Texas Water Development Board                          Chapter 356 Rulemaking                Texas Alliance of Groundwater...
Purpose Behind TWDB Rulemaking –         Why this is Important to Stakeholders     •    Implements statutory changes to Ch...
Current Status of Rulemaking –                     Where Are We Now?     •    January 9, 2012 - TWDB staff held a stakehol...
Current Status of Rulemaking –                     Where are We Now?     •    October 5, 2012 – Draft rules are published ...
Comprehensive Changes to Rules         •    Definitions         •    Ability to Amend GMA Boundaries         •    DFC adop...
TWDB’s Response to Comments (Since         August 2012 Draft of Rules)          • Definitions:               –   DFC      ...
DFC Adoption Process           1. GCDs in GMA                                         3. GCDs hold                        ...
TWDB’s Response to Comments     • DFC Submission Package:        – Changed to make clear that explanatory report is requir...
TWDB’s Response to Comments Cont…   • TWDB Providing MAGs to GCDs:      – Provided within 180 days   • Appeal of DFCs:    ...
Remaining Issues in Rules  • DFC Submission Package – conform to statute  • District Adoption of DFCs – conform to statute...
Current TWDB Definition of                       Non-relevant Aquifer    • The portion or portions of a major or minor aqu...
Draft Rule 356.31: Proof of Non-                        Relevant Aquifer    • Allows GMA opportunity to prove an aquifer i...
Proposed Definition    • Change Definition to :          (14) Relevant aquifer – The portion or portions of a major or    ...
Proposed Change to Proof of Non-                 Relevant Provision    • Add following language to proof requirements:    ...
Participation in Rulemaking Process    • Comment deadline is November 4th at 5:00      p.m. (30 days after publication)   ...
QUESTIONS?                                      Thank You                             Kristen Fancher                     ...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Summary of Proposed Chapter 356 TWDB Rules, Kristen Fancher, Lloyd Gosselink Rochelle & Townsend, P.C.

210

Published on

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
210
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
1
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Summary of Proposed Chapter 356 TWDB Rules, Kristen Fancher, Lloyd Gosselink Rochelle & Townsend, P.C.

