As this legislative session wraps up, now’s the time to pause and ask: What direction is Texas water policy headed? While not every bill made it to the finish line, the debates and proposals that we witnessed this session offer a glimpse into the future of our water: which priorities are rising, which battles are brewing, and how decisions in the Texas Capitol might ripple out to our communities.
Water Funding Bills
SB 1 (Huffman) is general appropriations bill for the 2026-2027 biennium. Like HB 1, its counterpart in the House, SB 1 initially proposed $2.5 billion for water needs. When the dust settled, SB 1 got approved without that water funding. Instead, the funding for water ended up coming from the supplemental budget bill HB 500 (Bonnen). While it’s advertised that water received a $2.5 billion investment, this number is somewhat misleading. Out of this $2.5 billion, $881 million was actually carried over from the appropriations to the Texas Water Fund made during the previous session, meaning only about $1.6 billion is truly new funding. Of that, $581 million is already committed to specific projects, leaving roughly $1 billion available for other water programs under the Texas Water Fund.
Another important legislative outcome for water funding is the passing of HJR 7 (Harris), a constitutional amendment to dedicate $1 billion to the Texas Water Fund each year. However, this historic investment must be approved by voters in November before it could come into effect. Once approved, the annual dedications to the Texas Water Fund will start in 2027 and expire in 2047. Upon expiration, the legislature will revisit this issue to determine if these allocations should be extended.
All in all, this session brought substantial funding for water in Texas and marked progress toward addressing the state’s long-term water challenges, although the final outcome ultimately fell short of the “Texas-sized” investment many had hoped for.
Water Infrastructure Bills
SB 7 (Perry), the “big water infrastructure bill,” establishes legislative oversight of how the Texas Water Development Board (TWDB) would use the funding for water projects. After extensive behind-the-scenes negotiations, the final version of SB 7 includes a split of funding, requiring 50% of the $1-billion annual allocations to the Texas Water Fund to go towards new water supply projects and the State Water Infrastructure Fund for Texas (SWIFT), and the other half to the rest of the programs in the Texas Water Fund. This marks a big shift from earlier proposals that would have funneled 80% of the funding just into new water supply projects. Additionally, under SB 7, the definition of new water supplies is expanded to include water and wastewater reuse projects - undoubtedly, a step in the right direction. Importantly, the $1 billion annual appropriation can now be used for the Agricultural Water Conservation Program, Economically Distressed Areas Program (EDAP), Flood Infrastructure Fund, and potable reuse projects, in addition to the existing Texas Water Fund programs.
Moving forward, Sierra Club will monitor the implementation of SB 7 and HJR 7 (if approved by voters) closely and work with Texas Water Development Board (TWDB) to ensure funds are distributed appropriately, based on need, and in ways that promote equitable access to safe water systems across Texas.
HB 29 (Gerdes) requires the largest municipally owned utilities to report water losses and prepare water loss mitigation plans, thus promoting a sustainable strategy to improve existing infrastructure and increase availability of water across Texas. There has been an ongoing debate about how much water the state loses through leaky pipes and how important addressing that loss could be for water management. HB 29 will help to understand the true extent of water loss in Texas, while addressing the growing infrastructure needs. This bill has already been signed by the Governor and is expected to take effect in September.
SB 1967 (Chuy Hinojosa) proposes funding for multipurpose flood infrastructure projects. Flooding remains the most damaging disaster in Texas, while challenges related to water scarcity are growing increasingly urgent. HB 29 supports flood mitigation projects that not only reduce flood risks in Texas communities but also offer the added benefit of increasing water supplies. Texans, especially those living in areas most vulnerable to flooding, stand to benefit from stronger, more resilient infrastructure, while the additional water supply component will help meet the state’s growing water needs. This bill has also been signed by the Governor.
SB 1253 (Perry) encourages water conservation and reuse in new development projects by requiring cities to offer impact fee credits to builders who install water-efficient infrastructure and appliances. Impact fees can be significant and are typically passed on to home buyers or renters. When they’re reduced through incentives as proposed in SB 1253, it can lower the overall cost of building and make a real difference in affordability of housing in fast-growing Texas communities. This bill has been sent to the Governor, who has until June 22 to sign or veto it.
