0 nays). (Author: Senator Zaffirini; mover for committee action recorded as Senator Hancock.)
- Senate Bill 16 63 — committee reported favorably to the full Senate (9 ayes, 0 nays).
- Senate Bill 19 67 — committee reported favorably to the full Senate (9 ayes, 0 nays).
- Senate Bill 21 24 — committee reported favorably to the full Senate (9 ayes, 0 nays).
- Senate Bill 22 04 — committee reported favorably to the full Senate (9 ayes, 0 nays).
- Senate Bill 8 63 (committee substitute) — committee substitute adopted and reported favorably to the full Senate (9 ayes, 0 nays).
- Senate Bill 12 61 (committee substitute) — committee substitute adopted and reported favorably to the full Senate (9 ayes, 0 nays).
- Senate Bill 18 55 (committee substitute) — committee substitute adopted and reported favorably to the full Senate (9 ayes, 0 nays).

The transcript records the committee leaving several bills pending for later votes and markups; some bills were specifically left to the end of the hearing for final votes. Several bills drew follow‑up questions and stakeholder negotiation requests from the chair.

What’s next: Most measures were left pending for final committee action, amendment work or technical cleanups. Committee leaders asked staff and stakeholders to continue negotiations on thresholds, compensation language and notification procedures before sending detailed substitutes to the Senate floor.

Ending note: Committee members emphasized ongoing stakeholder work to reconcile developer concerns, utility financing and protections for existing customers. The chair said the committee will continue meeting as needed to finalize changes and move bills to the Senate calendar.