Legislative Action on Sustainable Groundwater Management in East Texas

Advancing SDG 6: Clean Water and Sanitation

The Texas House Committee on Natural Resources has reviewed two legislative proposals aimed at ensuring the sustainable management of groundwater resources in East Texas, a critical step toward achieving Sustainable Development Goal 6 (Clean Water and Sanitation). The bills address concerns over proposals by private entities to extract and transport large volumes of water from aquifers in Anderson, Henderson, and Houston counties. The primary objective is to protect the long-term viability of these water sources, aligning with SDG Target 6.4, which calls for ensuring sustainable freshwater withdrawals.

• The legislation seeks to mitigate potentially substantial negative impacts on regional aquifers.
• It prioritizes scientific assessment and regulatory oversight to manage water as a sustainable resource.
• The initiative supports the implementation of integrated water resources management as outlined in SDG Target 6.5.

Legislative Details and Progress

Two specific bills, authored by Representative Cody Harris, were considered by the committee to establish a framework for responsible water extraction.

1. House Bill 27 (HB 27)

   • Objective: To mandate a comprehensive study on the hydrogeological and environmental impacts of proposed large-scale groundwater pumping. This evidence-based approach is fundamental to sustainable resource management.
   • Status: The bill was passed unanimously in committee with an 11-0 vote and will now advance to the full House for further consideration.
   • Timeline: If signed into law, the required impact study is scheduled for completion by January 2027.

2. House Bill 24 (HB 24)

   • Objective: To prohibit water boards from issuing permits for production that would exceed five percent of the total available water in an aquifer. This measure would establish a clear regulatory limit to prevent over-extraction and ensure resource longevity.
   • Status: The bill was left pending in committee for further deliberation.

Broader Implications for Sustainable Development Goals

The proposed legislation has significant implications for multiple Sustainable Development Goals beyond water security.

• SDG 15 (Life on Land): By requiring an environmental impact study, HB 27 directly supports the protection of terrestrial and inland freshwater ecosystems that depend on stable groundwater levels.
• SDG 11 (Sustainable Cities and Communities): Safeguarding local water sources is essential for the long-term resilience and environmental sustainability of communities in East Texas.
• SDG 12 (Responsible Consumption and Production): The bills promote the sustainable management and efficient use of a critical natural resource, encouraging responsible production patterns for water.

Analysis of Sustainable Development Goals in the Article

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

   The article highlights issues directly related to several Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), primarily focusing on water management, environmental protection, and sustainable resource use.

   • SDG 6: Clean Water and Sanitation: This is the most prominent SDG addressed. The entire article revolves around the management and protection of groundwater resources in East Texas to ensure their “longevity.” The proposed bills aim to regulate the extraction of this freshwater resource.
   • SDG 12: Responsible Consumption and Production: The article discusses the “production” of water (pumping) and its consumption (“selling it to other parts of the state”). The proposed legislation, particularly HB 24 which seeks to limit extraction, is a direct attempt to ensure the sustainable management and use of this natural resource, which is a core principle of SDG 12.
   • SDG 15: Life on Land: The article mentions that HB 27 would require a study on the “environmental impacts of pumping.” Groundwater levels are critical for sustaining local terrestrial and freshwater ecosystems. By studying and potentially limiting the impact on aquifers, the legislation aims to protect these ecosystems, aligning with the goals of SDG 15.

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

   Based on the specific actions and concerns described in the article, several SDG targets can be identified:

   • Target 6.4: “By 2030, substantially increase water-use efficiency across all sectors and ensure sustainable withdrawals and supply of freshwater to address water scarcity…” The proposed bills are fundamentally about ensuring “sustainable withdrawals.” HB 24’s attempt to prohibit permits that exceed a certain percentage of available water is a direct mechanism to manage withdrawals and prevent over-extraction.
   • Target 6.5: “By 2030, implement integrated water resources management at all levels…” The legislative process described, involving a House Committee on Natural Resources and state-level bills (HB 24 and HB 27) to manage a shared resource like an aquifer, is an example of implementing integrated water resources management at a sub-national level.
   • Target 12.2: “By 2030, achieve the sustainable management and efficient use of natural resources.” The article’s focus on protecting the “longevity of East Texas groundwater” through legislative limits and impact studies directly addresses the sustainable management of a key natural resource.
   • Target 15.1: “By 2020, ensure the conservation, restoration and sustainable use of terrestrial and inland freshwater ecosystems and their services…” The requirement in HB 27 for a study on the “environmental impacts of pumping” is a direct action aimed at understanding and conserving inland freshwater ecosystems (aquifers) and the terrestrial ecosystems that depend on them.

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

   The article implies or directly mentions several ways to measure progress towards the identified targets:

   • For Target 6.4: The article provides a specific, measurable indicator proposed in HB 24: prohibiting permits where “production would exceed five percent of available water.” This threshold serves as a local proxy for the official SDG indicator 6.4.2: Level of water stress: freshwater withdrawal as a proportion of available freshwater resources. The five percent cap is a direct measure to keep water stress low.
   • For Target 6.5: The progress of the bills themselves serves as an indicator. The article notes that HB 27 “was passed in committee by an 11-0 vote.” This legislative action is a qualitative indicator for 6.5.1: Degree of integrated water resources management implementation, as it shows progress in establishing a legal framework for water management.
   • For Target 15.1: The completion of the study mandated by HB 27 by its deadline of “January of 2027” would be a key process indicator. The findings of this study on “environmental impacts” would provide the data needed to measure the health of the aquifer and related ecosystems, contributing to the knowledge base for conservation efforts.

4. Create a table with three columns titled ‘SDGs, Targets and Indicators” to present the findings from analyzing the article. In this table, list the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), their corresponding targets, and the specific indicators identified in the article.

   SDGs	Targets	Indicators
   SDG 6: Clean Water and Sanitation	Target 6.4: Ensure sustainable withdrawals and supply of freshwater.	The proposed limit in HB 24 that production should not “exceed five percent of available water,” which acts as a local measure for Indicator 6.4.2 (Level of water stress).
   SDG 6: Clean Water and Sanitation	Target 6.5: Implement integrated water resources management.	The legislative process and passage of bills like HB 27 through committee, which serves as a qualitative measure for Indicator 6.5.1 (Degree of IWRM implementation).
   SDG 12: Responsible Consumption and Production	Target 12.2: Achieve the sustainable management and efficient use of natural resources.	The proposed five percent cap on water extraction (HB 24) as a direct policy for sustainable resource management.
   SDG 15: Life on Land	Target 15.1: Ensure the conservation and sustainable use of terrestrial and inland freshwater ecosystems.	The requirement for a study on “environmental impacts of pumping” (HB 27) to be completed by January 2027, which is a process indicator for assessing and protecting ecosystems.

Source: kltv.com