2025 Legislative Report

The 2025 regular session of the Texas Legislature was a decent one for water policy. Our lawmakers made progress on groundwater and conservation measures, but didn't do as much to protect water quality in our streams and lakes. Unlike all but three other states, Texas doesn’t have a legislature that meets on an annual schedule. Since there won't be another session until 2027, this is a good time to look at the water bills that were passed in the 140-day regular session that ended on June 2 and that have since been enacted into law. In addition to this online guide, our advocacy director, Brian Zabcik, reviewed these laws and bills in a webinar that you can watch on YouTube here (LINK). First, here are the highlights of the 2025 session:

Prop 4: $20 billion for water infrastructure

Texas voters will be asked to approve Proposition 4 when they go to the polls this November. The proposition would amend the state’s Constitution to set aside $1 billion from state sales and use tax revenue per year, for the next 20 years, for the Texas Water Fund, which in turn will be used to pay for water infrastructure projects. The constitutional amendment was authorized by House Joint Resolution 7. If voters approve the amendment, Senate Bill 7 will then determine how the money in the fund will be spent. The Texas Water Development Board (TWDB) will be able to use 50% of the funding for “new water supply” projects, which could include facilities for desalination, treatment of oil & gas wastewater, aquifer storage & recovery (ASR), and water reuse. Save Texas Streams and our partners in the Wastewater Conservation Coalition strongly support water reuse, and we were glad to see it added to the list of eligible projects. For more details on Proposition 4, see this post by Environment Texas. 

Hays County groundwater fix: vetoed

Governor Abbott vetoed Senate Bill 1253, which was a huge loss for the residents of western Hays County. That’s because the bill would have given the Hays Trinity Groundwater Conservation District (GCD) the same powers as every other district in the state to set appropriate fees and rules for the holders of its well permits. Hays Trinity GCD wasn’t given these powers when it was originally created by the Legislature, which is why it’s been unable to fully regulate overpumping at a well owned by Aqua Texas in Woodcreek. The overpumping is one of the reasons why the Jacobs Well spring has gone dry in recent years. Aqua Texas is a unit of Pennsylvania-based Essential Utilities, which has a market capitalization of $10 billion — much, much larger than Hays Trinity GCD’s annual budget.

The provisions that would have strengthened the powers of Hays Trinity GCD were originally in SB 2660, which was passed by the Senate but stalled out in the House. These provisions were then added as an amendment to SB 1253, which would incentivize water conservation features in new developments by requiring cities to reduce the impact fees that they charge for these developments. Aqua’s allies spread mistruths, first about SB 2660 and then about the amended version of SB 1253. Unfortunately these mistruths were repeated in the governor’s veto proclamation. We urge you to read this letter by Andrew Weber, president of the Trinity Edwards Springs Protection Association (TESPA), on why the governor made the wrong decision. You can also read more in this Texas Monthly article, “Why the Best Chance to Save Jacob’s Well Drained Away.”

Devils River wastewater protection: approved 

HB 3333, enacted into law, will discontinue new wastewater discharge permits on the Devils River. This represents the first new limit on wastewater discharge permits since 1996, when these permits were prohibited over the Edwards Aquifer Recharge Zone. (Discharge permits were previously discontinued around the Highland Lakes in 1986.) HB 3333 was championed by our friends at the Devils Rivers Conservancy, which in 2022 joined with Save Texas Streams and other organizations in filing the Pristine Streams Petition with TCEQ. The Pristine Streams proposal, which would discontinue new discharge permits on around 20 rivers and creeks in the Hill Country (including both Barton Creek and the Devils River), was also the basis for SB 1911 in this session. While SB 1911 didn’t advance, HB 3333’s success offers hope for a new Pristine Streams bill in the 2027 Legislative Session.

