LUBBOCK — It was 2014. Charles Perry was moving from the Texas House of Representatives to the Senate. The Panhandle lawmaker had several priorities, including water and how it gets to Texans.
“We must continue looking into ways to conserve and develop our water infrastructure and resources at both a state and local level,” Perry told the Lubbock Avalanche-Journal at the time.
Since then he’s been seen as a catalyst for water in the Capitol — and he is still sounding the same alarm.
Last year, Perry traversed the state to raise support for what might be the most ambitious overhaul to the state’s funding approach to water in modern state history.
The plan has become one of the worst-kept secrets in Texas politics, as Perry has met with an array of water lobbyists, local leaders and his fellow lawmakers. Those he’s met with have said Perry is working hard to secure the support necessary to make sure his plan does not fail under the dome.
Those conversations have created a buzz in the Texas water world and in Austin, where lawmakers began meeting again this week. However, Perry’s aspirations are, for now, still just an idea. The lawmaker and his team are still drafting the legislation.
According to interviews with water leaders across the state and with the lawmaker himself, the priority is clear — create a dedicated stream of state tax dollars to help local water agencies and cities buy more water and update the infrastructure that carries it to homes, businesses and farms.
Perry plans on asking lawmakers for as much as $5 billion for success in maintaining water infrastructure and growing water supply in the future, amid the state’s population growth.
“The Texas miracle’s happening, and we don’t have enough water to support it,” said Mary Alice Boehm-McKaughan, a lawyer for the Texas Rural Water Association.
The gamut of problems have popped up in all corners of the state, and has Texans worried. About 85% of registered voters are concerned about the risk of future water supply shortages, according to a survey by the policy think tank Texas 2036.
Perry said this session is likely the last chance for the Texas Legislature to get a significant jump start on addressing water issues. He said it’s not practical to leave it up to local governments anymore, because of how expensive it is.
“These are big billion-dollar conversations,” Perry said, in an interview with The Texas Tribune. “If we don’t jump-start this, I think Texas may have seen its best days on some level from some industries.”
Advocates say paying attention to water couldn’t come at a more critical time for Texas. Over the last several years, the state has endured ongoing drought, water contamination, declining water supply from reservoirs and aquifers, and water outages due to aging infrastructure.
It’s too early to say if his approach will work. Perry tried another ambitious bill last session, which allocated $1 billion to create the Texas Water Fund. Advocates say it was just a first step and it falls short of the long-term funding required. Others are waiting to see if Gov. Greg Abbott will make water a priority this session.
“I’m a frustrated CPA (certified public accountant), wannabe engineer,” Perry said. “It’s doable.”
As a Texas House Member in 2013, Perry was against using money in the state’s emergency savings account for water. Doing so would have required the legislature to bust its spending cap. He advocated for financial restraint and to wait.
“This is not a debate on having a water plan,” Perry wrote in 2013. “It’s a discussion on the best way to fund our water needs while protecting the state’s financial stability.”
His opponents used it against him later. However, Perry has long been an advocate for dedicated funds even then. Water, he says, is statewide infrastructure and should be funded the same as roads and bridges.
“Water is life, everything else is quality of life,” Perry said. “We can do without electricity for a day or two. It’s not good, but I can’t do without water for more than about four days. That’s death.”
Perry said part of the plan is to have the recurring funds expire after 10 or 15 years to see what the state’s water supply looks like then.
The idea, he said “will literally provide access to a water supply system — new supply, not existing — actual new supply to every 254 counties in the state.”
Water advocates say it’s not impossible to fix the water issues — leaking pipes, water contamination risks, and declining supply — plaguing the state. However, it will be expensive. A Texas 2036 report 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.
“We need to be more aggressive… and consider dedicated funding for water infrastructure, much like we already do for state parks and state road projects,” said Jeremy Mazur, director of infrastructure and natural resources policy at Texas 2036.
Texas voters appear ready for lawmakers to address water concerns. In 2023, voters approved $1 billion to create the Texas Water Fund. And according to Texas 2036’s survey, 85% of voters said they want the state to invest in long-term funding for water supply and infrastructure projects. The group polled over 1,000 registered Texas registered voters from across the state after the election last November for the results.
Perry’s bill would dedicate annual funding to water issues. He could ask for $5 billion per year to be allocated to the Texas Water Fund to help close this substantial funding gap. It’s unclear where that money would come from. The $1 billion approved last session that created the fund was a one-time investment and was used from the state’s historic surplus. Once the money runs dry, so do the water pipe repairs.
“Water supply projects are just becoming more challenging and complex because the easiest and cheapest projects have already been developed,” said Sarah Kirkle, policy director at the Texas Water Association. “We need to act now, or it will become even more expensive in the future.”
