The Legislative Budget Board in cooperation with the Water Development Board (TWDB) and Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ), has determined the following:

Subject to a confirmation election the bill would  create the Corpus Christi Aquifer Storage and Recovery 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 (GCDs).

1) Population- The population within the proposed district will be essentially the same as the City’s boundary: 277,450 in 2000 and projected to be 316,058 in 2010.

2) Location & Size- The initial boundaries of the district are coextensive with the city limits of the City of Corpus Christi and include property owned or under contract to the City in Nueces, Kleberg and San Patricio Counties.  (The potential district area in San Patricio County is limited to the area bounded by IH 37, U.S. Highway 77, the northern boundary of the metropolitan planning organization, and by County Road 2849.)

3) Powers- Same as general law GCDs under Texas Water Code, Chapter 36. The District is specifically authorized to develop and implement aquifer storage and recovery projects.

4) District Finances- Unlike general law GCDs under Texas Water Code, Chapter 36, the District is not authorized to levy ad valorem taxes or to issue or sell bonds or notes. Similar to general law GCDs, the District would be authorized to assess annual production fees on each well for which a permit is issued by the District. District fees would be based on the amount of water withdrawn from wells and would be capped at $1 per acre-foot for water used for irrigating agricultural crops or $0.17 per 1,000 gallons for water used for any other purpose. If the water is used for crop or livestock production or other agricultural purposes, the District may not impose a production fee that is more than 20 percent of the fee applied to water used for municipal use. Under Texas Water Code, Chapter 36, annual production fees may not exceed $1 per acre-foot of water used for agricultural purposes or $10 per acre-foot of water used for any other purpose. Same as general law GCDs, the District would be authorized to assess export fees on the owners of nonexempt permitted wells, and to assess administrative fees for services provided.

5) Board of Directors- The District would be governed by a board of five appointed directors who serve staggered four-year terms. Unlike general law GCDs, the directors would be appointed by a municipality, the Corpus Christi City Council. The initially-appointed directors would draw lots to determine which three directors will serve four-year terms ending on the fourth anniversary of the effective date of the Act, and which two directors will serve two-year terms ending on the second anniversary of the effective date of the Act. General law GCDs under Texas Water Code, Chapter 36, have 5 to 11 directors elected by the general precinct method.

6) Eminent Domain- Same as general law GCDs under Texas Water Code, Chapter 36, the District is authorized to exercise the power of eminent domain.

7) Ability to Tax- Unlike general law GCDs under Texas Water Code, Chapter 36, the District is prohibited from levying taxes. Under Texas Water Code, Chapter 36, a maintenance tax for general law GCDs may not exceed $0.50 per $100 assessed valuation and the tax rate for the repayment of bonds or notes is not limited. Both types of taxes are subject to voter authorization.

8) Ability to Exclude Territory- As with general law for GCDs, there are no provisions to exclude territory.

9) Overlapping Services- As described under the heading Adequacy of Boundary Description, the bill alone does not provide adequate information to determine proposed District boundaries, and a map was not provided for the proposed District. Therefore, an overlap check could not be performed. The proposed District's boundary relationship to the existing Kenedy County Groundwater Conservation District is unclear. The Kenedy County GCD, as created by Chapter 1152, Acts of the 78th Legislature, Regular Session, 2003 (HB3374), includes all of Kenedy County and described territory in Brooks, Jim Wells, Kleburg, and Nueces counties. Creation of the Kenedy County GCD was confirmed by voters of Kenedy and Kleberg counties on November 2, 2004.

The primary functions of GCDs are conservation and management of groundwater resources through data collection, rules and well permitting within their boundaries. These functions do not conflict with the services provided by the other water utilities or districts in the same area.

10) Adequacy of Boundary Description- The bill provides that the initial boundaries of the District are coextensive with the city limits of the City of Corpus Christi, include property owned by or under contract to the City of Corpus Christi in Nueces and Kleberg counties, and include property owned by or under contract to the City of Corpus Christi in an area of San Patricio County bounded by highways and roads, a metropolitan planning organization boundary, and the city limits of the City of Corpus Christi. The bill itself does not provide sufficient information to determine District boundaries or if the District boundaries form a closure. The District is located in Groundwater Management Area 16 designated by the Texas Water Development Board for the southern part of the Gulf Coast aquifer. Nueces, Kleberg, and San Patricio counties are not located within a Priority Groundwater Management Area designated by the TCEQ.

11) Comments on Powers /Duties Different from Similar Types of Districts- Unlike general law GCDs under Texas Water Code, Chapter 36, creation of the District does not required a confirmation election or approval of the voters. Unlike general law GCDs under Texas Water Code, Chapter 36, the bill provides specific District authorities and interactions for District territory in San Patricio County. The bill provides that: creation of the District does not preclude the creation of a GCD in San Patricio County; a GCD created in San Patricio County may not limit or restrict the District from recovering water stored by the District in a municipal aquifer storage area located in the District and in the GCD; and to the extent that the boundaries of the District and a GCD in San Patricio County overlap, the power and authority of the two districts would be joint and coextensive. The bill provides that the District and land in the District would be exempt from taxes and fees imposed by a GCD in San Patricio County. The District is prohibited from allowing more water to be recovered from a municipal aquifer storage area in San Patricio County than the amount of water stored by the District at the municipal aquifer storage area. Similar provisions for districts or proposed districts in Nueces and Kleburg counties are not included in the bill.

12) TCEQ’s Supervision- The TCEQ’s supervision authority as it is related to the District’s development and implementation of a groundwater management plan would be the same as for general law GCDs. As with general law GCDs, the District would not have to comply with TCEQ financial auditing requirements.

13) State Water Plan Objectives-Water Use: Within Nueces County, the county in which the majority of the City and proposed district is located, only three percent of total water use was groundwater (year 2000); 59 percent of the groundwater usage went towards municipal purposes.  The proposed district would utilize the Gulf Coast Aquifer in its storage and recovery efforts.

Currently, neither Nueces nor San Patricio Counties have groundwater conservation districts, although this legislation states that the proposed district would not preclude such a conservation district in San Patricio County.  Kleberg County does have one groundwater conservation district currently, the Kenedy County Groundwater Conservation District, and another one is proposed (HB 3509).  No reference in HB 3513 is made to potential conflicts between the proposed district and the groundwater conservation districts in Nueces County.