PFAS “forever chemicals”: no action 

You may have read recent articles about the potential dangers of PFAS chemicals in fertilizers that are made as a byproduct of the wastewater treatment process. The letters refer to tens of thousands of chemicals that share similar and very complex molecular bonds. This is why they’re also called “forever chemicals,” since they take a really long time to break down and decay. In the wastewater treatment process, solids settle to the bottom of the treatment tanks. When these biosolids are removed, they’re often turned into fertilizer, since they have high levels of phosphorus and nitrogen (which are two of the three ingredients in many commonly used fertilizers). But because trace amounts of PFAS chemicals are also present in wastewater, fertilizers made from biosolids can have higher levels of these chemicals too. According to local officials in Johnson County (south of Fort Worth), the use of these fertilizers has led to illnesses and deaths in livestock. HB 1674 would have set limits on the amounts of certain PFAS chemicals that could remain in biosolid fertilizer, and would have established criminal penalties for making, distributing, and selling fertilizer with PFAS amounts above these limits. HB 1674 was authored by Rep. Helen Kerwin, who represents Johnson County, and many of her constituents testified in a lengthy committee hearing in May.

Everything else: winners & losers 

All of the new laws listed below (indicated by colored blocks) will go into effect on September 1 unless otherwise noted. We’ve also listed some failed bills that should have become law but didn’t (indicated by white blocks). The red letter or number to to the right of each bill number indicates the highest stage in the legislative process reached by that bill:
Chamber #1
(1) Bill is referred to a committee.
(2) Bill is heard in a committee meeting.
(3) Bill is approved in a committee vote.
(4) Bill is passed in a chamber vote. The bill then goes to:
Chamber #2
(5)-(8) Bill must repeat the same four stages.
If the bill passes both chambers, it goes to the:
Governor
They can choose to:
(S)ign a bill,
(V)eto it, or let it be
(F)iled as law without their signature. 

 SB 1 (S) Funding for groundwater research
Article 9 of this law, which contains the state’s budget, directs TWDB to spend $7.5 million over the next two years on groundwater science, research, and innovation. This new funding will be crucial since many GCDs don’t know exactly how much water is available in their aquifer, which means that they don’t know how many permits they can issue, and for how much volume. Knowing how much water can be pumped out of an aquifer is essential for a GCD so that it can determine whether it’s on track — or not — to meet its Desired Future Condition (see HB 2078 below).

HB 1633 (S) Assessing permit impact on exempt wells
This new law requires Groundwater Conservation Districts to consider the impact of a new permit application on not just existing Registered wells, but also on Exempt wells (this usually includes single-household and small agricultural wells). According to the bill’s author, GCDs in some counties have been ignoring the impact of new permits on Exempt wells.

SB 2885 (S) Using reclaimed water for ASR
We’re not just limited to pumping out the water that nature has put into an aquifer. It’s also possible for us to pump water into an aquifer and then pump it out later, using Aquifer Storage & Recovery (ASR) facilities. The water that’s pumped into a well will generally be excess stormwater collected during a heavy rainfall, but El Paso has been a pioneer in pumping treated wastewater into an aquifer. (Treated wastewater that’s discharged into rivers and lakes is already supplementing our drinking water sources across Texas.) SB 2885 clarifies that as long as wastewater has been treated to drinking water standards, ASR facilities can pump it into an aquifer.

HB 2078 (S) Progress updates on Desired Future Conditions
All Groundwater Conservation Districts are required to set a long-range planning target called the Desired Future Condition (DFC). For example, a district might say, “We don’t want the water level in our aquifer to go down by more than 200 feet over the next 50 years.” HB 2078 requires GCDs to show, every five years, that their current aquifer management policies are on track to meet their Desired Future Condition.

HB 5560 (S) Increased penalties for GCD violations
Groundwater Conservation Districts are already able to issue fines against permit holders that violate the district’s rules. This new law raises the maximum fine from $10,000 per day, to $25,000 for every day that the permit holder doesn’t follow the GCD’s requirements.

HB 1690 (V) Notification for export permit applications
The process of moving water from one jurisdiction to another is called exporting. For surface water, this can mean building a pipeline to move water from one river basin to another. For groundwater, this can mean pumping water out of one GCD and piping it to another. Before well owners can do this, they must apply for an export permit from the GCD. HB 1690 would have required a GCD to notify neighboring jurisdictions when it was considering an export permit application. Governor Abbott vetoed the bill, stating that it “would increase the regulatory hurdles to convey water resources.” However, groundwater exporting has become increasingly controversial in Texas (you can read more here, here, and here), so it’s likely that this proposal will come up again. 

