Why June 15, 2025 Matters

On July 15, 2025, the Texas House Committee on Natural Resources convened in Austin for an “invited testimony only” hearing that zeroed in on an increasingly radioactive topic: high‑capacity groundwater production in East Texas. Billions of gallons from the Carrizo‑Wilcox Aquifer and companion sands are now on the bargaining table, and the Capitol wanted answers before permits become faits accomplis.

As a lawyer who lives and breathes Texas land and water fights, I can tell you that the energy was electric: ranchers fearful of dry wells, developers itching for pipeline corridors, and policy wonks warning that the “Rule of Capture” can’t square the circle of twenty‑first‑century water demand.

What Sparked the Alarm?

The immediate catalyst is a cluster of permit applications filed with the Neches & Trinity Valleys Groundwater Conservation District (NTVGCD)—a proposal led by Pine Bliss LLC and Redtown Ranch Holdings LLC to drill up to 43 wells capable of exporting an eye‑watering 15 billion gallons of groundwater per year. That figure flirted with 98.9 % of the aquifer’s modeled available groundwater, prompting the district’s board to table the matter for ninety days pending further study.

Local residents packed earlier NTVGCD meetings, arguing that mass export would kneecap family farms and municipal supply systems from Jacksonville to Crockett. When tempers refused to cool, state lawmakers—sensing a political powder keg—slotted the topic onto the committee’s interim calendar.

The Line‑up in Hearing Room E2.010

Chair Rep. Cody Harris (R‑Palestine) opened with a blunt reminder: “Water is finite … without it, we cease to exist.”

• Texas Water Development Board technocrats kicked off, mapping predicted drawdowns under worst‑case pumping scenarios.
• TCEQ lawyers dissected the collision between Texas Water Code Chapter 36 and the committee’s own vision for export permitting reform.
• Vanessa Puig‑Williams of Environmental Defense Fund pressed for mandatory aquifer‑storage metrics in every district’s “desired future conditions.
• County judges from Anderson, Leon, and Freestone Counties warned of potential tax‑base collapse if agriculture loses reliable groundwater.
• Corporate representatives touted “private capital solving public water shortages,” hinting at pipeline tie‑ins to the I‑35 growth corridor.

Five Legal Flashpoints For Your Radar

1. Rule of Capture vs. Edwards Aquifer Authority v. Day

Texas still recognizes the rule of capture, but since the Supreme Court’s decision in Edwards Aquifer Auth. v. Day, 369 S.W.3d 814 (Tex. 2012), groundwater rights are deemed real property interests subject to “reasonable regulation.” Districts that deny export permits now risk inverse‑condemnation claims. That subtext hummed beneath every question from Rep. Harris.

2. Export Permits under § 36.122

Texas Water Code § 36.122 lets a district consider “desired future conditions” and “drawdown” but forbids discriminatory fees. Corporate witnesses called the statute their “constitutional safe harbor”; local officials blasted it as a Trojan horse.

3. Modeled Available Groundwater (MAG) Caps

The TWDB’s 2022 MAG for the Carrizo‑Wilcox in Groundwater Management Area 11 allocates just over 15.2 BGY. The permits on file would devour nearly the entire buffer. Committee members floated tying export volumes to a rolling five‑year recharge average—something no statute yet authorizes.

4. Chapter 36 Enforcement Teeth

Districts already wield § 36.102 injunctive power plus civil penalties up to $10,000 per day. But absent real‑time metering, many small districts see enforcement as whack‑a‑mole. A draft “committee bill” circulated after the hearing envisions mandatory SCADA flow monitors on any well exceeding 500 gpm.

5. Potential Legislative Overlays

Rep. Harris hinted at a 2025 special‑session water package that could:

1. Require TWDB sign‑off on any export above 1 BGY,
2. Bar directors with direct pecuniary interests in pending permits from voting, and
3. Expand Office of the Attorney General oversight of district conflicts.

Practical Implications for East Texas Landowners

Expect a de facto moratorium. Even without formal action, NTVGCD directors signaled they’ll “take no vote” until the Legislature clarifies export criteria. Landowners banking on quick‑flip water deals should recalibrate timelines.

Property valuations may seesaw. Acreage above the Wilcox outcrop has traded at premiums on the belief that water marketing can underwrite land costs. A permit slowdown could chill that upside—but would also preserve domestic well reliability, which underpins conventional rural value.

Easement negotiation is entering a Wild West phase. Pipeline companies are already optioning 100‑foot corridors across Anderson and Cherokee Counties. Landowners should insist on:

• Term‑limited options with escalating payments,
• Pipeline relocation clauses tied to future subdivision, and
• Indemnities for subsidence or contamination.

Groundwater pipe trenches are coming!.

Statewide Ripple Effects

The July 15 hearing isn’t just a Pine Bliss story. Similar export gambits now target the Hill Country Trinity and even the Edwards Aquifer. In short, every district with an over‑allocated MAG just got a wake‑up call.

In Central Texas real estate: expect buyers, lenders, and title companies to start demanding proof of groundwater availability alongside routine septic and flood‑plain diligence. That’s where leaning on the best real estate lawyer in San Antonio becomes less marketing slogan and more survival tactic.

Action Steps: Where Do We Go From Here?

1. Audit Your Water Clause. Any new purchase contract or lease in East Texas should reference “available groundwater production limits as promulgated by the local groundwater conservation district.”
2. Docket Your Protest Deadlines. Under § 36.403, affected owners have as little as ten days after notice to file a contested case.
3. Model Your Drawdown. TWDB’s GAM Viewer is free—get a consultant to run your tract’s predicted drawdown so you can speak the committee’s language.
4. Secure Standing. If Chapter 36 amendments add attorney‑fee recovery for successful contestants (as floated in Rep. Harris’s draft), you’ll want to be a party of record now, not after the rulemaking dust settles.

All of this may feel speculative, but I’ve watched too many landowners learn—expensively—that water law moves at the speed of politics, not geology. Staying proactive makes the difference between payday and dry hole.

Closing Thoughts

The Texas Capitol just signaled that groundwater exports are no longer a local back‑room affair. Whether you’re banking on water sales, protecting a generational farm, or underwriting a subdivision, the terrain changed on July 15. I’ll keep tracking every draft bill and committee substitute so you don’t have to.