The House Intergovernmental Affairs Committee took up Senate Bill 14 — a companion to House Bill 13 — and heard competing testimony about whether local governments should be allowed to reduce developer impact fees when developers install water‑saving or recycled‑water infrastructure.

Chairman Bill (committee chair) described the bill as a voluntary incentive: local political subdivisions that have impact‑fee programs could set credits against those fees when developers install more efficient water or wastewater systems, such as rainwater harvesting, gray‑water reuse or other on‑site measures. The stated goal is to reduce long‑term water and wastewater costs for new development and encourage technologies that shrink the demand on public systems.

Environmental groups emphasized the conservation upside. Cyrus Reed of the Lone Star Chapter of the Sierra Club told the committee, “Water conservation and water reuse are the lowest‑cost, most conservative approach to meeting our water needs,” and called the bill an “incentive” to encourage developers to go beyond code. Builders also backed the proposal. JD Hale of the Texas Association of Builders said the bill rewards developers who adopt water‑saving measures and estimated widespread adoption could save millions of gallons of water per day.

County officials warned the proposal could reduce up‑front impact fees used to pay for new infrastructure and shift the cost burden onto existing taxpayers. Adam Haines of the Conference of Urban Counties testified the credits would effectively spread infrastructure costs to the broader tax base, arguing the capped fees would remain owed but be rebated to developers, leaving counties or cities to make up the shortfall from other revenue sources. Haines recommended that local governments be allowed to decide whether to adopt credits rather than a statewide mandate.

Adam Haines’ concerns echoed questions from several members about whether the credits would reduce local revenue that pays for water and sewer extensions, roads and other capital — and whether rebate programs would require political subdivisions to raise other taxes or spread the cost across existing property owners. Proponents said the incentive would only be offered when the infrastructure savings were real and locally negotiated; Cyrus Reed and JD Hale stressed that the policy was designed to reward going “above and beyond” existing plumbing and code requirements.

Committee action: the committee reported Senate Bill 14 to the full House with a recommendation that it do pass; the roll call recorded 9 ayes and 1 nay.

Why it matters: the bill pits water‑conservation incentives and potential long‑term system savings against short‑term revenue mechanics used to finance new infrastructure. Counties and some cities warned the approach could reduce impact‑fee proceeds used to repay bonds or pay for capacity increases and shift costs to existing taxpayers if local officials do not carefully tailor credits.

What’s next: the companion measure will move to the full House; the committee record shows both builder and environmental support as well as concern from county officials about revenue impacts.