 HB 29 (S) Loss mitigation plans for utilities
If you have an older home, you already know that pipes and faucets can leak. The same is true for large-scale water infrastructure in municipal utilities, which can have equally large-scale leaks. According to this excellent Texas Living Waters Project report, the amount of water that’s lost statewide each year would be enough to meet the combined annual water needs of Austin, Fort Worth, El Paso, Laredo, and Lubbock. TWDB already sets levels for the amount of acceptable water loss by municipal utilities. HB 29 says that if a utility exceeds this threshold, it must create and implement a mitigation plan to reduce its water loss.

HB 517 (S) No HOA fines for brown lawns
Have there really been homeowners associations (HOAs) that have been stupid enough to fine residents for having brown lawns simply because they were following their utility’s watering restrictions during droughts? Apparently there have been. This new law, which went into effect on May 29, tells HOAs to stop doing that.

SB 480 (S) Interlocal water planning
This small but helpful law clarifies that local governments can engage in joint water planning and research with other governmental entities.

SB 2662 (S) Drought plans for corporate utilities
While most people get their water from a public nonprofit utility, some are served by for-profit corporations, referred to as Investor-Owned Utilities (IOUs). And while public utilities have long been required to have drought contingency plans to reduce consumption when water is scarce, corporate utilities have not. Under this new law, corporate utilities must now have drought contingency plans that include mandatory water use restrictions, as well as procedures for dealing with users who don’t comply with these restrictions. SB 2662 went into effect on May 30.

SB 1253 (V) Conservation incentives for new developments
This unsuccessful bill would have incentivized the inclusion of water conservation features in new developments by requiring cities to reduce impact fees for these developments. As explained above, Governor Abbott vetoed this bill because it would have also expanded the authority of the Hays Trinity Groundwater Conservation District.

SB 1633 (5) Tax discount for rainwater harvesting 
This was another great failed bill that would have allowed counties to offer property tax discounts for the installation of onsite rain harvesting or greywater reuse systems. (Greywater is the wastewater from bathroom drains and washing machines.) Versions of this bill have been introduced in several previous sessions. This time, SB 1633 was passed by the Senate but died in the House. 

 HB 3333 (F) Devils River wastewater protection
This new law, filed without the governor's signature, directs TCEQ to stop issuing new permits that would allow treated domestic wastewater (aka sewage) to be discharged into the Devils River north of Del Rio (see above).

HB 1674 (2) Criminal liability for PFAS products
This unsuccessful bill would have set limits on the amounts of certain PFAS chemicals that could remain in biosolid fertilizer, and would have established criminal penalties for making, distributing, and selling fertilizer with PFAS amounts above these limits (see above).

SB 768 (1) Study on PFAS effects
This unsuccessful bill would have directed the University of Houston, TCEQ, and the Texas Railroad Commission to conduct a study on the effects of PFAS chemicals on public health.

SB 1586 (5) Requirements for wastewater package plants
While most wastewater treatment facilities are built on site, some small developments install prefabricated treatment units known as package plants, which may not be maintained as well as larger plants. This unsuccessful bill would have required package plants to have adequate security and weatherization, as well as sufficient funding for maintenance.

SB 1911 (1) Pristine streams wastewater protection
This unsuccessful bill would have discontinued new wastewater discharge permits on the state’s last remaining pristine streams, while allowing development to continue on these rivers and creeks with wastewater irrigation permits. You can read more about the bill in this Save Texas Streams Explainer and in this Texas Tribune article. Save Texas Streams has strongly supported earlier versions of the Pristine Streams proposal, including a 2021 bill and a 2022 petition filed with TCEQ, and we plan to keep working on it in the 2027 session.

SB 1954 (1) County water quality regulations
This unsuccessful bill was filed by Sen. Donna Campbell, and Save Texas Streams hopes to see it filed again. It would have allowed counties to set stricter development and land use rules for specially designated water quality protections areas, which could be in an aquifer recharge zone, karst limestone area, floodplain, or riparian area. SB 1954 would have allowed officials to regulate the height and size of buildings; the percentage of a lot that could be occupied; population density; and the location and use of buildings and land for commercial, industrial, residential, or other purposes. The need for expanded county authority is even greater in the wake of the devastating Fourth of July floods in the Hill Country.