PRINT THIS PAGE | E-MAIL THIS PAGE

Friday, May 30, 1997

House, Senate members agree on water bill

By CHIP BROWN / Associated Press Writer

AUSTIN (AP) - Legislation that would give Texas its first water conservation plan was thrown a life preserver Thursday.

The bill, the top priority of Lt. Gov. Bob Bullock in the wake of last year's drought, appeared in jeopardy early Thursday after a conference committee of House and Senate members butted heads over a provision regulating interbasin transfers - the transfer of water from one area of the state to another.

House members of the panel had threatened to kill the bill, known as Senate Bill 1, if a proposal wasn't adopted that would greatly reduce the incentives for such transfers.

Several attempts by Senate members were made to modify the House's stance, but the House contingent, led by Rep. Ron Lewis, D-Mauriceville, repeatedly rejected those proposals after Lewis voiced an approach of, "All or nothing."

Lawmakers downplayed the stalemate after voting to approve the bill and send it to the full House and Senate for consideration.

"Nobody lost in this," said Lewis, the chairman of the five House members on the committee. "Let's don't look at it as winner or loser. It's a great bill and interbasin transfers are a small portion of the whole bill."

Sen. J.E. "Buster" Brown, R-Lake Jackson, the chairman of the five Senate members on the panel, said, "I don't view it as the House or the Senate prevailing. I view it as the people of Texas prevailing."

Bullock said, "I think this is one of the most significant pieces of legislation in the last 25 or 30 years because on six previous occasions the Legislature has failed to move forward in any respect."

Texas is one of only three of the 12 Western states without a state drought plan. New Mexico and Wyoming are the others.

Last year's drought resulted in federal disaster relief for 95 percent of the state's 254 counties and cost the Texas economy $5 billion.

Under the bill, local water districts and irrigation districts would submit to a regional planning group designated by the Texas Water Development Board. A committee representing the regional planning group would then come up with a water conservation plan for the region.

The combination of the regional plans would form a statewide plan.

The biggest sticking point in the bill was the House's demand that "junior water rights" be assigned to any water involved in an interbasin transfer.

Under current law, those with the longest-held, or senior, water rights are able to collect water from those with the shortest-held, or junior, water rights in times of drought. If someone buys senior water rights, they are entitled to the privileges of the original owner.

Under the House proposal, the right to pump water still could be sold but the purchaser wouldn't have senior status. For example, someone who has held a water right since 1910 could, in time of drought, draw water from someone who bought a water right in 1997.

Supporters of interbasin transfers said the House provision on junior water rights takes away all incentives for a transfer.

They say no one would purchase a water right and invest millions of dollars to build a pipeline to transfer the water if the water they just purchased would be the first to be taken away during a drought.

"It's an important protection for the basin of origin," Lewis said.

The Senate wanted to simply leave the fate of interbasin transfers up to the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission. Under the bill, the commission would do studies to make sure the benefits of the receiving basin didn't outweigh the detriments of the giving basin.

The junior water rights provision was perceived by many as a slap at San Antonio.

The Alamo City has twice voted down proposals to build a reservoir but has sought transfers of water from the Colorado River, which also provides drinking water to numerous West Texas cities and Austin.

Rep. David Counts, a member of the House-Senate water committee, represents a West Texas district that draws water from a reservoir on Lake O.H. Ivie - along the Colorado River - constructed by San Angelo, Big Spring, Midland, Snyder and Abilene.

Counts, D-Knox City, said he has no sympathy for San Antonio.

"We went for 40 years and solved our problem for water and now, they come along, johnny come lately, and want to increase the vulnerability of the people who get their water from Lake Ivie," he said.

Rep. Robert Puente, D-San Antonio, said the junior water rights provision will likely discourage San Antonio from seeking interbasin transfers.

"The most important part of the plan was interbasin transfers," Puente said. "That issue has been resolved to the detriment of cities and of high-growth areas."

---

The water bill is SB1. Send a Letter to the Editor about This Story | Start or Join A Discussion about This Story
Send the URL (Address) of This Story to A Friend: