The facts on the water-bill ad
A political ad is going around Woodcreek saying former Mayor Jeff Rasco "backed a bill to raise your water bill every year." Water bills hit every household in Woodcreek, so a claim like that deserves a straight answer. Here's what the public record shows, with links to the original documents so you can check every word yourself.
Full disclosure: Jeff Rasco has endorsed me in my run for City Council. And that's exactly why I've stuck to primary source documents and included the strongest arguments against the bill, as well as for it. Don't take my word for any of this; please read the sources.
The short version
In March 2025 the Woodcreek City Council voted 5–0 to support a state bill giving our local groundwater district the same management tools other Texas districts have, including the ability to charge large water utilities a fee on the groundwater they pump. The bill was not an Aqua Texas rate increase. Its provisions were later added to a different bill, which the Governor vetoed. In the end it never became law: no fee was ever charged, and no one's water bill changed as a result. There are fair arguments on both sides of the policy, but the ad's framing doesn't match the documents.
What Resolution 25-03-26 actually says
The ad cites this resolution as its source. Here is its operative sentence, word for word:
"NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City of Woodcreek City Council supports legislation to amend the HTGCD's enabling legislation that gives standard Chapter 36 of the Texas Water Code authority to manage and protect the Trinity Aquifer for the long-term benefit of all of its users; and allow for reasonable production fees." City of Woodcreek Resolution No. 25-03-26, passed March 26, 2025 (5 ayes, 0 nays, 0 abstentions)
HTGCD is the Hays Trinity Groundwater Conservation District. That's the local "groundwater district" that manages the aquifer under western Hays County, including Woodcreek. The resolution's stated reasoning is that the district's main funding source, a fee on new water connections, is running out just as aquifer management matters most. It doesn't mention Aqua Texas or customer rates.
The resolution itself doesn't name a bill number, but the meeting minutes (agenda item 12) identify it as SB 2660.
The ad, claim by claim
"Sided with a bill to raise Aqua Texas' rates."
The bill (Senate Bill 2660, whose groundwater provisions were later added to a separate bill, Senate Bill 1253, late in the House) didn't set or raise Aqua Texas' rates. Aqua's rates are set by the state Public Utility Commission. What the bill did was let the groundwater district charge water utilities a production fee for the groundwater they pump. Aqua Texas would have been one of the parties paying that fee, not collecting it.
For context, the district has reported that Aqua pumped more than its permitted amount in 2022 and 2023, and Aqua filed a federal lawsuit against the district in December 2023. This bill strengthened the district's hand; it didn't help Aqua.
The City of Woodcreek is also currently an intervenor at the Public Utility Commission opposing Aqua's pending rate increase (Docket 58124).
"He backed a bill..."
The resolution was a council action. According to the official minutes, the council passed it 5–0. Mayor Rasco presided over the meeting and signed the resolution, as the mayor does for every resolution the council passes.
The City of Wimberley passed a similar resolution, Hays County Commissioners Court backed the bill's fee provision, and the Texas Senate passed SB 2660 with a 30–0 vote.
"Raise your water bill every year."
The final bill text capped the district's production fee at 30 cents per 1,000 gallons, and that maximum could rise 5% a year starting in 2026. The fee was charged to water utilities, not to households, and the district wasn't required to charge it at all.
Could some of the fee have reached customers eventually? Plausibly. Utilities do try to recover their costs, and Aqua would have had to go through the state rate process to do it. For scale: a household using 6,000 gallons a month would see roughly $1.80 a month if the district charged the full maximum and Aqua passed every cent through. That's a real cost worth weighing, but it's not the same as "raising your water bill every year."
In the end, none of this happened. The bill never became law, so no fee was ever charged and no water bill changed.
"Even Governor Abbott said no ... 'new fees that increase every year.'"
The quote is real. Governor Abbott vetoed SB 1253 on June 22, 2025. His official veto proclamation objected to the groundwater-district language added in the House: "It now singles out property owners in one groundwater conservation district [our local groundwater district] and subjects them to new burdens for exercising private property rights, like new fees that increase every year and entry onto property without the owner's permission."
But the ad prints that quote above the label "City of Woodcreek Resolution No. 25-03-26," as if it came from the city's resolution. It didn't. The resolution was passed three months before the veto and contains no such language.
"Early voting runs Oct. 19–30. Election Day is Nov. 3."
Correct! Please vote :)
Was it the right call? Here's the honest case on both sides
Reasonable people disagreed about this bill, including people who care a great deal about our water. Here are the strongest arguments each way.
Why local governments supported it
- The groundwater district's main funding source is shrinking, which limits its ability to monitor and protect the aquifer.
- The district has reported significant over-pumping by large commercial users, including Aqua Texas in 2022 and 2023.
- Most other Texas groundwater districts already have this kind of authority under Chapter 36 of the Water Code.
- Household wells and agricultural use were exempt from the production fee in the original Senate bill.
Why the Governor vetoed it
- It applied special rules to property owners in just one district, which the Governor called an unfair burden on private property rights.
- The fee ceiling rose automatically every year, with no new vote required.
- According to reporting by Texas Monthly, the House version also removed an exemption that had kept most area wells out of permitting.
- Any fee on a water utility can, over time, show up in customers' bills.
Where I land
I think protecting the aquifers we all depend on is worth real attention, and I understand the property-rights concerns that led to the veto. That is the discussion worth having in Woodcreek. What is not helpful for our neighborhood is reducing a complex topic to "he backed a bill to raise your water bill." That is not what happened, and that is not what the public records say.
Whoever you vote for, I'd encourage you to read the sources below and make up your own mind. If you think I've gotten something wrong here, please email me and I will correct it!
Sources
Primary documents first, then news coverage.
- primaryCity of Woodcreek Resolution No. 25-03-26 (signed)The full resolution, with signatures and vote count.
- primaryMinutes of the March 26, 2025 City Council meetingIncluded in the April 9, 2025 meeting packet; see agenda item 12.
- primarySenate Bill 1253, enrolled text (Texas Legislature)Section 2 contains the 30-cent production fee cap and the 5% annual increase in the maximum.
- primarySB 1253 bill history (Texas Legislature)Shows the June 22, 2025 veto.
- primaryMotion to Intervene by Hays County and the City of Woodcreek, PUC Docket 58124 (Public Utility Commission of Texas)Filed August 4, 2025, in Aqua Texas' pending rate case.
- primaryGovernor's veto proclamation for SB 1253 (Texas Legislative Reference Library)The full text of the veto, including the "new fees that increase every year" quote.
- newsTexas Monthly: the SB 1253 veto and Jacob's WellBackground on the bill's history and the arguments on both sides.
- newsCommunity Impact: two groundwater bills and Hays CountyCovers SB 2660, who would pay the fee, the district's over-pumping figures, and the local resolutions of support.
- newsHill Country Alliance: Aqua Texas files federal lawsuit against the district (filed Dec. 2023)An advocacy organization's write-up of the lawsuit.
See something I got wrong?
Tell me, and point me to the source; I'll be happy to fix it.