SB 3058 authorizes the Post Oak Savannah Groundwater Conservation District to enter into annual agreements with counties to use groundwater export fees for county road improvements and the development of environmental programs related to groundwater. While the bill is designed to facilitate intergovernmental collaboration and respond to a local request by Milam County, its provisions raise significant concerns about the expansion of government authority, fiscal integrity, and adherence to limited government principles.
First and foremost, the bill represents a material expansion in the scope of a local regulatory entity. Groundwater conservation districts are narrowly chartered to manage and protect local water resources. SB 3058 extends the district’s mission into areas traditionally under county government purview, such as road maintenance and environmental infrastructure. This blurs institutional boundaries and sets a concerning precedent for mission creep, wherein narrowly focused agencies evolve into broader service providers without direct voter consent or legislative scrutiny.
Second, SB 3058 authorizes the use of regulatory export fees for purposes that are only indirectly connected to the district’s regulatory functions. These fees were designed to fund administrative and oversight activities associated with groundwater management. Reallocating them for public infrastructure—no matter how well-intentioned—undermines the core principle that fees should bear a rational nexus to the services rendered. Over time, this may lead to fee increases that disproportionately impact groundwater exporters, including businesses and agricultural users, effectively transforming the fee into a tax-like instrument without transparency or public accountability.
Furthermore, the bill includes no statutory limitations, guidelines, or performance metrics for how such agreements should be structured or evaluated. There are no reporting requirements, fiscal caps, or mechanisms to ensure the funds are used efficiently or equitably. This lack of oversight opens the door to potential misuse or politicization of the funds, and could result in inconsistent application or unfair advantages based on local political dynamics.
Even though the Legislative Budget Board determined there is no significant fiscal impact to the state or local governments, this assessment only considers immediate budgetary effects. It does not account for the long-term financial and regulatory risks of distorting the purpose of regulatory fees, nor does it consider the burden this precedent could place on similarly situated districts across the state seeking to expand their role under the guise of local flexibility.
Finally, approving this bill risks sending a signal to other special-purpose districts that their statutory missions may be broadened incrementally through local partnerships and fee diversions, rather than through comprehensive reform or voter engagement. This undermines structural accountability in local governance and weakens taxpayer protections.
For these reasons, and in alignment with the core principles of limited government, responsible fee usage, and the preservation of free enterprise, Texas Policy Research recommends that lawmakers vote NO on SB 3058.
- Individual Liberty: The bill does not impose direct restrictions on individual freedoms such as speech, movement, or privacy. However, it does introduce a concern about the indirect consequences of regulatory overreach. By allowing a special-purpose district to expand its function without voter input, the bill undermines the spirit of democratic accountability. Individuals affected by fee increases or district decisions would have minimal recourse, as the law sidesteps mechanisms for consent typically expected in tax-funded initiatives.
- Personal Responsibility: The bill does not materially alter the incentives for personal responsibility. However, one could argue that shifting the cost of certain infrastructure improvements from general county taxpayers to a niche group of groundwater users dilutes direct accountability in budgeting. Counties may become less disciplined in maintaining infrastructure when outside funding can be accessed without clear cost-sharing obligations or oversight.
- Free Enterprise: This bill is likely to discourage investment and increase the cost of doing business for water exporters and commercial entities that rely on groundwater. By authorizing the use of export fees for public works, the bill disconnects those fees from a strict regulatory cost-recovery model. Businesses could face fee increases to fund unrelated projects, undermining predictability and transparency in the business environment. This imposes a financial burden on private actors for public goods and could disincentivize activity within the regulated market.
- Private Property Rights: Groundwater in Texas is subject to a unique hybrid of private rights and public regulation. The bill weakens this balance by transforming fees paid for the use of a private resource (groundwater) into a mechanism for general infrastructure spending. When landowners or producers pay export fees, they expect those funds to be used in the service of resource stewardship or regulatory enforcement, not road work. Redirecting those funds dilutes the recognition of groundwater as a privately held right and may erode confidence in property protections over time.
- Limited Government: The most direct and significant impact is to the principle of limited government. The bill expands the authority of a special district into areas well outside its original purpose. It creates an avenue for these districts to engage in public infrastructure and environmental programming without clear limiting principles, budgetary constraints, or transparency requirements. This not only increases the functional scope of local government but also establishes a precedent for quasi-regulatory bodies to behave more like general-purpose governments.
