From desalination to water treatment: Bill that prioritizes creating new water supplies get Texas Senate OK
Senate Bill 7, filed by state Sen. Charles Perry, R-Lubbock, was the first bill in a highly anticipated package of water-related bills to pass. It includes proposals to address Texas' water supply needs by using funds on strategies such as desalination, projects on produced water treatment plants and reservoir projects. It also creates an office tasked with planning and coordinating the development of infrastructure to transport water — referred to by lawmakers as a 'water tree' — made by a project.
During the discussion on the Senate floor, Perry reaffirmed his push toward creating new supplies of water. He said the bill prioritizes new water sources, including brackish and marine water, along with 'shovel-ready' reservoirs and wastewater treatment in rural communities. Perry has acknowledged in the past that the state's water infrastructure needs repairs. However, he did not spend much time discussing that concern Wednesday.
Perry said after traveling the state, he believes Texas is 25 years behind on supply development.
'We've developed all the cheap water, and all the low-hanging fruits have been obtained,' Perry said.
In addition, Perry stressed that any new water supply plan has to include all of Texas' 254 counties. He also said it has to be a coordinated planning approach across the state that leverages existing water resources to regional expertise.
Changes were made in Perry's bill since it was first introduced. The new version of the bill added provisions that would separate the Texas Water Development Board's funding specifically for administrative costs — up to 2% in funding — and carryover of unused funds. While Texas prohibits using state-funded pipelines for intrastate water transfers, the bill clarifies that out-of-state water can be imported through these pipelines.
One other change offers protections to sources of freshwater by prohibiting projects that extract water from sources with a certain amount. Perry assured lawmakers they were not funding the depletion of existing freshwater aquifers.
State Sen. Roland Gutierrez, D-San Antonio, called the bill visionary and applauded Perry on his work.
'It changes water law, it changes water procurement,' Gutierrez said.
Moving forward, the constitutional amendment that will accompany the water bill is House Joint Resolution 7, which will dedicate $1 billion to the Texas Water Fund for up to 10 years. The annual stream of state tax dollars would help cities and local water agencies buy more water and repair aging infrastructure. If approved, Texans can vote on that ballot measure in November.
With the state's population booming, data shows the state's water supply is falling behind. According to the state's 2022 water plan, water availability is expected to decline by 18%, with groundwater seeing the steepest drop. A Texas Tribune analysis found that cities and towns could be on a path toward a severe water shortage by 2030 if there is recurring, record-breaking drought conditions across the state, and if water entities and state leaders fail to put in place key strategies to secure water supplies.
Water experts and organizations celebrated the passage of SB 7.
Jennifer Walker, director of the Texas Coast and Water Program for the National Wildlife Federation, said it's a step in ensuring Texans have reliable and resilient water supplies. Perry Fowler, executive director of the Texas Water Infrastructure Network, said he is grateful for Perry's work on the bill.
'[I look] forward to reconciling the House and Senate approaches to accomplish the best collaborative water policy for Texas to secure our shared water future,' Fowler said.
Jeremy Mazur, director of infrastructure and natural resources policy for Texas 2036, said the unanimous passage of SB 7 is a good sign the chamber wants to move forward with a bold strategy to address infrastructure challenges. However, he said there is still more work for the Legislature to do.
'Even though SB 7 has passed, there are several other big measures in the legislative pipeline that need to be addressed, including the constitutional dedication of state revenues for water infrastructure," Mazur said.
Perry said the water development board will still have to establish rules for what kind of projects get prioritized for funding. The House will now take up SB 7 for debate. Perry's Senate Resolution has been referred to a Senate committee on finance but has not been heard yet. A similar House bill, led by state Rep. Cody Harris, R-Palestine, is still pending. Harris' HJR 7 was passed unanimously out of committee and is waiting to be scheduled for a hearing.
Disclosure: Texas 2036 has been a financial supporter of The Texas Tribune, a nonprofit, nonpartisan news organization that is funded in part by donations from members, foundations and corporate sponsors. Financial supporters play no role in the Tribune's journalism. Find a complete list of them here.
Tickets are on sale now for the 15th annual Texas Tribune Festival, Texas' breakout ideas and politics event happening Nov. 13–15 in downtown Austin. Get tickets before May 1 and save big! TribFest 2025 is presented by JPMorganChase.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
an hour ago
- The Hill
Upset about DC's lack of voting rights? Look to the Democrats.