Water Quality Bills
HB 3728 (Morales Shaw) would require Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) to release long-term salinity studies and establish numeric and narrative standards to protect our bays and estuaries from the impacts of the expanding seawater desalination. This bill was important because despite moving forward with seawater desalination as a new water supply strategy, Texas doesn’t have sufficient environmental protections to ensure that our bays and estuaries remain healthy and productive for years to come. This bill could have been a much-needed push from the legislature to expedite the development of salinity standards for Texas bays and estuaries. The desalination industry, as expected, opposed this bill stating that additional regulations would be an unnecessary obstacle for the expansion of seawater desalination projects in Texas. In the end, HB 3828 was heard in the House Committee on Culture, Recreation, and Tourism, but never got a vote and eventually died.
HB 4028 (Zwiener) is another important water quality bill that would have been instrumental in protecting our waterbodies from pre-production plastics pollution, like plastic pellets (“nurdles”), powders, and flakes. Pre-production plastics - or raw plastic materials of which plastic products are made - are frequently spilled during manufacturing, transportation, and handling. Needless to say, once in the environment, pre-production plastics pose serious health risks to wildlife and humans. However, while our state is leading the nation in plastics production, pre-production plastics pollution isn’t regulated in Texas, and TCEQ has no plans to include pre-production plastics into the upcoming revision of the state’s surface water quality standards. Not surprisingly, the plastics manufacturing industry spoke against HB 4028, claiming that the voluntary programs like Operation Clean Sweep were sufficient to address this issue and additional regulations weren’t needed. This bill was heard in the House on Environmental Regulation, but eventually died in the legislative process.
SB 1145 (Birdwell) proposes to move the authority to permit land application of treated produced water from the Railroad Commission (RRC) to TCEQ. Produced water is oil and gas wastewater, which is highly toxic and can contain radioactive materials. The Texas Produced Water Consortium (TxPWC) was formed in 2021 to study treatment of produced water for beneficial reuse, including irrigation purposes. Since its inception, the TxPWC has published two progress reports which present preliminary results of pilot projects, however, scientists continue to urge that more research is needed to better understand how to properly treat produced water before we can reuse it for other purposes. SB 1145 has already been signed by the Governor, but its current language lacks a requirement for timely rulemaking, fails to define treatment standards or measures to protect water quality, and does not establish monitoring protocols or enforcement mechanisms for noncompliance. While the intent of the bill is generally positive, we need to make sure that the necessary protections are in place before we embark on beneficial reuse of this toxic wastewater.
Water Equity Bills
HB 422 and HB 365 (Gonzalez) another couple of very good bills which aimed to support economically disadvantaged communities in Texas by expanding access to clean water and safe sewer systems. These bills proposed to increase funding for water infrastructure projects, helping all Texans, regardless of their socio-economic status and geographical location, to have access to safe water systems. While both bills passed the House, no action was taken in the Senate, and they eventually died.
Water Science Bills
HB 1730 (Morales Shaw) would require a study to investigate the effects of perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS, or “forever chemicals”) on human health. These synthetic substances are known to be linked to cancer, reproductive harm, developmental delays, and other serious health risks, but their full impact on human health is not yet fully understood. The study, proposed to be conducted by University of Houston in collaboration with RRC and TCEQ, would focus on potential pathways of exposure, including through food, water, packaging, and certain equipment. This is an important bill given that PFAS, while unregulated in Texas drinking water, have been increasingly found in public water systems across the state. This bill was successfully voted out from the House Committee on Environmental Regulation, but ended up not being heard on the House floor and died.
HB 1400 (Harris) would create the Groundwater Science, Research, and Innovation Fund, managed by TWDB. This fund would support groundwater conservation districts through grants for groundwater science, research, and innovation. About one third of this fund was proposed to be directed towards projects in smaller, economically disadvantaged areas to understand local groundwater conditions, develop models for informed decision making, improve groundwater use efficiency, increase recharge, and protect groundwater quality. HB 1400 passed the House but never got a committee hearing in the Senate.
HB 4329 (Lopez) proposes a study to assess factors associated with the costs of flood infrastructure projects across the state. Because Texas has a wide range of landscapes and environments, flood risks and the costs of projects like drainage systems can vary a lot from one area to another. The goal of the study is to provide the state agencies and legislators with the necessary data to make informed decisions about policy development and equitable allocation of resources for drainage infrastructure. Similarly to the previously discussed bill, HB 4329 passed the House but died in the Senate.
In the early days of 2025, Governor Abbott declared water an emergency item and called for a “generational investment” to secure Texas water future. And while the scale of funding for water that has resulted from this session is historically significant, the failure of numerous important water bills - especially those focused on water quality, science, and equity - makes it clear that our work is far from done. As our state continues to face population growth, aging infrastructure challenges, intensifying droughts, and extreme weather events, the decisions made this year in Austin will continue to ripple through our communities for years to come.