Water supplies in Texas one step closer to extra boost
AUSTIN (KXAN) — One of Gov. Greg Abbott's priorities for the 89th Legislative Session is nearing reality: a major investment in water.
On Monday, the Texas Senate Committee on Water, Agriculture, and Rural Affairs met to vote on Senate Bill 7. The bill, if approved, will add $1 billion a year for 50 years to the Texas Water Fund. Following public comment, the committee voted to move the bill forward to the Senate floor, where it will then see a vote.
The Texas Water Fund (TWF) is controlled by the Texas Water Development Board (TWDB). Established three years ago, the TWF can be used to support projects that either generate new water supply, like the construction of desalination plants, or repair busted infrastructure.
The TWF was started with a billion dollar investment, but experts estimate that will not be enough to support the growing need for water in the state.
Nonprofit organization Texas 2036 estimates that the state will need more than $150 billion over the next 50 years to support growing demand. Their report accounted for new industries, growing population, flood control strategies and replacing infrastructure.
Sen. Charles Perry, R-Lubbock, chairs the Senate Committee on Water, Agriculture and Rural Affairs and has led the charge on SB 7.
The bill is one of two filed this session with a focus on growing the TWF. The other, House Bill 16 — written Rep. Cody Harris, R-Palestine — differs in a few ways.
Funds from both bills would be controlled by the TWDB board. They would determine which projects receive funds.
'There isn't a silver bullet. We often say that silver buckshot. You know, it's like a number of things. And infrastructure is one of them. Conservation is one of them. And more innovative, supplies of water is also one of those,' said Dr. Robert Mace, executive director and professor of practice in the department of geography, of the Meadows Center at Texas State.
Mace said one of the key parts of Perry's plan is a focus on desalination. These plants take sea water and convert it into drinkable water.
'The Gulf is what allows me to sleep at night thinking about the future of Texas. Because I do see a future where we have, we have desalinated sea water coming up to our urban centers,' Mace said.
In Monday's committee meeting, Corpus Christi Mayor Paulette Guajardo backed the plan during the public comment period.
'We believe that regional water suppliers, like the city of Corpus Christi, are best positioned to develop new water supplies,' Guajardo said.
The city recently received approval to build a desalination plant. At least four are planned for the area.
Several people spoke out against desalination during the public comment period. Some focused on damage these plants can have to environments along the coast, while others had issue with the cost. Some speakers pushed back against the need to build new infrastructure that would be needed to carry the water from the coast to places like Lubbock.
'You know what's more expensive than desalinated sea water? No water,' Mace said.
Mace is this month's featured lecture at the University of Texas' Hot Science Cool Talks lecture series. His session called 'The Future of Texas Water' is scheduled for March 28 at 7 p.m. at UT's Welch Hall. The event is free.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
4 hours ago
- Yahoo
Texas Legislators Say They Are Protecting Free Speech on Campus by Banning 'Expressive Activities' at Night
Five years ago, Brandon Creighton, a Republican who represents parts of five southeastern Texas counties in the state Senate, co-sponsored a law, Senate Bill 18, aimed at protecting freedom of expression at public universities. This year, Creighton introduced a bill, S.B. 2972, that would dial back those protections. Civil libertarians are urging Gov. Greg Abbott to veto the new bill, warning that it contradicts the state's avowed commitment to vigorous debate representing a wide range of viewpoints. In a recent Houston Chronicle op-ed piece, First Amendment lawyer Caitlin Vogus and journalist Jimena Pinzon call S.B. 2972 "one of the most ridiculous anti-speech laws in the country." Among other things, they note, the bill includes an "unfathomably broad" provision that "would ban speech at night—from study groups to newspaper reporting—at public universities in the state." If Abbott signs the bill, they say, "it will inevitably face a First Amendment challenge that Texas simply can't win." Why have Texas legislators retreated from their support for free speech on campus? In 2019, Republicans were worried about university speech restrictions that discriminated against or disproportionately affected conservatives. Nowadays, they are worried about potentially disruptive anti-Israel activity by left-leaning protesters. But that sort of contingent support for