The deployment of the National Guard in Washington, D.C. has led to a media and political meltdown. In the New York Times, a column lamented that the military had not revolted against the civilian president. Even, so, commentators declared a ' coup ' because the federal government reasserted its constitutional power over the federal district. A Justice Department employee went so far as to scream profanities at federal officers on the street and assault one of them with a submarine sandwich. He was declared a 'freedom fighter' against 'the Gestapo.' The utter lunacy of the left was again triggered by Trump with an almost Pavlovian predictability. Trump rang the bell, and suddenly thousands of Democratic leaders began to salivate. In addition to denying a very real crime crisis in the district, Democrats immediately pivoted on the issue to renew unpopular demands for D.C. statehood. Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), the top Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, insisted that this was only happening because 'American citizens lack the protections of statehood.' Ankit Jain echoed that view. Jain occupies a farcical position as 'D.C. shadow senator,' an unpaid position in which he pretends to be a member of the U.S. Senate. Jain wrote that 'it's entirely possible that people will die as a result' of the deployment. He insisted that this would not occur in states where democracy governs: 'We may not have it in Washington, but if you live in any of the other 50 states, you do.' Over the years, I have testified five times in the House and Senate to argue for the restoration of full representation for residents in Washington, D.C. Residents could have a governor, two real U.S. senators, a voting representative in the House, a state legislature, and every other trapping of statehood. It needs only to go back whence it came. D.C. needs to return to Maryland through 'retrocession.' In academic writings, I have advocated for what I called ' modified retrocession ' where Maryland would take back the land given initially to create what was called 'the federal city.' The Framers did not want the capital under the control of any state, so they created the federal enclave to be under the control of Congress as a whole. Originally, the outlines of the federal city were laid out by none other than George Washington as the surveyor. It was a diamond shape, with territory ceded by both Virginia and Maryland. Within a few decades, Virginians in what is now Arlington County and Alexandria came to regret not having direct representatives and were allowed to retrocede back to their state. That left the triangle of territory from Maryland. However, Marylanders did not agree with their Virginian counterparts. They liked living in the federal enclave and decided to remain without direct representation. Congress previously allowed retrocession and could do so again. Under my prior proposal, the federal enclave would be reduced to the small sliver of land upon which our Capitol, Supreme Court, and the White House rest. It would finally give every Washington resident full representation. Also, in a city notoriously mismanaged for years, D.C. residents would be part of a state that excels in areas like education that could materially improve their positions. So if the lack of representation is so intolerable, why wouldn't Washington return to Maryland? It would give every Washington resident a voting representative in the U.S. House, two senators, a governor in a sovereign state, and a state legislature. The reason is politics at its most cynical and hypocritical. Democrats only want two senators representing D.C. if it boosts their numbers. It's not good enough to give them Maryland's senators. What's more, Maryland Democrats will not suffer a shift in the center of their state's political gravity from Baltimore to Washington. Finally, D.C. Democratic leaders are not eager to share power with Maryland Democrats, as they might gain all the trappings of a state. This is why, for decades, Democrats have settled to leave D.C. voters without direct representation in Congress. They decided it is better to lament the lack of representation on license plates than to give residents such representation through retrocession of the residential sections of D.C. to Maryland. Polling shows that most Americans still oppose statehood for this one city — a Vatican-like city-state. That is why Democrats are not keen on attempting a new constitutional amendment to change the status of the city. They would rather bewail the lack of direct representation while, ironically, trying to achieve effective statehood without a direct vote of citizens on a constitutional amendment. The fact is, Trump has every right to deploy the National Guard in Washington and to take over the D.C. police. Those are entirely lawful and constitutional orders. Yet the New York Times appears to have changed its position on the danger of insurrection. The Times recently ran a bizarre column by former Obama officials Steven Simon and Jonathan Stevenson, ' We Used to Think the Military Would Stand Up to Trump. We Were Wrong.' They complain that 'it now seems clear to us that the military will not rescue Americans from Mr. Trump's misuse of the nation's military capabilities.' The 'rescue' would have meant military personnel disobeying a direct order from the commander-in-chief because they disagreed with the need for the deployment. In fairness to the New York Times, that is not exactly an insurrection — it is more of a mutiny. What is striking about this debate is how entirely untethered it is from anything that touches upon reality. Statehood remains easily attainable for Washington, if Democrats would only stop opposing retrocession. Meanwhile, the deployment is clearly constitutional, regardless of how many columns or submarine sandwiches you throw about in another furious fit. The only thing that is clear is that Washington residents are again being played. They remain political props left stateless because returning them to full representation is not politically advantageous. They are given make-believe 'shadow senators' and protest license plates rather than restoring their prior status. As with the debate over crime, few want to discuss how to solve this problem. Given the opposition of the Democrats, Trump should take the lead and order federal officials to develop a blueprint for retrocession. He should use his office to fully inform the American people, and particularly D.C. residents, of the benefits of returning to Maryland.
