On July 28, 2025 Rep. Cody Harris, the Palestine-based representative of Texas House District 8 filed four bills that collectively seek to invoke huge changes to the way that groundwater is permitted in Texas. The bills — sequentially numbered HB 215, HB 216, HB 217 and HB 218 — each propose to amend Water Code Chapter 36 and are aimed to make it significantly more difficult, if not impossible, to export large quantities of groundwater.
While each of the four bills stands on its own, they collaboratively seek to establish a framework that would enable local groundwater conservation districts (“GCD”) to deny applications seeking permits for large scale exports with relative impunity. One bill even seeks to give neighboring districts veto power over the permitting decision of the GCD for the locale in which the project is based (or from which export is sought).
Although likely to garner plenty of support from rural landowners and conservationists, expect lots of controversy and tremendous pushback on these bills. The water law issues they present are plentiful!
At first blush, the bills appear to me to an overreaction to recent permitting requests that, while well-intentioned, would negatively implicate private property rights, potentially give rise to takings/inverse condemnation claims, possibly violate the Voting Rights Act, and usurp the existing scheme of local control balanced with private property rights that is expressly preferred by the State as reflected in Sections 36.0015 and 36.002(a) of the Texas Water Code:
Groundwater conservation districts created as provided by this chapter are the state’s preferred method of groundwater management in order to protect property rights, balance the conservation and development of groundwater to meet the needs of this state, and use the best available science in the conservation and development of groundwater through rules developed, adopted, and promulgated by a district in accordance with the provisions of this chapter.
The legislature recognizes that a landowner owns the groundwater below the surface of the landowner’s land as real property.
The filed versions of the bills do not include carve outs for public water suppliers or governmental entities, meaning that publicly funded groundwater projects would be subject to the limits outlined in the bills. This presents a whole different set of potential problems — particularly since so many public water facility projects are financed with bonds or tax dollars.
Below are the introduced versions of the bills. Buckle up for a wild ride!
