Two of Texas' most pressing concerns—water infrastructure and nuclear power—have taken center stage at the Capitol this legislative session. State Rep. Cody Harris (R-Palestine) has emerged as a leading force behind both initiatives, pushing a package of bills that aim to secure Texas’ long-term water supply while expanding the state's nuclear energy footprint.
Both issues—though seemingly distinct—are inextricably linked, as major water supply projects require significant energy, and new nuclear developments could provide the necessary power without straining the existing grid. On Wednesday, lawmakers heard testimony on these bills in two House committees, marking a major step toward addressing Texas' growing population and economic needs.
Water Infrastructure: A Billion-Dollar Investment
A Looming Shortfall and the Push for Funding
Harris’ House Joint Resolution (HJR) 7 would dedicate $1 billion annually from state sales taxes to the Texas Water Fund, which was established in 2023. While the Legislature and voters approved the creation of the fund last year, they must now appropriate money for it in 2025.
Bryan McMath from the Texas Water Development Board provided sobering statistics to the Natural Resources Committee, where Harris presented his bill. Texas’ current draft water plans list 200 to 300 infrastructure projects, with an estimated price tag of $4 billion. Over the next 50 years, those costs could exceed $150 billion.
"The state's water plan estimates a seven million acre-feet per year shortfall between existing supplies and projected demand by 2070," McMath testified, emphasizing the urgent need for investment. Municipal water demand alone is expected to increase by 63% in that timeframe.
Water and Economic Growth: A Critical Link
Taylor Landon from the Greater Houston Partnership reinforced the economic necessity of this investment.
"When companies consider investing in Texas, they look at three things: its people, its power, and its water," Landon said. "The final leg of the stool is water."
For industries such as advanced manufacturing, life sciences, and technology—sectors that Texas is actively competing to attract—water availability can be a dealbreaker. Without a reliable long-term water supply, economic expansion could stall.
Senate vs. House: A Difference in Priorities
The Senate is also taking action, with Sen. Charles Perry (R-Lubbock) filing Senate Bill (SB) 7 and Senate Joint Resolution (SJR) 66 as part of its water package. However, a key difference between the House and Senate versions must be reconciled: the Senate wants 80% of the funds dedicated to new water supply projects, while the House is focusing on both new supply and fixing existing infrastructure.
Harris, in his closing remarks, made his position clear:
"We have a historic opportunity to make a Texas-sized investment in our state's water infrastructure and future supply."
Nuclear Power: A New Era for Texas Energy
A Strategy for Grid Stability and Economic Growth
While water infrastructure remains a top priority, energy policy is just as crucial—and Harris is leading the charge on expanding Texas’ nuclear footprint. His nuclear package aims to create a state nuclear authority to streamline permitting, assist with site selection, and provide completion grants to companies building small modular reactors (SMRs).
"This bill is not just an energy policy," Harris told the State Affairs Committee. "It is a strategic imperative for Texas and the nation. By embracing nuclear energy, we guarantee a stable grid, foster economic growth, and secure our geopolitical standing in a world where we are losing ground by the day."
Why Nuclear? Powering Growth Without Grid Strain
The link between nuclear power and water supply isn’t just theoretical. One of the most promising solutions for Texas' water crisis is the development of desalination plants—large facilities that convert seawater into drinkable freshwater.
These plants require tens of megawatts of power to operate and can produce millions of gallons per day. Harris and other state leaders see SMRs as a way to power these facilities without pulling from the grid, ensuring that Texas’ growing population has both the power and water it needs.
Former Public Utility Commissioner Jimmy Glotfelty testified in favor of the bill, emphasizing Texas’ opportunity to lead in nuclear technology and workforce development.
"These recommendations will help put Texas at the forefront and become a leader in nuclear technology, workforce, and supply chain development," Glotfelty said.
However, questions remain:
Will the completion grants be enough to spur private investment?
Are these reactors truly scalable and cost-effective?
How will Texas handle nuclear waste, given that the state banned interim storage in 2021?
Criticism and Opposition
Not everyone is on board with the state’s nuclear ambitions. Environmental groups, consumer advocates, and some lawmakers expressed concern about public funding, safety, and market impacts.
Cyrus Reed from the Lone Star Chapter of the Sierra Club objected to the use of taxpayer money for grants, arguing that there is "no hope of it being returned to the state."
"We think this bill does too much, too fast, and puts too much on taxpayers," Reed said.
Other opponents raised concerns about the health risks for workers, regulatory oversight, and potential competition within ERCOT.
Despite these objections, momentum for nuclear power is growing. Dow Chemical is already building a reactor to power its Seadrift plant on the Texas Gulf Coast, setting a precedent for industrial nuclear power use.
What’s Next?
The House committee approved HJR 7, pushing the water infrastructure bill forward. However, the nuclear-related legislation remains pending.
The Texas Legislature faces a pivotal decision: how to balance immediate needs with long-term planning for both water and power. With the state’s population surging and industries demanding more resources, the question is no longer if Texas should invest in these areas—but how.
