BILL ANALYSIS
C.S.H.B. 546
By: Brimer
4-3-95
Committee Report (Substituted)
BACKGROUND
When a governmental entity taxes a constituency for services, those
services should be provided.
If the governmental entity is unable or unwilling to provide the
services, the constituency should have the ability to withdraw from
the entity and not pay any additional taxes.
PURPOSE
To exclude persons of unserved property from certain water
conservation and reclamation districts.
RULEMAKING AUTHORITY
It is the committee's opinion that this bill does not grant any
additional rulemaking authority to a state officer, institution,
agency or department.
SECTION BY SECTION ANALYSIS
Section 1:
Amends Chapter 50, Water Code, by adding subchapter "N" which
provides that the owner of property in a water conservation or
reclamation district may petition the board of the water
reclamation or conservation district for withdrawal from the
district, if the district is unable or unwilling to provide
services. The new section also delineates the procedural
requirements for filing the petition, defines what actions the
board may take and the effect of orders of the board, provides the
petitioner (land owner) a right to appeal to the TNRCC under
limited circumstances, defines the substantive and procedural roles
the TNRCC will play in this appeals process, provides that the
TNRCC may order the board to exclude the property if the TNRCC
makes certain (delineated) findings, and provides that the
petitioner may file suit in district court if it appears the board
is not complying with the provisions of this new section.
Section 2:
Effective Date.
Section 3:
Emergency Clause.
COMPARISON OF ORIGINAL TO SUBSTITUTE
(1) At page 1, line 10, of the Substitute, the words "potable or
treated" were inserted, and were not in the Introduced version of
the bill.
(2) At page 2, at both line 17 and line 22, of the Substitute, the
word "35th" was originally "30th" in the Introduced version.
(3) At page 3, lines 3-5, of the Substitute, this entire
subsection (c), requiring a certified copy of the board's order to
be filed in the real property records of the county where the
property is located, was inserted into the Substitute, and was not
in the Introduced version.
(4) The Introduced version provided, at page 2, lines 20-22, that,
"[i]f the board decides to provide services, it shall provide the
services not later than the 90th day after the date of the receipt
of the petition." This subsection was redone, and correlates with
newly-created Section 50.504, subsection (d), on page 3, lines 6-12, of the Substitute. The Substitute provides that, if the board
decides to provide services in lieu of excluding the property, the
board shall present the petitioner with its plan and schedule for
providing the services not later than the 35th day after the date
of the decision, and that the district shall begin operations to
carry out the plan not later than the 90th day after the date the
plan was presented.
(5) Subsections (e), (f), (g), (h), and (i) of the newly-created
Section 50.504 (page 3, line 13 through page 4, line 17, of the
Substitute) were inserted into the Substitute, and were not in the
introduced version. These new subsections provide the petitioner
with a right to appeal to the TNRCC, under certain circumstances,
and provide the procedure to do so. These subsections also define
the substantive and procedural roles the TNRCC will play in this
appeals process, as well as provide that the TNRCC may order the
board to exclude the property if the TNRCC makes certain
(delineated) findings.
SUMMARY OF COMMITTEE ACTION
H.B.546 was considered by the committee in a public hearing on
February 27, 1995.
The following person testified in favor of the bill:
Ms. Patricia Hergenhahn, representing herself.
The following person testified in favor of the bill as it may be
amended:
Mr. Robert Sneed, representing Texas Land Title Association.
The following persons testified against the bill: None (0).
The following persons testified on the bill: None (0).
The bill was referred to a subcommittee to be named later by the
Chair.
On February 28, 1995, the Chair named the following subcommittee
members: Representatives Yost (Chair), King, and Walker.
H.B.546 was considered by the Subcommittee on H.B.546 in a public
hearing on March 8, 1995.
The following persons testified in favor of the bill: None (0).
The following persons testified against the bill: None (0).
The following person testified on the bill:
Mr. Leroy Goodson, General Manager, Texas Water Conservation
Association.
The subcommittee considered four (4) amendments to the bill. All
of those four (4) amendments were adopted by separate, but
identical, record votes of 3 ayes, 0 nays, 0 pnv, and 0 absent.
The Chair of the subcommittee directed the committee staff to
incorporate the four (4) amendments into a complete substitute for
H.B.546.
The bill was reported favorably as substituted to the full
committee by a record vote of 3 ayes, 0 nays, 0 pnv, 0 absent.
After being recalled from subcommittee, H.B.546 was considered by
the committee in a public hearing on April 3, 1995.
The committee considered a complete substitute for the bill. The
substitute was adopted without objection.
No testimony was received.
The bill was reported favorably as substituted, with the
recommendation that it do pass and be printed, by a record vote of
6 ayes, 0 nays, 0 pnv, 3 absent.