SB1583

A “desired future condition” is an adopted, numerical description of what groundwater resources should be like at a specified future time. “Modeled available groundwater” is the amount the Texas Water Development Board’s executive administrator determines can be produced on an average annual basis to achieve that condition. SB1583 requires the latest approved conditions and the corresponding modeled amount to be included, while retaining the requirements to use the district’s best available data and send the plan to the regional water planning group. The two-year amendment deadline runs from adoption of the conditions, not from the end of a challenge. Final law; Statutory definitions; Prior management-plan requirements.

If a petition challenges a condition’s reasonableness under Water Code 36.1083(b), the executive administrator must consider the plan administratively complete when it includes four things: the most recently approved conditions; corresponding modeled groundwater; a statement of the petition’s status; and the other required goals and planning information in 36.1071(a) and (e). That special rule lasts until the district’s final order or, if the final order finds the condition unreasonable, until a new condition is adopted under the cited planning procedures. Filing a challenge does not make an otherwise incomplete plan sufficient or itself settle whether the groundwater target is reasonable. Final law; Existing challenge and final-order process.

The act also updates section 36.1072(b) to recognize that route to administrative completeness. It retains the executive administrator’s requirement to approve an administratively complete plan within 60 days of receipt and the existing limited waiver authority concerning consideration of state-water-plan supply needs and strategies. The new petition rules do not govern petitions filed before September 1, 2025; those remain under the law in effect when filed. The act changes planning and approval requirements, not a specific landowner’s pumping permit or an adopted numerical target. Final law; Prior approval framework.

The introduced and Senate committee versions already contained the main plan requirements and a separate subsection stating when the special petition rule ends. Blanco’s sole indexed floor amendment, adopted April 23, repeated that endpoint directly in the operative petition provision: final order, or replacement conditions if the final order finds the prior conditions unreasonable. That clarification appears in the Senate-passed, House committee and final texts. Introduced; Senate committee; Blanco amendment; Senate-passed; House committee; Final law; Version index; Amendment disposition.

Compare the published text versions in the official text index. A change is not attributed to a specific amendment here without a verified record.

Districts and regional planners gain a defined approval path during qualifying challenges, while districts must keep plans current and report the challenge’s status. Groundwater users may benefit from more current and predictable planning, but the act does not guarantee extra pumping, more water, lower bills or a result for either side in a dispute. Final law.

The April 9 introduced and April 29 Senate-passed fiscal notes anticipate no significant state or local-government fiscal impact and assume state costs can be absorbed with existing resources. They give no dollar forecast or multiyear cost table. These estimates do not mean that district planning work or an individual challenge is cost-free. The act makes no appropriation. Introduced fiscal note; Senate-passed fiscal note; Final law.