Return to TFB Main Page
Return to Texas Agriculture Archive

April 20, 2001

TFB fares well in legislative session

By Lana Robinson
Field Editor

With the 76th legislative session approaching the homestretch, Texas Farm Bureau lobbyists in Austin are marveling at how much has been accomplished and how well lawmakers have worked together to move forward with the state's business. Most importantly, TFB legislative priorities have found favor and it appears that most of the organization's objectives at the state level will be met.

"We don't seem to be losing anything right now that I can see in any area," Billy Howe, TFB associate legislative director, reported on April 10. "So far, we are coming out unscathed, particularly with water. I was thinking we were going to have a bigger fight in the Senate, but it seems that all the work we did in the interim, working with lawmakers' staff and participating in water discussions, laid the groundwork. We had done our job in educating them on the issues from our standpoint and didn't have such an uphill battle. With regards to water policy, if S.B. 2 (sponsored by J.E. "Buster" Brown, R-Lake Jackson) passes, I think agriculture and rural Texas is in good shape."

According to Howe, S.B. 2 has undergone a lot of changes this session, many of them for the better. Senator Brown has removed language in S.B. 2 seeking to repeal the junior water rights provisions in current law. Also stricken were troubling provisions that empowered regional water planning groups to set groundwater standards and withdrawal rates, and then required conservation districts to apply those in the management of water in their district. Howe said all taxes and fees for water infrastructure have also been taken out of the bill.

A provision Texas Farm Bureau has succeeded in getting into the comprehensive water bill this session, after failing in the two previous ones, addresses stock ponds used in wildlife management operations.

"The current law really only allows for those stock tanks used for domestic or livestock purposes. Commercial wildlife operations did not meet that definition, which meant that those operators are not allowed to impound water without a permit. We were able to get the Senate to add language that will hopefully prevent members from being required to permit a stock tank," Howe advised.

The TFB lobbying team also succeeded in streamlining the landowner petition process for creating a water district, eliminating several hurdles and reducing the time involved from up to two years down to about five months. There are currently 50 permanent underground water districts in Texas with another 25 or so proposed districts this session, Howe added.

Farm Bureau is now working to prevent jurisdiction over the Texas Water Trust, which allows for the voluntary dedication of surface water rights to the Trust to preserve instream flows for bays and estuaries, from being taken from the Texas Water Development Board and given over to the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department.

"We want it to stay at the Water Development Board because it's a straight-up water agency, and their decisions are based on water. If you put the Water Trust over to an agency whose number one goal is wildlife, we worry about how aggressive they (TPWD) may be in getting folks to put their water rights into the Trust. Under this plan, TPWD is authorized to go out and purchase and own water rights. Our policy is against TPWD being able to do that. I think we have a pretty good chance of stopping it. Several members of the Legislature are not real keen on the Parks and Wildlife being in control," said Howe, noting that TPWD had written a letter critizing the regional water plans for not providing enough water for wildlife.

Beyond the disagreement over which agency should control the Texas Water Trust, the only other change TFB seeks in the water bill is a provision putting agriculture's use of surface water on equal footing with industrial users on new water being appropriated.

"So far, we've not been able to do that. Agriculture is Number 3 on the priority list. We're trying to bump ourselves up with industry. I feel pretty confident we can get that done. Right now, if an industrial user and an agricultural user had an application in at the TNRCC for the same surface water, the ag guy would lose. We'd like to be on an equal playing field there, and then go to other criteria to determine who should be permitted," Howe said.

Regarding groundwater exports, Howe said Senator Brown agreed to put language in S.B 2 allowing water districts to protect existing use in the district. The language essentially gives the district authority to deny a permit on a new well, or restrict pumping of water for export, if doing so would harm users.

"How we were basically able to sell that is that the law on surface water requires the state to look at any harm to the basis of origin and to the users. We asked why it was not reasonable to have this protection on groundwater if it was on surface water, and they agreed with us—eventually. It isn't a way of prohibiting the export of water. You still have to show that it was going to cause harm," he added.

Howe's associate, Jill Turner, who has closely followed H.B. 7 (sponsored by Warren Chisum, R-Pampa) and its companion bill S.B. 1756 (sponsored by David Sibley, R-Waco) related to rural health initiatives, believes rural Texas and agriculture have gotten a pretty fair shake this time around.

"There was really a push last session by the Rural Caucus to really have a rural representation. Rep. Judy Hawley (D-Portland) had a lot to do with it," said Turner, explaining that the inevitable reduction in rural representation resulting from redistricting and its impact when the legislature returns in 2003 has been a driving force to get things done. "Legislators have pushed to make sure that rural parts of the state are taken care of as the state becomes more and more urban, or suburban. The fact that H.B. 7 was assigned such a low number by House Speaker Pete Laney, who is from a rural area, shows how important he thinks this bill is."

H.B. 7 and S.B. 1756 are bills which transfer all responsibility and powers and duties of the Center for Rural Health Initiatives to create the Office of Rural Community Affairs, a stand-alone executive branch agency.

"It would promote rural economic development, health policy, and other matters of importance to rural areas of the state. It would be governed by an executive committee, consisting of three members each appointed by the Governor, Lt. Governor and Speaker of the House, for a total of nine," said Turner. "There duties would be to develop rural policy for the state, in consultation with state offices, academic and industry experts, and other facets of rural community life; administer federal community development block program, which would be transferred from Rural Housing and Development; and administer the program supporting rural health care, transferred from the Center for Rural Health Initiatives mentioned earlier. Some of those include the Rural Health Care Scholarship program, to Rural Health Care Incentive program and Rural Health Facility Capital Fund, which is grants or low interest funds for hospitals in rural areas."

Turner said the bill calls for an advisory committee that would meet annually and give recommendations to the executive committee on problems facing rural areas. The advisory committee would consist of several heads of state agencies, such as the ag commissioner, health commissioner, the commissioner of human services and others. The Office would be authorized to accept gifts, grants and donations to fund its programs.

"H.B. 7 passed the House on the third reading on April 9, and S.B. 1756 was referred to the Senate State Affairs Committee on March 15," Turner advised, predicting that it would easily pass.

TFB Associate Legislative Director Gary Joiner has been pleased with the warm reception H.B. 2709, a bill dealing with landowners' rights in the determination of utility easement routes, sponsored by Rep. Hawley, has received.

"This is a priority issue for us at the Farm Bureau. The board, when we determine priorities in December, asked that we seek legislation providing additional individual access to the Public Utility Commission regulatory process. They also said to seek additional protection for landowners providing utility rights of way, so that was our goal. The bill by Rep. Hawley goes a long ways towards giving protections to those landowners," said Joiner. "And we like our chances of it passing."

According to Joiner, the bill requires that before running new transmission lines, utility companies first explore whether or not existing lines can be used. If not, then the possibility of using existing rights-of way are to be considered. Finally, if that is not plausible, utility companies would determine the feasibility of following existing property lines before cutting across property.

"This is not going to be a burden to the utility companies. It does not ask them to do something that they have not done historically. However, with the rush to get power from plant to consumers, to allow this electrical competition to begin, some of the utility companies haven't been quite as sensitive to procedure lately as in the past. This bill is basically putting into law what has somewhat been a standard practice. With this bill, landowners have, I think, an opportunity to tell utility companies simply, `Look before you leap. If you need a transmission, work with the landowner to do it in a manner that is least disruptive and intrusive to get that line across his land.'"