Retiring Lawmaker Says Work Remains For Texas Water
State Rep. Bill Callegari (R-Houston), more than many lawmakers, knows water. An engineer, he holds “Class A” certifications in water and wastewater management. During his time in the Texas legislature, much of it spent serving on the House Natural Resources Committee, he authored several major bills on water management and water utilities. His office biography calls him “the stateās leading water expert in the Texas Legislature.”
The Katy Republican is also not what you would call an impartial observer. Having served as president of national and international water companies for decades, he hopes to work with two of his sons — also in the water business — after his upcoming retirement from the House. Like so many other state lawmakers in a part-time legislature, he often finds himself weighing in on policy discussions that have a bearing on his business future.
With those disclaimers, we thought it would be interesting to touch base with Rep. Callegari ahead of his retirement. Lawmakers have run plenty of victory laps taken since the passage of Proposition 6, the ballot measure that aims to fund the state water plan with billions in seed money. But even supporters of Prop 6 admit it will not solve all of the state’s problems.
At this year’s conference of The Academy of Medicine, Engineering, and Science of TexasĀ (TAMEST), Ā we talked with Callegari about what remains to be done secure Texas’ water future:
StateImpact Texas: Now that thereās money in the fund for water projects. Are we going to see a lot more action at the regional water planning level?
Rep. Callegari: Ā The prioritization, in my opinion, is really going to be the most important aspect of this: How do you really determine which project to build first?
StateImpact Texas: Will that part of the process probably be a little more controversial?
Rep. Callegari: That it will be. But then the other thing thatās going to happen is that youāll have some projects in high priority, then we may go through three or four years of rainy seasons, and one entity may say, āHey, by the way, our project is not so critical now. You can move it down the list.ā
So the process has to be flexible enough to handle that. Or somebody might come back and say, āItās gotten worse, and weāre going to run out of water in so many days or in so many months. What can we do?ā Itās going to be an interesting process.
StateImpact Texas: Iām wondering if that controversy is necessarily a bad thing. For so long, a lot of people ignored our water issues.
Rep. Callegari: I think thatās right. Controversy always happens in Texas anyways, so I donāt know that itās a bad thing. I think itāll just bring these issues forward and let āem talk about them and make the evaluations. Iām sure there will be people who say they picked the wrong project, but you can second-guess every coach.
StateImpact Texas: The issue of inter-basinĀ transfersĀ (a state rule that strictly limits how water can be sold between regions of Texas) has been something that lawmakers have been reluctant to take up. Do you see that as inevitable?
Rep. Callegari: I see it as inevitable. I donāt know how long itās gonna take for it to happen, but I think it has to happen.
Weāve only had two or three inter-basin transfers since this rule was put in, in 1997, and itās basically clearly served to prevent that from happening. If weāre going to take water around the state and share it where itās needed most, weāve got to have some kind of relaxation of that process.
StateImpact Texas: Any thoughts on the rule of capture and where that stands in terms of water rights and property rights?
Rep. Callegari: Well thatās going to get interesting, too, because the rule of capture is being sacrificed a little bit by the Groundwater [Conservation] Districts because theyāre making decisions that affect how water can be used.
Theyāve gotten fairly powerful over the years, and it really depends on who has control of that district. If itās a commercial-oriented board, then theyāll give a little more to the commercial side; if itās a landowner-oriented board, which probably most of them are, itāll be more to the landowners.
But again we have to have the happy medium between what can be used and not, and I think a big part of that is that theyāre going to have to get more involved in developing ways to preserve the aquifersā infrastructure, and that means maybe more attempt to do aquifer injection. The problem is they donāt have money, so somebodyās gotta fund these projects.
StateImpact Texas: What is the role for lawmakers to play in this?
Rep. Callegari: One of the first things I learned when I got on the Natural Resources Committee after I got into the legislature, is that this whole term ‘Whiskey is for drinking, Water is for fighting’ is true, because almost every time someone comes up to talk about a water issue, somewhere in their conversation the word ālawsuitā comes up.
We spend more money on attorneys and legal issues than I think we do on technical issues, and as an engineer, Iād rather see us build stuff than spend all this money. But I donāt know how to stop it.
StateImpact Texas: One of the ideas you brought up in your talk was a reconfiguration of the borders of Groundwater Districts to more closely mirror our aquifers.
Rep. Callegari: Iād say that if we were starting all over, Iād certainly organize it on an aquifer basis. I donāt see much potential for that to be changed in the near future. Thatās just part of the politics in the state.
StateImpact Texas: So we have to work with what weāve got?
Rep. Callegari: Thatās right. And we have this dilemma throughout the state about local control versus state control.
Iām very much a local control person, but at some point in time weāre going to figure a way to let either the Texas Water Development Board or Texas Commission on Environmental Quality to have more voice in these conflicts between the Groundwater Conservation Districts. Weāve talked about it in some of our discussions in Natural Resources, but we havenāt come up with a solution yet, because itās such a far-reaching thing if you say, ‘Ok weāre going to give the authority to Texas Commission on Environmental Quality or the Water Development Board to override them.’
Nobody is ready to do that yet. I donāt want to see state be the sole authority, but thereās got to be some way to resolve [conflicts]. Right now itās the courthouse, and thatās better than nothing, but itās not the best either.
StateImpact Texas: Everyone Iāve talked to seems to agree at least on one thing: Weāre going to be paying a lot more for water in the future.
Rep. Callegari: Water is going to cost more.
When you start doing more desalination, more reuseāevery time you do that, youāre talking about building plants, which are expensive, and somebodyās got to pay the freight, and the freight has got to be paid by the people who use the water.
I donāt see a statewide rate. This is one case where each community has got to fly on its own.
Now, when you start talking about moving water from one region to another, some people suggest, ‘Well, maybe the state ought to pay for that.’ I donāt see that happening, certainly not in the near future.