BILL ANALYSIS



C.S.H.B. 1757
By: Pete Patterson
April 6, 1995
Committee Report (Substituted)


BACKGROUND

The "Right to Farm" law was passed by the Texas Legislature in
1981.  One of the provisions of the law is that a city which
annexes an agricultural operation may not regulate the operation
unless it is necessary to protect the public health.  This law does
not require a city to substantiate that the operation is a health
hazard.  Therefore, a city could unjustly force an operation out of
business.

PURPOSE

This legislation requires a municipality to substantiate that an
annexed agricultural operation is a health hazard before the
municipality may regulate the operation.

RULEMAKING AUTHORITY

It is the committee's opinion that this bill does not expressly
grant any additional rulemaking authority to a state officer,
department, agency or institution.

SECTION BY SECTION ANALYSIS

SECTION 1.  Amends Section 251.005(c), Agriculture Code.  Sets
forth that a city may impose a governmental requirement on an
annexed agricultural operation only if the requirement is necessary
to protect public health.  Requires the city to provide a report by
its health officer or a hired consultant, identifying the health
hazards caused by the agricultural operation and how it should be
regulated.  The city must consider the report before enacting the
governmental requirement.

SECTION 2.  Emergency Clause; effective upon passage.

COMPARISON OF ORIGINAL TO SUBSTITUTE

The original legislation amended the Local Government Code instead
of the Agriculture Code.  H.B. 1757 restricted a city's ability to
regulate breeding facilities, whereas the substitute includes all
agricultural operations.   H.B. 1757 addressed the regulation of
breeding facilities in annexed or existing areas of a city, whereas
the substitute only addresses annexed agricultural operations.

SUMMARY OF COMMITTEE ACTION

H.B. 1757 was considered by the committee in a public hearing on
Tuesday, March 21, 1995.

The committee considered a complete substitute for the bill.

The following person testified in favor of the bill:

     Mr. Bill Clayton representing Citizens for the Preservation of
Rural Lifestyles.

The substitute was withdrawn.

The bill was left pending.

H.B. 1757 was considered by the committee in a public hearing on
Tuesday, March 28, 1995.

The committee considered a complete substitute for the bill.

The substitute was adopted without objection.

The bill was reported favorably as substituted, with the
recommendation that it do pass and be printed and be sent to the
Committee on Local and Consent Calendars, by a record vote of  6
ayes, 0 nays, 0 pnv, 3 absent.