By OBBM Network Editorial Staff

Derived from an episode of Metro TXK News.

What would you do if a new agency could start charging you for water you’ve always gotten for free? In several East Texas counties, that question is moving from hypothetical to reality as officials push to create a multi‑county groundwater district.

Background on the Groundwater District Proposal

The plan centers on Texas Water Code Chapter 36, which governs the creation and operation of groundwater districts. According to the code, a district can be formed under sections 36.011 through 36.021. Proponents argue that a regional approach can better manage water resources across county lines, especially as demand grows.

Critics, however, point to the loss of local control. Jack “Fuzzy” Hartman, the precinct chairman for Precinct 14 in Harrison County, emphasized that the district would not be a locally‑run entity. “It is a regional planning control goal thing that we’re going to do and how we’re going to do it,” he said, warning that decisions would be made by a board representing a broader area rather than individual counties.

Fee Structure and Its Impact on Well Owners

One of the most contentious aspects is the fee schedule for non‑exempt wells. Under the code, a well producing more than 17.3611 gallons per minute is considered non‑exempt and may be subject to a per‑acre‑foot charge of roughly one cent per year. While that sounds modest, the cumulative effect across thousands of wells can be significant.

For businesses, the costs rise further. Hartman cited a case in Cottle County where a cemetery’s well, despite being under the exemption flow rate, required a $600 brass meter and quarterly reporting. Late filings can trigger fines of $10,000 per day, and one Panola County well owner faced a $37,000 penalty after missing a deadline, ultimately filing for Chapter 13 bankruptcy.

Legal Nuances and Export Fees

The district would also collect export fees for water pumped out of its boundaries. Section 36.122C and 36.122O of the Water Code dictate that exporters cannot be treated differently based on flow rate or distance, and they cannot be prohibited from moving water beyond the district. This loophole could generate steady revenue for the district while potentially limiting water availability for neighboring regions.

Hartman warned that “they have more right to be on your property than the sheriff deputy does,” highlighting the broad authority the district could wield over private land and wells.

Community Response and Political Dynamics

Local officials, including county judges and commissioners, have taken differing stances. In Harrison County, the county judge and commissioners have promoted the district, arguing it will protect local water supplies from being siphoned to larger urban centers like Dallas. Opponents argue that the district’s fees and regulations will burden small businesses and rural homeowners.

The debate has also become a political flashpoint. Hartman, a lifelong conservative, expressed distrust of “government taxes, fees and regulations as the answer to problems,” reflecting a broader skepticism among many Texas voters toward expansive regulatory bodies.

What Residents Can Do

Hartman urged listeners to verify the information themselves, offering to provide the code sections and his contact details. “I want you to check it out for yourself,” he said, emphasizing personal responsibility in understanding the proposed changes.

Residents are encouraged to attend county meetings, review the Texas Water Code, and consider the long‑term implications of a regional groundwater district on property rights, local economies, and water security.

The discussion underscores a fundamental tension in Texas water policy: balancing efficient resource management with preserving local autonomy. As the proposal moves forward, the outcome will likely influence how water is governed across much of the state.

The full episode of Metro TXK News is available on OBBM Network TV.