Presidio County Judge Joe Portillo and I recently submitted public comments concerning the proposed implementation plan for a one-time grant program enabled by House Bill 500. Passed by the 89th Legislature, HB500 appropriated $1.083 billion to the Texas Water Development Board (TWDB) for water supply and infrastructure projects. Its vague language means that the funding can be allocated to projects and grants “as determined by the board” through the proposed implementation plan.
In our comments, we assert that the implementation plan’s objective to achieve a “simplified project prioritization for allocating available funding” can best be attained by prioritizing eligible projects already approved and partially funded by the Board. We also contend that focusing the HB500 funding on completion of current projects initiated through TWDB’s existing programs represents the most expedient way to ensure the maximum return on the Board’s previous investments.
The implementation plan currently calls for a new round of applications with a complex scoring system to determine eligibility. But we believe the Board should simply refer to the projects already approved in its Intended Use Plans (IUPs). Federal law requires states wishing to qualify for infrastructure capitalization grants to compile IUPs. According to the Environmental Policy Innovation Center (EPIC), these plans contain “a fundable list of projects that are expected to receive assistance from available funds designated for use in the current IUP and a comprehensive list of projects that are expected to receive assistance in the future.” As such, these lists provide the Board with a readily available roadmap because they clearly identify projects already vetted by the TWDB’s existing programs. Furthermore, the eligible entities listed in the IUPs have already proven their financial bona fides through submission of financial audits, loan agreements with the Board, timely loan payments, and adherence to the Board’s disbursement protocols. In addition, the Board’s in-house engineers already possess intimate knowledge of these projects, obviating the need for a new round of applications to ascertain eligibility.
In our comments, Judge Portillo and I also argue that a new round of applications is misguided for straightforward reasons of cost. Disadvantaged communities often must hire outside consultants to complete their applications. Presidio County paid a consultant over $60,000 to complete its TWDB funding application in 2022-2023. The inevitable result is that millions of dollars are spent on application consultants, instead of going toward the completion of actual projects. Because these fees can be covered by the grant itself, we believe that a new round of applications is an unnecessary waste of precious funds. And since the proposed implementation plan is subject to Chapter 783 of the Texas Government Code, which seeks “to promote the efficient use of public funds in local government and in programs requiring cooperation among local, state, and federal agencies,” the demand for a redundant round of new applications is by definition an inefficient use of these funds.
The application process is also time-consuming and stressful. Even if outside technical assistance providers are hired on a pro bono basis, entities must still expend their limited human resources to work with those providers to complete what we believe to be needless applications for later phases of projects already approved by the Board. In its 2025 analysis of the TWDB’s Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (SRF), EPIC identified this long-standing problem: “Currently, SRF applicants must apply separately under each IUP…even if they rank highly across multiple IUPs. This creates unnecessary administrative burdens, especially for small and under-resourced systems. These applicants often lack the capacity to prepare multiple applications for the same project” and “[f]ailure to automatically consider an applicant’s eligibility across multiple programs also risks leaving available funds unspent.” EPIC suggests “a streamlined cross-referencing mechanism” to reduce administrative burdens and improve fund utilization. Another idea could involve a project pipeline where every approved project is routinely funded to completion through a combination of grants and loans based on a single initial application.
The virtually unrestricted nature of the HB500 funding provides the Board with a fortuitous opportunity to reimagine its application process. This could not come at a better time because the Board is set to receive billions in additional funding through Proposition 4 over the next 20 years. A cross-referenced, single-application pathway to full completion of all initiated projects could greatly increase the Board’s effectiveness and agility in addressing the state’s mounting water challenges.
The good news is that many of these pressing issues already have solutions. We just need to spend the money more quickly to build them. How can we accomplish this? First of all, voters need to prioritize water in determining which elected leaders to support. Secondly, legislators, and specifically the Water Caucus, need to pass laws that help the Board meaningfully reform its policies and funding mechanisms. And thirdly, the Board itself needs to recognize how much of its own time and energy could be saved by streamlining its processes and reducing its redundant demands on applicants.
If the law is the obstacle, change it. If the process is the issue, restructure it. If officials aren’t up to the task, remove them. Otherwise, we are on a certain path to a drier future where those voter-approved billions sit unspent in the state’s bank accounts because growing numbers of communities are either too poor or too exasperated to access them.