Legislative Blog

J.B. Williams, J.D.

5 bills that modify the Water Code

A Blog about 88th Legislature Laws

A Bit of Background

The following backgrounds help summarize the author's views on both the general topic: Texas and more specifically 88th Legislature Laws as it relates to that topic.

Brief Summary of Texas

Texas is truly a Republic. There are a multitude of items that to modify the state constitution must be modified. So there are times when Constitutional amendments are on the voting ballots. While I sometimes abhor the wording, the concept that all of those legally able to vote in Texas must vote on the change is a good one. And bills in Texas are generally short, making it easier for everyone to understand.

Summary of 88th Legislature Laws

The blogs here will discuss the laws passed by Congress and signed into law, as well as those, passed by Congress and approved by the voters to become law. There are a multitude of laws and each time I post blogs I will notate here the current effective date if it is different from prior blogs. I am currently posting bills that took effect immediately - those bills total 336. I am currently posting regarding larger bills, so each blog covers a single bill.

Blog Summary

HB 1699 - Sets the amount of fees allowable to charge for exporting water from the District.

HB 1971 - Sets out rules for appealing hearings, including issuance of findings of fact and conclusions of law. Thereby creating information necessary should there be an appeal made beyond the board.

HB 2109 - Strikes the verbage Lower Brushy Creek Water Control and Improvement District and inserts the word district.

HB 2373 - Repealed Water Code, Section 13.145

HB 2508 - Permits the disbursement of funding electronically in the way a major portion of Americans currently pay their bills.

5 bills that modify the Water Code

Published: 2024-04-24

HB 1699

Authority of the Evergreen Underground Water Conservation district to impose certain fees

The Board may impose a combined production and export fee on the water that is exported from the District. The amount may not exceed $.20 for each thousand gallons of water. And there may be other allowable fees under the Water Code, Chapter 36. Any fees collected may only be used to maintain operability of wells that are significantly affected by groundwater export projects and authorized by Section 36.112(1).

HB 1699

Procedures for acting on a permit or an amendment application by a groundwater district and disqualification of board members

In making a final decision on a permit or an amendment application, if the board is composed of 10 or more directors, a concurrence of a majority of directors eligible to vote is sufficient to take action.

If a board director has substantial interest in a property or entity, they must file an affidavit before any votes affecting them to disclose that. If the vote would have substantial economic affect, then they shall refrain from participating. (This was already in effect, the following as added.) The director may not attend any closed meeting related to the matter and may not vote on the matter. They may vote on the matter if a majority of the directors filed affidavits relating to a similar interest.

Any continuances may not exceed the time limit for the issuance of a final decision. Obviously to precent a presiding officer from merely continuing a matter past the date a decision had to be made in order to cause a denial based on time.

An applicant can in a contested or uncontested hearing on application make an administrative appeal to the board in writing. In so doing, the appealing party must request written findings of fact and conclusions of law no later than the 20th day after the board's decision unless the board issued findings of fact and conclusions of law as part of the decision. The board has 35 days to issued the findings of fact and conclusions of law. A party to a contested hearing may request a rehearing no later than 20 days after the issuance of the findings of fact and conclusions of law. If there are multiple parties requesting rehearing, they must be consolidated into 1 rehearing per matter.

A final decision of the board must be in writing and must either adopt the proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law as proposed by the administrative law judge or include revised findings of fact and conclusions of law. The decision must be issued no later than 180 days after the date of receipt of the final proposal for decision from the State Office of Administrative Hearings. This deadline may be extended if all the parties agree to do so.

If a motion for rehearing is filed and granted, the board must make a final decision no later than 90 days after the date of the decision that was the subject of the rehearing.

A board is considered to adopt the final proposal for the decision of the administrative law judge on the 181st day after the administrative law judge issued the final proposal, if the board has not issued a final decision by:

1. adopting the findings of fact and conclusions of law as proposed; or
2. issuing revised findings of fact and conclusions of law

HB 2109

Construction, maintenance, rehabilitation, and removal of dams by the Lower Brushy Creek Water Control and Improvement District

The district is not required to comply with municipal regulations regarding the construction, maintenance, rehabilitation or removal of dams. The word district use to specifically state Upper Brushy Creek Water Control and Improvement District.

HB 2373

Authority of a water or sewer utility to consolidate more than 1 system under a single tariff

It repeals section 12.145 of the Water Code.

HB 2508

Disbursement of money by a levee improvement district

The board may allow the following:

1. a bank where the district has deposits to sign disbursements;
2. disbursements to be transferred by an Automated Clearing House (ACH); and
3. the wire or electronic transfer of district money to vendors or other authorized accounts not in the district name

This seems to be a means of permitting the district to run their finances more the way most of Americans do. Permitting a bank to authorizing a transfer based upon automatic bill pays and such. Hopefully the district is still monitoring this closely because it can create issues. For instance, the people who authorized their banks to autopay the utility bill and the bills were issued in the wrong amounts. Now the entity wrongly issuing the bills ended up paying the costs that the individuals incurred, but I recall several people in the news talking about what a nightmare it created for them.

 

J.B. Williams, J.D.

4,312 federal laws were passed from 1995 through December 2016.
Along with 88,819 federal rules and regulations.