Lawmakers push to spend billions of dollars for water projects and debate which ones to prioritize

Sign up for The Brief, The Texas Tribune’s daily newsletter that keeps readers up to speed on the most essential Texas news.

---

Texas lawmakers agree that the answer to the state’s looming water crisis is to invest billions of dollars into fixing the problem. What they don’t agree on, at least for now, is exactly how to spend the money.

State. Sen. Charles Perry, R-Lubbock, and state Rep. Cody Harris, R-Palestine, filed bills this month that take big swings at solving the ongoing water issues plaguing Texas. They include investing billions of dollars into repairing and upgrading aging infrastructure like water pipes as well as creating new water sources for the future.

The discussion comes at an important time — a Texas Tribune analysis found the state could face a severe water shortage by 2030 if there was a recurring, statewide record-breaking drought and if state leaders and water entities failed to use strategies that secure water supplies.

A pair of proposals — Senate Joint Resolution 66 and House Joint Resolution 7 — would allocate up to $1 billion a year to boost water projects. Their accompanying bills, House Bill 16 and Senate Bill 7, both would create new water committees to oversee the funding and promote investment into new water projects.

Gov. Greg Abbott has declared water an emergency item for this legislative session, which means the bills could be on a fast track in the Legislature.

Here’s what you need to know as lawmakers begin to debate the two packages of bills.

Why is there a debate between creating new water supply versus fixing leaking pipes?

Both proposals would funnel up to $1 billion a year to the Texas Water Fund — a special account voters approved in 2023 to help pay for water projects.

Perry’s resolution calls for 80% of the money to fund projects to create new water supplies and 20% to repair aging infrastructure. Harris’ resolution does not specify how the money would be split and would leave the structure how it is — letting the Texas Water Development Board decide how to prioritize projects.

The debate around the bills centers on whether to prioritize projects for new water sources or repairing aging water pipes that leak massive amounts of water throughout the state.

Water experts agree that projects to create new sources of water need to be funded. However, there is concern about neglecting repairs on water pipes around the state.

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.

Perry Fowler, executive director of the Texas Water Infrastructure Network, said the House and Senate will have to find a balance to move water legislation forward.

“I don’t think anybody takes issue with the fact that we need to invest in new water supplies,” Fowler said. “But there is a tremendous need to address aging infrastructure. We have a lot of immediate needs, like yesterday.”

Where would new water supplies come from?

Texas is looking to desalination to remove salt from seawater or brackish groundwater to create more water for drinking, irrigation and industrial uses.

Another strategy would be treating produced water, which is wastewater that comes out of the ground during oil and gas production. According to the Texas Public Policy Foundation, every barrel of oil produced also generates five barrels of wastewater.

Perry lists both options as eligible for state money in Senate Bill 7. He also acknowledged that old pipes are leaking massive amounts of water every year, calling that primarily a local issue.

“But I’m willing to leverage tax dollars, as we have in the past, and work on that at the same time,” Perry said. “But supply has to be priority one.”

Jennifer Walker, director for the Texas Coast and Water Program for National Wildlife Federation, said repairing old, leaking infrastructure should be considered a new water supply and urges lawmakers to be more liberal in that definition.

“Stopping that [water] loss and delivering more drops to customers, that is a new water supply for our communities,” she said. “We're not delivering it to our customers otherwise, unless we address that.”

Why would the state need to pay for local infrastructure repairs?

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, or about 51 gallons of water per home or business connection every day — enough water to meet the total annual municipal needs of Austin, El Paso, Fort Worth, Laredo and Lubbock combined.

Some of Texas’ water infrastructure is nearly as old as the state itself — the oldest pipes date back to as early as the 1890s. In 2019, Little Bill’s Plumbing in Pampa unearthed a wooden water pipe that experts believed could have been used before the city was incorporated.

Tom Gooch, vice president and a water resource planner with Freese and Nichols, said much of Texas’ water infrastructure is nearing the end of its useful life, but repairs remain largely a local responsibility — and funding is limited.

"The tradition in Texas has been that this kind of maintenance and repair tends to be a local responsibility."

Many pipes across the state are over 100 years old, and underground pipes can be damaged when the ground around them expands and contracts during droughts and wetter weather cycles. Corrosion and leaks are hard to detect, and with thousands of miles of underground pipes, repairs are expensive and time-consuming.

Sources like the State Water Implementation Fund for Texas give local governments money to help, but there are more funding requests than the Water Development Board can fund.

What approach do water experts propose?

Most of the experts agree that both new water supply and fixing deteriorating infrastructure is important. However, some think it would be best to keep giving the water development board discretion over how state money is spent.

Fowler, with the Texas Water Infrastructure Network, said he believes a lot of people supported the structure of the Texas Water Fund before because it was set up in a way to give flexibility to the board.

“If we’re too prescriptive, then it could potentially impact our overall spending power and what we can actually do,” Fowler said.

During a House committee meeting this week, Sarah Kirkle with the Texas Water Association testified in support of the House Joint Resolution. She said it would allow communities to meet new growth needs, upgrade existing facilities and fix broken lines. She was also in support of keeping the power to prioritize spending with the Water Development Board.

Gooch said repairing and keeping old infrastructure running is essential.

“I don't know that you can rank it, you've got to do both,” Gooch said. “You've got to keep your system functioning well, and you've got to go find additional water to put into the system, to appropriately use your resources to get both those things done.”

Disclosure: Texas 2036, Texas Living Waters Project and Texas Public Policy Foundation have been financial supporters of The Texas Tribune, a nonprofit, nonpartisan news organization that is funded in part by donations from members, foundations and corporate sponsors. Financial supporters play no role in the Tribune's journalism. Find a complete list of them here.

---

We can’t wait to welcome you to the 15th annual Texas Tribune Festival, Texas’ breakout ideas and politics event happening Nov. 13–15 in downtown Austin. Step inside the conversations shaping the future of education, the economy, health care, energy, technology, public safety, culture, the arts and so much more.

Hear from our CEO, Sonal Shah, on TribFest 2025.

TribFest 2025 is presented by JPMorganChase.