LEGISLATIVE BUDGET BOARD
Austin, Texas
FISCAL NOTE, 77th Regular Session
April 25, 2001
TO: Honorable J.E. "Buster" Brown, Chair, Senate Committee on
Natural Resources
FROM: John Keel, Director, Legislative Budget Board
IN RE: HB1784 by Cook (Relating to the ratification, creation,
administration, powers, duties, operation, and financing
of groundwater conservation districts for the management
of groundwater resources in the central Carrizo-Wilcox
area.), As Engrossed
**************************************************************************
* Estimated Two-year Net Impact to General Revenue Related Funds for *
* HB1784, As Engrossed: positive impact of $0 through the biennium *
* ending August 31, 2003. *
* *
* No significant fiscal implication to the State is anticipated. *
**************************************************************************
General Revenue-Related Funds, Five-Year Net Impact:
****************************************************
* Fiscal Year Probable Net Positive/(Negative) *
* Impact to General Revenue Related *
* Funds *
* 2002 $0 *
* 2003 0 *
* 2004 0 *
* 2005 0 *
* 2006 0 *
****************************************************
All Funds, Five-Year Impact:
**************************************************************************
*Fiscal Probable Revenue Probable Revenue Probable Revenue *
* Year Gain/(Loss) to Gain/(Loss) from Gain/(Loss) from *
* Brazos ValleyGCD Post-Oak Savannah GCD Mid-East Texas GCD *
* 2002 $514,372 $1,982,096 $385,094 *
* 2003 529,803 1,982,096 385,094 *
* 2004 545,697 1,982,096 385,094 *
* 2005 562,068 1,982,096 385,094 *
* 2006 578,930 1,982,096 385,094 *
**************************************************************************
Fiscal Analysis
The bill would ratify the creation of the Brazos Valley Groundwater
Conservation District in Robertson and Brazos counties and would create
the Post Oak Savannah Groundwater Conservation District in Milam and
Burleson counties and the Mid-East Texas Groundwater Conservation
District in Leon, Madison, and Freestone counties.
Current law regarding groundwater conservation districts allows districts
to issue bonds and to have taxing authority. The districts that would
be created by this bill do not have taxing authority and would instead
receive funding from permit fees, bonds issued, revenues from the
ownership or operation of the district's works, improvements, and
facilities, and from the sale, transportation, and distribution of
water.
The bill would require a confirmation election in each of the following
counties: Robertson, Brazos, Milam, Burleson, Leon, Madison and
Freestone.
Methodology
The table above presents the estimated new annual revenue for each
district. It does not include the cost to counties of holding the
confirmation election that would be required in each of the seven
counties affected by the bill.
The Brazos Valley Groundwater Conservation District's revenues would
increase because the bill would allow the district to increase its fees
by 3% each year. The Water Uses Section of the Texas Water Development
Board (TWDB) provided 1997 figures for reported groundwater usage in each
of the proposed districts. The usage amounts were used to estimate fees
that each district could expect to generate according to the provisions
of this bill. Statistics regarding groundwater transported outside the
district and the exemptions regarding water well pumpage capacity for
water use entities and rural domestic use were unavailable.
Based on the reported ground water usage amounts that TWDB provided, and
assuming that districts would charge the maximum fees allowed in the
bill, the districts would have the following estimated revenues in their
first year of operation: Brazos Valley Groundwater Conservation District
would have $514,372, the Post Oak Savannah Groundwater Conservation
District would have $2 million (including both Milam and Burleson
counties), and the Mid-East Texas Groundwater Conservation District would
have $385,094.
Local Government Impact
Counties could incur a cost associated with a confirmation election, if a
separate election would be required. The cost to counties requiring a
separate election is estimated at $0.91 per voter, based on a recent
sample of county election costs. The cost to a county holding the
confirmation election in conjunction with a previously scheduled
election is not expected to be significant.
Source Agencies: 582 Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission,
580 Texas Water Development Board, 455 Railroad
Commission of Texas, 304 Comptroller of Public
Accounts
LBB Staff: JK, CL, TL, DB