freedom of speech undermines the principle that legislators defended in 2019, which protects speakers regardless of their opinions, ideology, or political affiliation. S.B. 18, which Abbott proudly signed after it passed the state legislature with broad, bipartisan support, declared that "freedom of expression is of critical importance and requires each public institution of higher education to ensure free, robust, and uninhibited debate and deliberations." To promote that "uninhibited debate," the law recognized that "all persons may assemble peaceably on the campuses of institutions of higher education for expressive activities, including to listen to or observe the expressive activities of others." S.B. 18 also stipulated that "common outdoor areas" on public university campuses "are deemed traditional public forums," meaning they are open to lawful expressive activity as long as it "does not materially and substantially disrupt the functioning of the institution." And the law sought to protect invited speakers from ideological discrimination by barring public universities from considering content, viewpoint, or "any anticipated controversy" in setting fees for using campus facilities. "Although the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees free speech in America, some colleges in Texas were banning free speech on campus," Abbott explained in 2020. "No more. I signed Senate Bill 18…into law to protect free speech on Texas college campuses." S.B. 2972 moves in the opposite direction. It qualifies the right of "all persons" to peacefully assemble for expressive activities by limiting it to a university's students and employees. It allows restrictions on the use of "common outdoor areas" that are "reasonable in light of the purpose of the area to which the restrictions apply," giving administrators more discretion than S.B. 18, which allows "time, place, and manner" rules that are "narrowly tailored to serve a significant public purpose." And while current law requires that such restrictions be "content-neutral" as well as "viewpoint-neutral," S.B. 2972 removes the former requirement. The new bill also allows a university to "designate the areas on the institution's campus that are public forums," which sound like the "free speech zones" that have provoked First Amendment challenges. It deletes the current requirement that universities "provide for ample alternative means of expression." S.B. 2972 targets tactics associated with campus protests against the war in Gaza. It prohibits the use of sound amplification, "drums or other percussive instruments," and masks or "other means of concealing a person's identity" when the aim is to "obstruct" enforcement of a university's rules, "interfere" with the work of police or university employees, or "intimidate others." Two other provisions are especially striking. The bill requires universities to prohibit student groups from "inviting speakers to speak on campus" during the last two weeks of a semester and instructs them to ban "expressive activities on campus" between 10 p.m. and 8 a.m.—a vague and potentially sweeping restriction that could affect a wide range of constitutionally protected conduct. "Both laws protect the First Amendment rights of students, faculty and staff," Creighton told the Austin American-Statesman in May. "S.B. 2972 ensures that speech stays free, protest stays peaceful, and chaos never takes hold." But as the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) noted in a June 5 letter urging Abbott to veto the bill, the new restrictions "would significantly undermine Texas' strong statutory protections for student and faculty expression on public college campuses." Tyler Coward, FIRE's lead counsel for government affairs, warned that S.B. 2972 "permits restrictions on expressive activity based only on anticipated disruption, thereby encouraging shout-downs and allowing the use of a 'heckler's veto' that courts have repeatedly held violates the First Amendment." It also "removes the requirement that institutions designate open outdoor areas as public forums, despite longstanding judicial precedent affirming their public forum status." The bill's "blanket ban on expressive activities" between 10 p.m. and 8 a.m. is so broad that it "would prohibit students from wearing expressive apparel like a MAGA shirt or hat during those times," Coward wrote. In May, he noted, a federal judge issued a preliminary injunction against "Indiana University's policy restricting expressive activities between 11 p.m. and 6 a.m." after concluding that it probably violated the First Amendment. Eugene Volokh, a First Amendment specialist who is a senior scholar at Stanford University's Hoover Institution, also was struck by the expansive language of S.B. 2972's ban on "expressive activities" late at night or early in the morning, which probably