BILL ANALYSIS C.S.H.B. 2875 By: Johnson 4-3-95 Committee Report (Substituted) BACKGROUND Counties that apply for funding through the Economically Distressed Areas Program (EDAP) are experiencing a quandary. Once they receive facility planning funds, they may have approximately nine months to apply for construction funding before a new eligibility list is issued. But, if the construction application is submitted by an applicant in a non-border county after the statistics have been released, and they show an economic improvement in that county during the previous year, the applicant could lose its eligibility for construction funding even though it had already received facility planning funds. Because eligibility for non-border counties is based on an annual review of income and unemployment information, eligibility may vary from year to year. The economic improvements that render a county ineligible for construction funding may represent a relatively minor shift in economics (i.e., not enough to enable the applicant to fund the construction without financial assistance). Moreover, if the county no longer qualifies for construction funds, the public health threat caused by inadequate water and/or wastewater facilities will continue to exist. PURPOSE To allow counties to continue to receive EDAP funds for individual projects in progress even if their economic situation improves above the stated requirements. 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 15.407, Water Code, by adding Subsection (g) which provides that if a county's average per capita income increases or the unemployment decreases, a project in progress still remains eligible for the funds under this section. SECTION 2. Amends Section 17.926, Water Code, to provide that both applications under this subchapter and applications for funds under Section 15.407 fall under the "applicant's continued eligibility" provisions. SECTION 3. Outlines the provisions for which Section 15.407 (g) and Section 17.926 applies. SECTION 4. Emergency clause. COMPARISON OF ORIGINAL TO SUBSTITUTE At Section 3, page 2, line 12, of the Substitute, the word "or" at the end of the line was the word "and" in the Introduced version of the bill. SUMMARY OF COMMITTEE ACTION H.B.2875 was considered by the committee in a public hearing on April 3, 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. Fernando Escarcega, representing Texas Water Development Board. 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 7 ayes, 0 nays, 0 pnv, 2 absent.