Texas is one record-breaking drought away from a water crisis, and state leaders want to avoid such a catastrophe with a big investment.
Debate on how much to finance and how to spend that money can begin in earnest at the Legislature after , R-Lubbock, introduced Thursday. The legislation 鈥� 鈥� addresses a wide range of issues and includes the building of infrastructure that would transport water across the state.
"Water scarcity is no longer a distant threat 鈥� it鈥檚 here, and it鈥檚 already disrupting the lives of Texans across the state," Perry said in a statement. 鈥淭he bottom line: We are out of time. Texas must act now to secure a reliable water supply for today and for future generations.鈥�
Perry鈥檚 bill is part of a mix of legislation that would help the state fix aging pipes, expand water supplies, mitigate floods and bolster projects that focus on creating new water supply.
Earlier this session, , R-Palestine, introduced , another sweeping piece of legislation that covers similar topics.
鈥淚f we don鈥檛 dig in and do the hard work of figuring out how to solve this problem for future generations of Texans, then we have done a huge disservice to the people who elected us,鈥� Harris said earlier this month at an event focused on water at the Capitol.
Both men have also filed proposals to funnel up to $1 billion a year to the , a special account created in 2023 to help pay for water projects. There is a strong likelihood voters will be asked to approve the spending. Earlier this year, Gov. Greg Abbott called for a 鈥淭exas-sized鈥� investment in water.
Texans have proven they鈥檙e willing to pay for water. Voters overwhelmingly approved spending $1 billion to improve water infrastructure in 2023.
There are differences in what the two chambers want Texans to vote on later this year, however.
First, Harris鈥� proposal would last for up to 10 years, while Perry鈥檚 seeks to go on for 16 years beginning in 2027. Funding for the amendment also varies. The Senate resolution would take money from state sales and insurance premium taxes, while the House resolution takes money from just sales tax.
The primary dispute is over how that money would be spent: Perry鈥檚 calls for a large allocation to projects that create new water supply 鈥� such as . Harris鈥� bill 鈥� 鈥� does not specify.
Perry has spent months gathering support to direct the bulk of the funding to new water sources. House lawmakers, certain water experts and advocacy groups argue for a more balanced approach.
鈥淚t represents two different approaches, and they're going to have to work through the differences on them effectively,鈥� said Perry Fowler, executive director of the Texas Water Infrastructure Network. 鈥淕ood policy is a result of compromise and negotiation and we are confident that everyone shares the same goal to secure our water future.鈥�
The two chambers will also have to adjudicate differences between Senate Bill 7 and House Bill 16, which have similar aims but many differences in details.
For example, would establish the Texas Water Fund Advisory Committee for oversight and the Office of Water Supply Conveyance Coordination to improve regional and statewide water infrastructure connectivity. Meanwhile, the House bill would create the Texas Water Fund Advisory Committee to oversee operations on each fund and report to the Texas Water Development Board.
The legislation packages are meant to secure the state鈥檚 water supply, which is under threat from the state鈥檚 expansive growth, climate change and outdated infrastructure that loses billions of gallons of water each year.
Texas is booming, with its population projected to swell 73% by 2070. About half of this growth will be concentrated in the Dallas-Fort Worth and Houston metro areas. But while the so-called 鈥淭exas Miracle鈥� charges ahead, the state鈥檚 water supply is falling behind. According to the state鈥檚 2022 water plan, water availability is expected to decline by 18%, with groundwater seeing the steepest drop.
If water supply can鈥檛 keep pace with demand, one estimate suggests the state鈥檚 if there鈥檚 a record-breaking drought and certain changes aren鈥檛 made now. A estimated that the state needs nearly $154 billion by 2050 for water infrastructure, including $59 billion for water supply projects, $74 billion for leaky pipes and infrastructure maintenance, and $21 billion to fix broken wastewater systems.