  1. 1. Texas Water Development Board Chapter 356 Rulemaking Texas Alliance of Groundwater Districts October 30, 2012 Presented by: Kristen O. Fancher 816 Congress Avenue Suite 1900 kfancher@lglawfirm.com Austin, Texas 78701 (512) 322-5800 (512) 322-5804 (512) 472-0532 Fax www.lglawfirm.com©Lloyd Gosselink Rochelle & Townsend, P.C.
  2. 2. Purpose Behind TWDB Rulemaking – Why this is Important to Stakeholders • Implements statutory changes to Chapter 36 of Texas Water Code made by: − SB 660 (TWDB Sunset legislation) − SB 727 − SB 737 • TWDB is also taking this opportunity to organize the rules and revise other areas that were not required to be changed due to legislation©Lloyd Gosselink Rochelle & Townsend, P.C.
  3. 3. Current Status of Rulemaking – Where Are We Now? • January 9, 2012 - TWDB staff held a stakeholder meeting to receive input on the rules and allowed for written comments to be submitted until mid-February • August 6, 2012 - TWDB staff issued a “pre-publication” draft of the rules • August 22, 2012 - TWDB held a stakeholder meeting to receive verbal and written comments on the pre- publication draft rules • September 20, 2012 – TWDB Board votes to publish draft rules in Texas Register©Lloyd Gosselink Rochelle & Townsend, P.C.
  4. 4. Current Status of Rulemaking – Where are We Now? • October 5, 2012 – Draft rules are published in Texas Register; formal 30-day public comment period begins • October 22, 2012 – TWDB holds formal public comment meeting to receive verbal comments • November 4, 2012 at 5:00 p.m. – Deadline for written comments to be submitted to TWDB • December 2012 – TWDB staff will review comments, make changes and present final rules to TWDB Board for adoption©Lloyd Gosselink Rochelle & Townsend, P.C.
  5. 5. Comprehensive Changes to Rules • Definitions • Ability to Amend GMA Boundaries • DFC adoption process • DFC submission package • DFC appeals process • Management Plan review©Lloyd Gosselink Rochelle & Townsend, P.C.
  6. 6. TWDB’s Response to Comments (Since August 2012 Draft of Rules) • Definitions: – DFC – MAG – GAM – Non-relevant aquifer – Person with a legally defined interest in groundwater – Total estimated recoverable storage©Lloyd Gosselink Rochelle & Townsend, P.C.
  7. 7. DFC Adoption Process 1. GCDs in GMA 3. GCDs hold 2. 90 day public consider 9 statutory public hearings comment period factors and propose within their begins after DFCs for adoption boundaries during proposed DFCs by 2/3 vote of GMA 90 day public mailed to GCDs reps comment period 5. GMA produces explanatory report 4. GMA meets to 6. Individual officially adopt and adoption districts adopt DFCs; consider resolution to GCDs DFCs*** summary reports and submits DFCs to TWDB*** of GCDs©Lloyd Gosselink Rochelle & Townsend, P.C.
  8. 8. TWDB’s Response to Comments • DFC Submission Package: – Changed to make clear that explanatory report is required along with adoption resolution – Notice requirements changed to conform with statute – Removed language that all GAMs/aquifer assessments considered be submitted • Submission of Documentation to Address Deficiencies: – Changed to 90 days (from 60) • Adoption of DFCs: – Conforms to statutory language©Lloyd Gosselink Rochelle & Townsend, P.C.
  9. 9. TWDB’s Response to Comments Cont… • TWDB Providing MAGs to GCDs: – Provided within 180 days • Appeal of DFCs: – Deadline to appeal changed to 120 days after GMA adoption; GCDs have 90 days to respond to appeal petition – TWDB Board allowed to review petition and any evidence relevant to petition • Management Plan Submission to TWDB: – Removed requirement to send plan in 6 mos. before deadline©Lloyd Gosselink Rochelle & Townsend, P.C.
  10. 10. Remaining Issues in Rules • DFC Submission Package – conform to statute • District Adoption of DFCs – conform to statute • Appeal of DFCs – TWDB Board consider same factors as districts consider in 36.108 • Management Plan – clarify that plan only has to be updated for applicable DFCs • Non-relevant aquifer©Lloyd Gosselink Rochelle & Townsend, P.C.
  11. 11. Current TWDB Definition of Non-relevant Aquifer • The portion or portions of a major or minor aquifer, not included as a source of water in the State Water Plan, for which the GMA determines that: a) aquifer uses and conditions do not warrant adoption of a DFC for joint planning in the GMA; and b) groundwater conditions will not affect the achievement of DFCs in adjacent or hydraulically connected relevant aquifers.©Lloyd Gosselink Rochelle & Townsend, P.C.
  12. 12. Draft Rule 356.31: Proof of Non- Relevant Aquifer • Allows GMA opportunity to prove an aquifer is non- relevant for purposes of joint planning • Must submit documentation to TWDB proving the aquifer is non-relevant©Lloyd Gosselink Rochelle & Townsend, P.C.
  13. 13. Proposed Definition • Change Definition to : (14) Relevant aquifer – The portion or portions of a major or minor aquifer for which districts in a groundwater management area determine that aquifer characteristics, groundwater demands, and current groundwater uses warrant adoption of a DFC for joint planning in a GMA.©Lloyd Gosselink Rochelle & Townsend, P.C.
  14. 14. Proposed Change to Proof of Non- Relevant Provision • Add following language to proof requirements: – Any portion or portions of a major or minor aquifer declared, under § 356.31(b), to be non-relevant for joint planning in a groundwater management area, but which are determined to be relevant on a local level, must be included in local district Groundwater Management Plans in accordance with §36.1071, and may be included in Regional Water Plans and the State Water Plan as deemed appropriate by the Regional Water Planning Group and the Board.©Lloyd Gosselink Rochelle & Townsend, P.C.
  15. 15. Participation in Rulemaking Process • Comment deadline is November 4th at 5:00 p.m. (30 days after publication) • Can submit written comments to TWDB at: – Legal Services, Texas Water Development Board, P.O. Box 13231, Austin, Texas 78711- 3231; or – rulescomments@twdb.texas.gov; or – Fax: (512) 475-2053.©Lloyd Gosselink Rochelle & Townsend, P.C.
  16. 16. QUESTIONS? Thank You Kristen Fancher kfancher@lglawfirm.com (512) 322-5804©Lloyd Gosselink Rochelle & Townsend, P.C.
  1. A particular slide catching your eye?

    Clipping is a handy way to collect important slides you want to go back to later.

×