was inspired by overnight anti-Israel protests but sweeps much more broadly. Under that rule, Volokh suggested in an interview with The New York Times, "talking to friends, wearing message-bearing T-shirts or, for that matter, reading a book or your phone or playing a video game or watching TV in your room" could trigger disciplinary action. "Are universities likely to enforce their statutorily mandated policies banning overnight speech against students engaged in speech like that?" Vogus and Pinzon write. "Probably not. But they could, and that shows just how sloppy and overbroad this law is." They suggest universities could "use such policies selectively to crack down on disfavored speech." If administrators discover that "the student newspaper's editors discussed and wrote an editorial ripping a university policy to shreds while on campus in the wee hours of the morning," for example, "the ban on overnight speech would provide a solid tool for retaliation." In his letter to Abbott, Coward acknowledged Texas legislators' concerns about "campus protests elsewhere that may have crossed existing legal lines." But he noted that "colleges and universities already possess ample authority to address materially and substantially disruptive conduct." The American Civil Liberties Union of Texas shares FIRE's concerns. "S.B. 2972 threatens the free expression of all Texans, regardless of political beliefs," says Caro Achar, the organization's engagement coordinator for free speech. "This bill imposes broad restrictions that allow school officials to restrict how, when, and where Texans can speak on campus—undermining the First Amendment rights of students, faculty, staff, and the general public." The post Texas Legislators Say They Are Protecting Free Speech on Campus by Banning 'Expressive Activities' at Night appeared first on
Newsweek
10 hours ago
- Newsweek
Texas Homeowners Worry About 'Loopholes' in New Property Tax Cut Law
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Texas homeowners struggling under the growing burden of rising housing costs are supportive of the new package of property tax cuts signed into law by Governor Greg Abbott on Monday. However, some are worried that appraisers may find "loopholes" around them to keep bills high. "The governor is trying to help, but local counties will just find loopholes in the laws and pull the money from our pockets," Jeff, a Parker County Texas homeowner, told Newsweek, revealing a deep frustration with Texas' County Appraisal Districts (CAD) which seems to be shared by several other readers. What's Behind Texas Homeowners' Frustration? Property tax bills have surged over the past five years in Texas due to skyrocketing home values exacerbating locals' affordability struggles. Between 2019 and 2023 alone—years marked by the pandemic homebuying frenzy—property taxes in the Lone Star State jumped by 26 percent, according to Cotality. As of 2025, Texas homeowners pay the seventh-highest property taxes in the country, according to SmartAsset, at an effective rate of 1.63 percent, significantly higher than the national average of 0.90 percent. Photo-illustration by Newsweek/Getty/Canva On average, a Texas homeowner pays $3,872 a year in property taxes, which are levied by local governments and used to fund public services, including schools, roads, police, and firefighting. The rise in property taxes, which has occurred nationwide, has hit senior homeowners the hardest, as they often rely on a fixed income and are less well-equipped to shoulder a suddenly heavier financial burden. What Do the New Laws Promise Homeowners? The new package of property tax cuts, which includes two key bills raising the homestead exemption in the state, is Abbott's latest attempt to offer homeowners relief after signing into law what was the largest property tax cut in the state's history in 2023. One bill contained in the package, signed by the governor on Monday, SB 4, would raise the existing homestead exemption from $100,000 to $140,000 for all homeowners. Another, SB 23, would raise it to $200,000 for those with disabilities or those aged 65 and above. The two bills include constitutional amendments that would need to be approved by voters in November to be enshrined into Texas state law. Why Do Homeowners Remain Skeptical About Relief? Several readers wrote to Newsweek, expressing enthusiasm for the new property tax cuts, but also voicing concerns that they might not result in a significant reduction in their bills. "No homeowner over 70 should pay property taxes. And 65 to 70 only half. Our senior years are fraught with enough worries, medical, food, insurance etc without worrying about losing their home," one Austin-based homeowner said. "I've had to sell all of my investment holdings to afford property tax for my remaining years. But it seems that the CAD just