Subject to a confirmation election, the bill creates the Rusk County Groundwater Conservation District (District) providing for the powers, duties, administration, operations and financing of the District. The bill authorizes the District with the powers and duties of Texas Water Code, Chapter 36, related to the general law for Groundwater Conservation Districts (GCD’s) and specifically provides that the District is not authorized to purchase, sale, transport, or distribute water or exercise the power of eminent domain.

1) Population - The boundaries of the proposed district are coextensive with the boundary of Rusk County. The population of the proposed district in the Year 2000 Census was 47,372 residents. Population projections developed by the Texas Water Development Board indicate the population of the proposed district should increase to 52,241 by the year 2020.

2) Location & Size - The Districts boundaries would be coextensive with the boundaries of Rusk County. Rusk County is not located within a Priority Groundwater Management Area designated by the TCEQ.

3) Powers - Unlike general law GCD’s, the District may not purchase, sale, transport, or distribute surface water or groundwater for any purpose and may not exercise the power of eminent domain. The District may not require a permit for any well in existence prior to the date of the Districts confirmation unless it is altered to produce more water after that date. The District may not assess a production fee on any well drilled by a nonprofit rural water supply corporation, water district, or other political subdivision if the water is for use within the District. General law GCD’s under Texas Water Code, Chapter 36, are authorized to consider such wells under their permitting programs and fee structures.

4) District Finances - Similar to general law GCD’s, including the issuance of bonds and notes, levying of maintenance tax, assessing of production and export fees, and setting administrative fees. The Districts production fees are initially capped at $0.25 per acre-foot for water used for agricultural irrigation or $0.0425 per 1,000 gallons of water used for any other purpose and may be increased three percent per year. By comparison, general law GCD production fees are limited to $1 per acre-foot for water used for agricultural purposes or $10 per acre-foot for water used for any other purpose. The District may issue bonds and notes up to $500,000 of total indebtedness; by comparison Texas Water Code, Chapter 36, does not include an indebtedness limitation.

5) Board of Directors - Unlike general law GCD’s with elected directors from single-member districts, the District would be governed by a board of nine directors elected according to the commissioners precinct method with two directors elected from each commissioners precinct and one director elected at-large. The nine temporary directors, eight appointed by the Commissioners Court of Rusk County and one appointed by the Rusk County Judge within 45 days of the effective date of the Act, are responsible for scheduling and conducting the District’s confirmation and initial directors election. At least one of the temporary directors must represent agricultural interests in the county and at least one must represent rural water supply interests. The temporary directors must convene an organizational meeting as soon a practicable after they have been appointed and have qualified for office. Four of the elected initial directors would serve a set term that would expire in May of the first even-numbered year after the year in which the District is confirmed by election, at which time four permanent directors would be elected. Five of the elected initial directors would serve a set term that would expire in May of the second even-numbered year after the year in which the District is confirmed by election, at which time five permanent directors would be elected. The permanent directors would serve four-year staggered terms.

6) Eminent Domain - Unlike general law GCD’s, the District is not authorized to exercise the power of eminent domain.

7) Ability to Tax - Similar to general law GCD’s, including the levy of taxes for the repayment of bonds or notes and the levy of a maintenance tax. Both types of taxes are subject to voter authorization. The District may not may not levy a tax that exceeds $0.03 per $100 of assessed valuation. Under Texas Water Code, Chapter 36, the maintenance tax for general law GCD’s may not exceed $0.50 per $100 assessed valuation and the tax rate for the repayment of bonds or notes is not limited.

8) Overlapping Services - There are no other GCD’s in Rusk County.

9) Ability to Exclude Property - As with general law for GCD’s, there are no provisions to exclude territory.

10) Adequacy of Boundary Description - The Districts boundaries would be the same as the county boundaries of Rusk County and form a closure.

11) Comments on Powers /Duties Different from Similar Types of Districts - Unlike general law GCD’s, fees of office for District directors are limited to $50 a day for each day spent performing duties as a director and may not exceed $3,000 per year. Directors of general law GCD’s are entitled to receive fees of office of not more that $150 a day for each day spent performing duties as a director and may not exceed $9,000 per year. The District is required to participate in meetings with other GCD’s in its designated groundwater management area to coordinate data collection, water quality monitoring, and pollution investigations. The District is required to annually share with the other GCD’s new well inventories, estimates of groundwater production, and public educational outreach. Under Texas Water Code, Chapter 36, general law GCD’s are required to share certified management plans with other GCD’s within a designated groundwater management area and coordination and participation with other GCD’s are optional. If passed, the Act would become effective on September 1, 2003. The Act would expire if the District has not been confirmed at an election held before on September 1, 2005.

12) Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) Supervision - Same as for general law GCD’s, including bond review authority. The TCEQ’s supervision authority as it is related to the District’s development and implementation of a management plan would be the same as for general law GCD’s. As with general law GCD’s, the District would not have to comply with the TCEQ’s additional audit requirements.

13) State Water Plan Objectives - Local groundwater resources provided approximately 83 percent of the proposed districts water use in the year 2000. Municipal water use accounted for 73 percent of the annual groundwater use (80 percent of the groundwater use). The remaining groundwater use was split roughly between mining and livestock raising. Board staff finds that creation of the proposed district is not in conflict with the State Water Plan objectives of promoting the efficient use of local groundwater resources and the implementation of practices and programs to effectively manage local groundwater resources.