Texas Senate Bill SB 1253

Texas 2025 - 89th Regular

• Filed: 2/12/25
• Out of Senate Committee: 3/17/25
• Voted on by Senate: 3/27/25
• Out of House Committee: 5/9/25
• Voted on by House: 5/21/25
• Governor Action: 6/22/25

Caption

Relating to impact and production fees for certain water projects and to the regulation of certain wells; authorizing a fee.

Summary

SB 1253 would require political subdivisions to give builders and developers a credit against water and wastewater impact fees when they construct, contribute, or dedicate eligible facilities, systems, or products that produce water reuse, conservation, or savings. The bill defines eligible projects broadly to include measures that reduce per-unit water consumption, lower wastewater and stormwater infrastructure needs, or use technologies that exceed standard water-efficiency requirements. It also requires local governments to adopt procedures for calculating, applying, reviewing, and approving these credits in a fair and consistent manner. The bill also amends provisions governing certain special districts by allowing a water utility service connection fee and a production fee, with the production fee capped at 30 cents per 1,000 gallons and scheduled to increase by 5 percent annually beginning January 1, 2026. In addition, a district may grant a service-connection-fee credit to a water utility that is also subject to the production fee when the utility provides qualifying conservation or reuse infrastructure. The bill repeals a related section of the Special District Local Laws Code and takes effect September 1, 2025.

Impact

SB 1253 would change Texas local-government and special-district law by creating a statutory credit mechanism for water conservation and reuse investments and by adjusting fee authority for certain water utilities and districts. It affects Chapter 395 of the Local Government Code and Chapter 8843 of the Special District Local Laws Code, giving developers and utilities a clearer path to offset impact and connection fees through qualifying water-saving projects while also authorizing an escalating production fee structure for covered districts.

Sentiment

The bill appears to have had generally favorable legislative support, passing the Senate unanimously and the House by a substantial margin, though with more opposition in the House than in the Senate. The final Senate concurrence on House amendments was also overwhelmingly positive. Overall, the voting pattern suggests broad agreement with the bill’s conservation-oriented framework and fee structure, even if some members had reservations about the amended version.

Contention

The main points of contention likely centered on the bill’s fee authority and the balance between encouraging conservation and imposing costs on water utilities, developers, or districts. The House vote shows meaningful opposition, and the failed motion to reconsider indicates some dissatisfaction with the amended bill. Potential concerns include how credits are calculated, whether the fee increases are burdensome, and whether the bill shifts financial responsibility among developers, utilities, and local districts in ways some members found problematic.