raises our appraised values to counteract Abbott's help." Jeff said that his home has appreciated in market value by 73 percent since 2020, a number that he can hardly believe is accurate. "Local governments blame [price] growth, but in all reality, it's poor management by our local government," he said. "I personally have now protested my taxed appraised market value three times now, each time getting minimal relief. The fact that they are willing to adjust your market value tells you they are playing the numbers to bring in more money," he said. John, another Texas homeowner, said that, on average, his property evaluations have increased from $270,000 to $563,000 over the last eight years. "My annual property tax leapt from $4,300 annually, to just north of $7,000," he said. "This past year, as well as this year, upcoming, will be in the neighborhood of $6,200, largely due to the efforts of the past two legislative periods," he added. The news of the new property tax cuts signed by Abbott was "music to my ears," John said. "You've always heard that mantra, 'I don't want to rent my home after it's paid for from my school district,'" Texas Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick said after the two bills passed the state legislature. "Well, seniors, to the average senior out there, you're never going to have to do that again." John said that Patrick's comment about paying rent to the school district "is no quip." "My breakdown, most recently, is at $15,00 city, $1,250 county, and $3,500 school district distribution," he said. "While it's true that 'it takes a village,' my kids are adults in the workforce themselves. While paying much higher property taxes to schools, I was still on the hook for community pencils, paper, notebooks, and Kleenex, for distribution to children by the teachers," he said. "Along with anything teachers did to create a more engaged environment in their classrooms, that was out of their pockets." While John appreciates how municipal governments spend the money he pays in property taxes, he feels that there is insufficient transparency regarding the way school districts allocate their funding. "Long story short, I will support this legislation to the extent of posting pro-bill signage in my yard, and on my vehicle, if I do think it will come to that," he said. "People are sick to death of the Central Appraisal Districts and their chokehold on property owners." Are you a Texas homeowner? I'd like to hear from you about your experience with property appraisals and rising property tax bills. Email me at
Chicago Tribune
20 hours ago
- Chicago Tribune
Embattled Kenwood shelter housing migrants and homeless Chicagoans to close in coming months
A Kenwood shelter housing both migrants and Chicagoans experiencing homelessness will close in the coming months following a divide amongst neighbors, according to an email update from state Sen. Robert Peters. Located at 4900 S. DuSable Lake Shore Drive, the shelter opened in summer 2023 to accommodate migrants sent to Chicago by Texas Gov. Greg Abbott. Its opening drew sharp pushback from residents concerned about how newcomers from crisis-affected regions would integrate into the neighborhood. Tensions deepened when the facility was later expanded to include homeless Chicagoans, part of the city and state's One System Initiative aimed at merging shelter services for both populations. Early months of combined migrant, homeless shelters in Chicago see success, structural challengesPeters said he was notified of the closure by city and Illinois Department of Human Services officials at 3:15 p.m. Friday. Those currently housed at the shelter will move to new facilities over the next three to six months, he said. Neither the city nor the state was immediately able to provide a comment Friday afternoon regarding the reason for the closure or the number of people affected. 'We've always believed that housing is a human right,' Peters said. 'But also, at the end of the day, what matters most is being transparent with everybody.' As tens of thousands of people arrived by bus over roughly two years, the city and state scrambled to open enough shelters to stave off a full-blown homelessness crisis in Chicago. The city and state were running 28 migrant-exclusive facilities at the peak of arrivals in January of last year, according to city census data. The idea of a combined system was championed by some who said it would spread out resources to a wider range of people. There are dozens of shelters in the new system. The closure announcement also comes as President Donald Trump has ramped up immigration enforcement in and around the city, targeting courts and offices where people are reporting for check-ins. Many of the migrants being housed by the city are from Venezuela, a country that Trump has repeatedly singled out in immigration policy.
