| TO: | Honorable Robert Puente, Chair, House Committee on Natural Resources |
| FROM: | John Keel, Director, Legislative Budget Board |
| IN RE: | SB1902 by Lucio (Relating to the creation, administration, powers, duties, operation, and financing of the Rio Grande Regional Water Authority; authorizing the issuance of bonds.), As Engrossed |
The Legislative Budget Board in cooperation with the Water Development Board (TWDB) and Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ), has determined the following:
The Bill creates the Rio Grande Regional Water Authority (Authority) in Cameron, Hidalgo, Starr, Webb, Willacy, and Zapata counties with the powers and duties of Water Code Chapters 49, 51, and 54 related to the general law for Water Control and Improvement Districts (WCIDs) and Municipal Utility Districts (MUDs).
1) Population - The boundaries of the proposed water authority are coextensive with the boundaries of Cameron, Hidalgo, Starr, Webb, Willacy and Zapata Counties. The population projections recently approved for use in the 2006 Regional Water Plans are shown below.
Cameron County: 2000 population, 335,337. Expected 2020 population 419,618. 25% growth change between 2000 to 2020.
Hidalgo County: 2000 population 569,463. Expected 2020 population 948,488. 67% growth change between 2000 to 2020.
Starr County: 2000 population 53,597. Expected 2020 population 79,538. 48% growth change between 2000 and 2020.
Webb County: 2000 population 193,117. Expected 2020 population 333,451. 73% growth change between 2000 and 2020.
Willacy County: 2000 population 20,082. Expected 2020 population 24,907. 24% growth change between 2000 and 2020.
Zapata County: 2000 population 12,182. Expected 2020 population 16,217. 33% growth change between 2000 and 2020.
2) Location & Size - The Authority’s boundaries are coextensive with the boundaries of Cameron, Hidalgo, Starr, Webb, Willacy, and Zapata counties.
3) Powers - The Authority has the general powers and duties granted to WCIDs and MUDs, under Water Code Chapters 51 and 54, respectively, and applicable to all districts under Water Code Chapter 49; however, the Authority may not impose an ad valorem tax.
4) District Finances - Same as general law districts, including the issuance of bonds. The Authority may impose a fee on a public or private entity; however, a contractual relationship must exist between the Authority and the Entity. The Authority may not impose an ad valorem tax.
5) Board of Directors - The Authority will be governed by a 15-member board of directors. Nine directors are appointed by the governor, with the advice and consent of the senate, and each of the six counties in the Authority will appoint a director. Permanent directors appointed by the governor will serve staggered four-year terms, and directors appointed by the counties will serve staggered two-year terms.
6) Eminent Domain - Assumed to be applicable through Water Code Chapter 54; however, the Bill does not specifically include or exclude the power of eminent domain.
7) Ability to Tax - The Bill prohibits an ad valorem tax.
8) Overlapping Services - The Authority’s boundaries are coextensive with the boundaries of Cameron, Hidalgo, Starr, Webb, Willacy, and Zapata counties. The Authority would overlap the Cameron-Hidalgo-Willacy Regional Water Authority proposed by SB 721, also authored by Senator Lucio.
9) Ability to Exclude Property - Not addressed in the bill.
10) Adequacy of Boundary Description - The Authority’s boundaries are coextensive with the boundaries of Cameron, Hidalgo, Starr, Webb, Willacy, and Zapata counties. Additional description or verification of closure is not necessary.
11) Comments on Powers /Duties Different from Similar Types of Districts - Water Code Chapter 54 districts may levy an ad valorem tax.
12) TCEQ Supervision - As with general law districts, the TCEQ will have general supervision authority, including bond review authority and review of financial reports.
13) State Water Plan Objectives - In Cameron County, groundwater accounted for 4 percent of the county’s year 2000 water use. Municipal water use accounted for 31 percent of the county’s water use and 18 percent of the groundwater usage.
In Hidalgo County, groundwater accounted for 3 percent of the county’s year 2000 water use. Municipal water use accounted for 18 percent of the county’s water use and 47 percent of the groundwater usage.
In Starr County, groundwater accounted for 7 percent of the county’s year 2000 water use. Municipal water use accounted for 42 percent of the county’s water use and 42 percent of the groundwater usage.
In Webb County, groundwater accounted for 3 percent of the county’s year 2000 water use. Municipal water use accounted for 88 percent of the county’s water use and 65 percent of the groundwater usage.
In Willacy County, groundwater accounted for less than 1 percent of the county’s year 2000 water use. Municipal water use accounted for 10 percent of the county’s water use and used no groundwater.
In Zapata County, groundwater accounted for less than 1 percent of the county’s year 2000 water use. Municipal water use accounted for 43 percent of the county’s water use and used no groundwater.
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.
| Source Agencies: | 582 Commission on Environmental Quality, 580 Water Development Board
|
| LBB Staff: | JK, CL
|