If the legislature does move forward in dedicating revenues to the Texas Water Fund, the bill would require a constitutional amendment to the Texas Constitution that voters would have to approve next November. The Texas 2036 poll found 68% of likely voters support dedicating $1 billion annually to the water fund.
Texas loses a significant amount of water from infrastructure breaks and leaks. The primary problem with Texas water infrastructure is its age and deterioration, which leads to significant water loss through leaks and breaks in old pipes.
A 2022 report by Texas Living Waters Project, a coalition of environmental groups, estimated that Texas water systems lose at least 572,000 acre-feet per year — about 51 gallons of water per service connection every day — enough water to meet the total annual municipal needs of the cities of Austin, Fort Worth, El Paso, Laredo, and Lubbock combined.
Cities and local water systems play a vital role and are responsible for the day-to-day management and implementation of water policies. However, many in Texas have struggled to keep up with the costs to fix deteriorating infrastructure, increasing demand, financial constraints and workforce shortages.
Old pipes raise concerns about water quality and supply, and often result in boil water notices paired with the need for costly repairs and replacements across the state. This issue is further compounded by the lack of funding for maintenance in some areas and the increasing demand for water due to population growth.
Boehm-McKaughan with the Texas Rural Water Association said the state’s population boom has sped up the issues.
“We’re very blessed to have folks moving in all the time,” Boehm-McKaughan said. “Nobody’s bringing roads with them. Nobody’s bringing water or more electrical grids.”
The 2022 Texas Water Plan estimates the state’s population will increase to 51.5 million by 2070 — an increase of 73%. At the same time, existing water supplies are projected to decline by 18%. The plan suggests strategies that, if not implemented, could cause a quarter of the state’s population in 2070 to have less than half the municipal water supplies they would need during a drought.
“We’re just having some severe growing pains,” Boehm-McKaughan said. “And, quite frankly, we can’t conserve our way out of it when it comes to water.”
Water experts say securing a reliable, consistent funding stream for water is seen as critical to supporting Texas’ continued economic growth and development, which depends on having dependable water supplies and infrastructure.
“The state level would really be helping those communities in ways that they can’t do on their own,” Kirkle said. “Especially without dramatic increases in local water rates.”
Water organizations are selling the idea as an economic proposal, as they say water is a key component to the economy. Industries and companies often look at the state’s water reliability when making their decisions on where to invest and locate their headquarters.
“If you want to continue to see this economic growth, it’s an economic development, you need to make sure that there’s reliable water infrastructure in place to support that,” Mazur said.
He added that without significant investments in water, Texas could struggle to compete for industry growth.
If a dedicated water fund is created, it could open the door to larger projects that offer regional solutions. In a December essay for the Texas Water Journal, Perry said water desalination — a process that removes minerals from water to make it drinkable — could help produce new water supply across the state.
The Legislature “will have an opportunity to vote for a plan that will supply water to every community, county, and region of the state,” Perry wrote.
There’s also the idea of a state water grid — pipelines transporting water from the water-rich regions of Texas to arid, drought-stricken areas — has been circulating since the 1960s. It first appeared in the 1968 State Water Plan, an era marked by significant interest in interstate water transfers. While the idea persists, the path to implementation is fraught with challenges, according to some water experts.
Building large-scale water transfer systems is no small feat. The costs are astronomical, the timelines daunting and there have been environmental concerns raised in the past.
Robert Mace, executive director of the Meadows Center for Water and the Environment at Texas State University in San Marcos, said projects like these often take 20 to 30 years to complete. However, he’s careful not to dismiss the idea entirely.
“Never say never,” he said.
He added that large-scale water transfers remain a potential lifeline for the state.
“Who knows what’s going to happen and how desperate things could get,” he said. “We have had things like climate change.”
Kirkle with the Texas Water Association said there’s a need for additional water supplies now and addressing Texas’ water challenges will require “every kind of project on the table.”
Perry Fowler, executive director of the Texas Water Infrastructure Network, said Perry seems determined to make a significant change for water. Fowler said the plan for a pipeline network is conceptual, for now.
“I think that the chairman is trying to get a sense of what we’d be looking at in terms of dollars to be able to execute a large scale, large supply investment,” Fowler said.
In an interview with the Tribune, Perry said working on water supply now is critical. He says the state is already behind on its water supply, and it takes a long time to build these projects.
“It takes 20 years to build out the infrastructure to have the water 20 years from now,” Perry said.
Perry has a few more weeks to hammer out the details before he has to present it to lawmakers. All bills must be filed by March 14.
Article originally published by The Texas Tribune. To read the original article, click here.
