Editorial: Austin, stop tinkering with water agency and figure out the financing


It’s a good thing that the House Natural Resources Committee approved a measure last week to help finance Texas’ long-term water plan. The state’s recurring droughts and rapid population growth make it crucial that sufficient water supplies be developed.

HB 4, written by GOP Rep. Allan Ritter of Nederland, would help meet that goal by making sure communities are able to finance the water projects they will need over the next half-century. The House should move quickly on this legislation, which would use money from the state’s surplus.

Unfortunately, over in the Senate, the major water legislation includes a problematic provision that could allow politics to get in the way of funding water projects.

SB 4, written by GOP Sen. Troy Fraser of Horseshoe Bay, is similar to HB 4 in that it would supply funds to help finance water projects. But SB 4 also would dramatically change how the state oversees the Texas Water Development Board.

Fraser, a close ally of Gov. Rick Perry, would no longer have professional staff and six volunteer trustees appointed by the governor manage Texas’ leading water agency. Instead, he proposes that three paid, full-time commissioners appointed by the governor run the agency.

Fraser dumped this idea into the session without much vetting of the concept, an idea that Ritter did not put in his HB 4. Nor did the Sunset Review Commission include anything similar when it looked at changes for the water board two years ago.

Given the far-reaching effect of this change, legislators should table the idea until after the session ends. GOP Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst and GOP House Speaker Joe Straus should instruct the House and Senate Natural Resources Committees to study the idea in the interim legislative session. If there is enough push for a change, come back in the 2015 Legislature with a proposal.

To be sure, there is some merit to Fraser’s idea. But consider the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, which functions with three full-time commissioners. TCEQ has been seen as a place where the governor’s appointees don’t make enough independent judgments.

Some observers worry Perry would use Fraser’s reform to politicize the water development board and the projects it selects to fund. Even former Republican leaders of the board question the change. What’s more, the way Perry has used his university regents to push his higher education ideas stands as a precedent others want to avoid.

The Legislature needs to stay focused this year on the key water issue — financing Texas’ 50-year water plan. That’s the water goal that really matters.

Water board overhaul

Questions for an interim examination of changes to the Texas Water Development Board:

What is the best way to oversee the financing of water projects the state needs over the next 50 years?

How would a panel of three paid, full-time commissioners better serve the state than the current six volunteer trustees?

What would happen to the agency’s professional staff if full-time commissioners come on board?

How could legislators give the commissioners enough independence from the governor who appoints them?

How do former members of the Texas Water Development Board view a panel of three commissioners?

How can the state best come up with a priority list of projects?

Top Picks