Summary
Committee members heard testimony for and against House Bill 24 — a proposal to limit new production-and-export permits to no more than 5% of a district’s modeled available groundwater — but the committee withdrew the substitute and left the bill pending for further work in the interim.
The Committee on Natural Resources considered House Bill 24, a bill that would limit approval of new production‑and‑export permits when the applicant’s total proposed production would exceed 5% of the modeled available groundwater (MAG) for the district. Representative Ashby offered a committee substitute during the hearing, but the substitute was withdrawn and the bill was left pending for further interim work.
Why it matters: proponents argued the proposal would protect local landowners and conserved groundwater for future local use; opponents warned the 5% MAG cap could have unintended consequences for regional planning and infrastructure. Billy Howe of the Texas Farm Bureau said the bill is important because "the legislature must take steps to protect landowners' rights to the water under their land because some local districts will not do it." The Texas Water Infrastructure Network (TexOne) cautioned that a strict 5% limit "may have unintended consequences" for responsible water-supply infrastructure projects and recommended further study.
Testimony and concerns: witnesses offered differing technical and policy perspectives. Supporters said some groundwater districts have not adopted rules to protect correlative rights, allowing marketers to assemble large permits; they urged legislative steps to reserve groundwater for local landowners. Opponents voiced concern the 5% MAG trigger could restrict beneficial transfers, complicate regional supply projects, and create legal and practical challenges for districts and suppliers. The Texas Water Association said it would work during the interim to build consensus across its diverse membership; the Texas Alliance of Groundwater Districts said it had not yet adopted a formal position and sought more time to evaluate.
Committee action and outcome: Representative Ashby introduced the bill and the committee heard multiple resource and stakeholder witnesses, including municipal suppliers, river authorities, trade associations and agency resource witnesses. The committee substitute for HB 24 was withdrawn and the bill was left pending with no committee vote to advance. Chair Harris said the subject will continue to receive attention in the interim and thanked members and stakeholders for engagement.
Discussion versus decision: the hearing produced policy debate and technical questions but no final legislative action on the bill; the committee explicitly left the measure pending for additional study and stakeholder work.
