Proposition 6 will appear on the November 5, 2013 Ballot as: “The constitutional amendment providing for the creation of the State Water Implementation Fund for Texas (SWIFT) and the State Water Implementation Revenue Fund for Texas to assist in the financing of priority projects in the state water plan to ensure the availability of adequate water resources.” If voters approve Proposition 6, the legislature has also authorized a one-time, $2 billion transfer from the Economic Stabilization Fund (ESF, also known as the “Rainy Day Fund”) to the SWIFT. After the initial $2 billion from the Rainy Day Fund is put into SWIFT, the fund is designed to be a revolving fund; as loans are repaid, funds will be made available to finance new loans. ESF is funded by oil and natural gas tax revenues over 1987 levels. Each year the difference between taxes collected and those collected in 1987 is divided; 25% goes to the General Fund and 75% goes to the ESF (Rainy Day Fund).

If voters approve Proposition 6, the SWIFT will be used to support priority projects for the State Water Plan. The fund will be overseen by the Texas Water Development Board, responsible for developing the State Water Plan. The State Water Plan is based upon 16 regional water plans addressing municipal, irrigation, manufacturing, livestock, mining, and steam-electric power water needs on a 5-year repeating cycle. Regional plans are developed by local (regional)

water planning groups, with representatives from all these major water user groups (Texas Water Development Board, 2013). SWIFT funds may be used for low-interest loans; credit enhancement agreements; deferral of interest obligations; and funding for government entities that develop and manage water supplies. Examples include loans to local governments for water supply projects or water quality projects (wastewater treatment, municipal solid waste management and nonpoint source pollution control); flood control projects; and agricultural water conservation projects. Ten percent of the funds must be used for “rural political subdivisions and agricultural water conservation”, and 20 percent must be used to support “general water conservation and reuse”.

Compiled by Dana Porter, Ph.D., P.E., Associate Professor and Extension Agricultural Engineering Specialist – Irrigation and Water Management, Texas A&M AgriLife Research and Extension Service, Department of Biological and Agricultural Engineering, Texas A&M University.