Texas Constitutional Amendments: Dueling on Prop 4

The Texas Legislative Council does a good job, with pros and cons

We at LIV were going to recommend voting Yes on Prop 4, the water amendment. But we had second thoughts based on a post we saw in the newsletter of Save Our Springs Alliance recommending a No on Prop 4. At the bottom of this post, see what SOS says about it and what the Simsboro Aquifer Water Defense Fund says. We respect both of these organizations!

Truthfully, we also did not have the bandwidth this year to focus on these 17 statewide amendments to the Texas constitution to do it justice.

So, for you policy not politics wonks and LIV members who read LIV News, here's the deep dive on all 17 Amendments from the Texas Legislative Council, with pros and cons, HERE.

Tomorrow, Friday, October 31st, is the last day to vote early. Election Day is Tuesday, November 4th.

Save Our Springs on Prop 4:

A Closer Look at Proposition 4: What’s Really at Stake for Texas Water 

Early voting has begun, and Proposition 4 on the Texas ballot is drawing attention for its promise to deliver a “Texas-sized investment” in our water future. On the surface, the measure looks good. It would dedicate up to $1 billion a year in existing state sales tax revenue to the Texas Water Fund for the next 20 years. The money would flow through the Texas Water Development Board (TWDB) to finance local and regional water, wastewater, and flood infrastructure projects. No new taxes, steady funding... What’s not to like? 

It’s complicated.

Texas absolutely needs more investment in water infrastructure. The 2022 State Water Planprojects that by 2070, the state’s population will grow by more than 70%, while existing water supplies decline by 18% and demand increases by 17% and this doesn't factor in the thirsty data centers Texas is currently courting. Add in aging systems, climate change, drought, and workforce shortages which all make funding essential. 

But Proposition 4 leaves big questions unanswered.

Prop 4 has a broad scope of eligible projects, not all good. The legislation allows use of funds for a wide variety of projects including: 

• New supply development and purchasing out-of-state water, which could fuel growth where it is naturally limited by water 

• Desalination which is an expensive, energy intensive process with a lot of waste for treating salt or brackish water into drinking water 

• Produced water— the wastewater leftover from fracking—is full of toxic chemicals, costly and inefficient to treat, and supports a dangerous practice that harms our climate.  

These projects are expensive, energy-intensive, and harmful to our environment which begs the question: Is Prop 4 enabling large growth- and development-driven water schemes at any cost?

Conservation and efficiency don’t get the same focus. While new supply and infrastructure are essential, the state’s own data suggests that about 30 % of future supply needs will come from conservation, reuse, and efficiency. Yet the language of Proposition 4 puts heavier emphasis on “creating new supply” and infrastructure expansion rather than ensuring robust funding for demand-side measures. Will the funding from Prop. 4 actually come back into our communities to fund conservation and smart water practices?

We solved water, moving on. There’s a risk that this kind of sweeping funding could give Texans a false sense of security, suggesting the state’s water problems are solved when, in fact, real resiliency will come from protecting and conserving local water sources, not just building and buying new ones. Furthermore, Prop. 4 begins to lay the groundwork for a statewide water grid that creates similar opportunities for abuse and mismanagement like our statewide electrical grid. Is it wise to encourage further privatization of resources in Texas?

Proposition 4 is not the comprehensive solution Texas needs. SOS urges lawmakers to prioritize water funding that protects our existing resources rather than leaning heavily on risky and energy draining methods. This means dedicating a larger share of funds to conservation, efficiency, and responsible reuse, while protecting small and rural water systems. We call for greater transparency and accountability in how funds are allocated and measured, and a long-term strategy that treats water as a finite, shared resource, not just a conduit for unchecked growth. Texans deserve a water future that is safe, reliable, equitable, and sustainable. 

Simsboro Aquifer Water Defense Fund on Prop 4:

Proposition 4 on November ballot – dedicated funding for Texas Water 

(Prop 4): “The constitutional amendment to dedicate a portion of the revenue derived from state sales and use taxes to the Texas Water Fund and to provide for the allocation and use of that revenue.” 

SAWDF supported this constitutional amendment during the 89th Texas Legislature. It will dedicate up to $1 billion a year to the Texas Water Fund for the next 20 years. The funds will come from state sales and use tax that exceed the first $46.5 billion collected. The money will be distributed by the Texas Water Development Board [TWDB]. 

The legislation that implements this amendment, SB 7, includes a provision that prohibits the use of these funds for pipelines that will carry fresh groundwater from rural areas to urban centers, i.e. no money for projects like Vista Ridge! Both Chairman Perry in the Senate and Chairman Harris in the House insisted on this provision. They both recognize that groundwater resources are finite, and mining of our state’s aquifers has diminishing returns because it causes unreasonable harm to rural economies and the domestic & livestock wells upon which we all depend. 

Follow this link for a comprehensive overview of Proposition 4 by the TWDB.