Current through Reg. 49, No. 38; September 20, 2024
(a) The State Board hereby establishes:
(1) criteria for accepting project proposals;
and
(2) a system to prioritize
projects for each funding cycle, giving priority to projects that balance the
most critical water conservation need and the highest projected water
yield.
(b) The criteria
required by subsection (a)(1) of this section includes a requirement that each
proposal state the projected water yield of the proposed project, as modeled by
a person with expertise in hydrology, water resources, or another technical
area pertinent to the evaluation of water supply.
(c) The State Board shall consult with
stakeholders, including hydrologists and representatives from SWCDs to develop
standard methods of reporting the projected water yield described in subsection
(b) of this section. A standard method of reporting the projected water yield
in feasibility studies allows for a direct comparison of potential benefits
between proposed projects. The projected water yield for the brush treatment
scenarios for each sub-basin shall be reported in a feasibility study as the
average annual gallons of water yielded per treated acre of brush, averaged
over the simulation period used in the computer model.
(d) In prioritizing projects under subsection
(a)(2) of this section, the State Board shall consider:
(1) the need for conservation of water
resources within the territory of the project based on the state water plan
adopted under §
16.051,
Water Code;
(2) the projected water
yield of areas of the project, based on soil, slope, land use, types and
distribution of trees, brush, and other vegetative matter, and proximity of
trees, brush, and other vegetative matter to rivers, streams, and
channels;
(3) any method the
project may use to control brush;
(4) cost-sharing contract rates within the
territory of the project;
(5) the
location and size of the project;
(6) the budget of the project and any
associated requests for grant funds submitted under this subchapter;
(7) the implementation schedule of the
project; and
(8) the administrative
capacities of the State Board and the entity that will manage the
project.
(e) In
prioritizing projects under subsection (a)(2) of this section the State Board
may consider:
(1) scientific research on the
effects of brush removal on water supply; and
(2) any other criteria that the State Board
considers relevant to assure that the water supply enhancement program can be
effectively, efficiently, and economically implemented.
(f) Ranking Index Methodology.
(1) Funding for project proposals will be
allocated through a competitive grant process that will rank applications using
the following evaluation criteria:
(A) Public
water supplies expected to be benefited by the project;
(B) Water supply yield enhancement to target
water supply, which is the projected water yield from a feasibility
study;
(C) Water User Groups
relying on the water supplies;
(D)
Percent of target water supply used by Water User Groups; and
(E) Population of Water User
Groups.
(2) A Ranking
Index is calculated using the evaluation criteria described in paragraph (1) of
this subsection which gives a measure of the water yield increased per capita
user for each proposal. The Ranking Index equals the percent reliance of the
Water User Groups on the source to be enhanced multiplied by the projected
water yield enhancement from the feasibility study divided by the population of
the Water User Groups.
(3) In order
to address the criterion described in subsection (d)(4) of this section, the
Ranking Index may be adjusted for projects that propose a more favorable
cost-sharing contract rate. That is, the Ranking Index will be adjusted to give
more favorable consideration to a project that proposes a cost-share rate that
lessens the State's cost. This adjustment to the Ranking Index may be applied
as a percentage bonus.