Atlantic
an hour ago
- Atlantic
Trump Has No Cards
President Donald Trump berated President Volodymyr Zelensky in the Oval Office. He allowed the Pentagon twice to halt prearranged military shipments to Ukraine. He promised that when the current tranche of armaments runs out, there will be no more. He has cut or threatened to cut the U.S. funds that previously supported independent Russian-language media and opposition. His administration is slowly, quietly easing sanctions on Russia, ending 'basic sanctions and export control actions that had maintained and increased U.S. pressure,' according to a Senate-minority report. 'Every month he's spent in office without action has strengthened Putin's hand, weakened ours and undermined Ukraine's own efforts to bring an end to the war,' Senators Jeanne Shaheen and Elizabeth Warren wrote in a joint statement. Many of these changes have gone almost unremarked on in the United States. But they are widely known in Russia. The administration's attacks on Zelensky, Europeans, and Voice of America have been celebrated on Russian television. Of course Vladimir Putin knows about the slow lifting of sanctions. As a result, the Russian president has clearly made a calculation: Trump, to use the language he once hurled at Zelensky, has no cards. Trump does say that he wants to end the war in Ukraine, and sometimes he also says that he is angry that Putin doesn't. But if the U.S. is not willing to use any economic, military, or political tools to help Ukraine, if Trump will not put any diplomatic pressure on Putin or any new sanctions on Russian resources, then the U.S. president's fond wish to be seen as a peacemaker can be safely ignored. No wonder all of Trump's negotiating deadlines for Russia have passed, to no effect, and no wonder the invitation to Anchorage produced no result. There is not much else to say about yesterday's Trump-Putin meeting in Alaska, other than to observe the intertwining elements of tragedy and farce. It was embarrassing for Americans to welcome a notorious wanted war criminal on their territory. It was humiliating to watch an American president act like a happy puppy upon encountering the dictator of a much poorer, much less important state, treating him as a superior. It's excruciating to imagine how badly Trump's diplomatic envoy, Steve Witkoff, an amateur out of his depth, misunderstood his last meeting with Putin in Moscow if he thought that the Alaska summit was going to be successful. It's ominous that Trump now says he doesn't want to push for a cease-fire but instead for peace negotiations, because the latter formula gives Putin time to keep killing Ukrainians. It's strange that Russian reports of the meeting focused on business cooperation. 'Russian-American business and investment partnership has huge potential,' Putin said today. I appreciate that many Ukrainians, Europeans, and of course Americans are relieved that Trump didn't announce something worse. He didn't call for Ukrainian capitulation, or for Ukraine to cede territory. Unless there are secret protocols, perhaps some business deals, that we haven't yet learned about, Anchorage will probably not be remembered as one of history's crime scenes, a new Munich Conference, or a Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. But that's a very low bar to reach. The better way to understand Anchorage is not as the start of something new, but as the culmination of a longer process. As the U.S. dismantles its foreign-policy tools, as this administration fires the people who know how to use them, our ability to act with any agility will diminish. From the Treasury Department to the U.S. Agency for Global Media, from the State Department to the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, agency after agency is being undermined, deliberately or accidentally, by political appointees who are unqualified, craven, or hostile to their own mission.
Politico
an hour ago
- Politico
Texas Democrats who left the state over redistricting will take part in national demonstration
'It's been really hard for the members to stay away from Texas, from their jobs, from their kids and families,' said state Rep. Vikki Goodwin, who's also running for the lieutenant governor seat in 2026. 'It's also very expensive with the $500 a day fine. So some members just felt like we can make a commitment for one session quorum break, but we really can't do it indefinitely.' Activists are holding more than 150 rallies in 34 states over the weekend to call attention to the Texas redistricting issue and President Donald Trump's support for changing congressional maps. The goal is to send a message that 'we see what Trump is doing, and we won't stand for it,' according to a statement from organizers. The Texas Democrats, and members of the party nationwide, were helped when California Gov. Gavin Newsom announced his state would also redistrict in order to counteract Texas' moves. On Friday, California presented its own redrawn map favoring Democrats. The ballot measure, which goes before voters in November, would take effect only if Texas Republicans follow through on their plans. 'Califorina coming on board gives us more options,' said Texas House Democratic Caucus Chair Gene Wu in an interview Friday. 'If California passes a trigger bill, then there will be real incentive for Texas to not pass its [redistricting] bill.' During the past two weeks, the Texas Democrats have met with Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker, whose team found them hotel rooms — they had to move once after a bomb threat — and a few members of the group also met Gov. Kathy Hochul in New York and Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear via Zoom. The Texans made two trips to California for key meetings in conjunction with Newsom pushing for his state to come up with its own adjusted boundaries for the U.S. House, potentially giving Democrats an edge in Congress in 2026. Newsom's move 'changed everything,' said state Rep. Sheryl Cole, recalling the sacrifice of leaving her 87-year-old mother behind to watch TV coverage of Abbott threatening FBI arrest warrants. 'It made a difference with the sacrifice.' Her colleague state Rep. Diego Bernal put it more bluntly: 'When we knew definitively that they were going to do something, it felt like wind. Like something was happening. You feel less isolated.'
