SB616

The introduced bill, Senate committee version, engrossed bill and House committee version covered only Williamson County east of Interstate 35. Both posted House amendments proposed adding Medina County and rearranging the sentence to emphasize injection into the underlying formation. Amendment 1 was withdrawn; amendment 2 was adopted on May 2. Their posted replacement text is identical, but only the adopted amendment became part of the bill. Introduced text; Version index; Withdrawn amendment 1; Adopted amendment 2; Recorded outcomes.

The House passed the amended bill May 5, and the Senate concurred May 12. The enrolled act retains both locations and the original March 2026 rulemaking deadline. Legislative actions; Final law.

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

Eligible project operators gain a possible route to store water underground for later use. Actual supply benefits depend on authorization, engineering, available water and successful recovery; the statute guarantees no storage volume or lower water bill. It leaves existing ASR technical standards, metering, monthly volume reporting and annual water-quality testing provisions in place. Those requirements matter to operators and people concerned about groundwater protection, but this review does not certify any proposed well as safe. Limited authorization; Technical standards; Metering and reporting; Water-quality testing.

All four posted fiscal notes anticipate no significant state or local fiscal impact and assume agency costs can be absorbed with existing resources. The latest May 6 note covers the bill as passed by the second chamber, including Medina County. It does not estimate construction costs, water savings or project revenues; SB616 appropriates no funds for those projects. Latest fiscal note.