NOTE:  As provided in LFC policy, this report is intended only for use by the standing finance committees of the legislature.  The Legislative Finance Committee does not assume responsibility for the accuracy of the information in this report when used for other purposes.

 

The most recent FIR version (in HTML & Adobe PDF formats) is available on the Legislative Website.  The Adobe PDF version includes all attachments, whereas the HTML version does not.  Previously issued FIRs and attachments may be obtained from the LFC in Suite 101 of the State Capitol Building North.

 

 

F I S C A L   I M P A C T   R E P O R T

 

 

 

SPONSOR:

Herrera

 

DATE TYPED:

03/03/03

 

HB

949/aHENRC

 

SHORT TITLE:

Potable Water as Geothermal Resource Use

 

SB

 

 

 

ANALYST:

Valenzuela

 

APPROPRIATION

 

Appropriation Contained

Estimated Additional Impact

Recurring

or Non-Rec

Fund

Affected

FY03

FY04

FY03

FY04

 

 

 

 

 

See Narrative

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(Parenthesis ( ) Indicate Expenditure Decreases)

 

SOURCES OF INFORMATION

 

Office of the State Engineer

Energy, Minerals and Natural Resources Department

 

SUMMARY

 

     Synopsis of HENRC amendment

 

The House Energy and Natural Resources Committee (HENRC) amendment to House Bill 949 would set an upper limit for the heat of potable water, where its user would be required to pay royalties under the Geothermal Resources Conservation Act. The threshold would be 250° F or less.

 

     Synopsis of Original Bill

 

House Bill 949 proposes a new section be added to the Geothermal Resources Conservation Act. The new section would exempt, from royalty payment, the incidental use of heat from potable water applied to beneficial use is not a geothermal resource and therefore does not give rise to an obligation to pay royalties.

 

     Significant Issues

 

The State Land Office has two properties in Hidalgo county where it receives royalty payments for geothermal resources. The first is a fish production farm and the other is a rose greenhouse and farm. The royalty revenue from these operations approximates $17.0, annually. EMNRD reports that the applicability of the bill to the facilities mentioned above would depend whether the use of the water for heat is considered incidental. 

 

A second provision of the bill is that a non-geothermal use would be governed by Chapter 72 which deals with beneficial use and water rights generally.  EMNRD reports the following issue with the bill:

 

To the extent that any facility would be removed from EMNRD jurisdiction by this bill, it is unclear by what law it would be governed and who would have jurisdiction over that facility's discharge permit under the Water Quality Act, and, if the facility employed a discharge plan involving injection, who would be responsible for insuring compliance with the Underground Injection Control (UIC) requirements under the federal Safe Drinking Water Act.  A facility currently permitted by EMNRD/OCD might require a permit from the Environment Department, and the state's EPA-approved UIC program might need to be amended.

 

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS

 

House Bill 949 does not contain an appropriation. Depending on the applicability of the bill, the State Land Office may lose royalty revenue from its two properties in Hidalgo county.

 

MFV/prr