Transcript Highlights:

• And so, they have obligations though, mandates from TCEQ.
• Once you buy it, you have to comply with TCEQ, correct.
• Uh, an exorbitant number of TCEQ violations and whatnot.
• Um, you served as commissioner of TCEQ for 6 years. Yes, ma'am.
• Um, and is TCEQ, um, responsible for tracking the dilapidated utilities?

Bills: HB 29, HB 685, HB 1633, HB 1689, HB 1690, HB 1918, HB 2010, HB 2500, HB 2608, HB 2626

Keywords: water audit, water loss, water loss mitigation plan, municipally owned utility, municipal utility, water conservation, Texas Water Development Board, TCEQ, Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, water leakage, leak detection, billing data accuracy, utility validation, water audit validation, water scarcity, water management, infrastructure, public utility, conservation plan, administrative penalty

Transcript Highlights:

• Should a utility violate provisions of this bill, while TCEQ may assess the penalty.
• TCEQ. What I discovered, and we came up with, the drafter had legislative counsel.
• If they are that resistant and just thumb their nose, then TCEQ could assess penalties.
• But when you get into the minutiae of TCEQ penalties, they can't demand that those funds be spent on
• We do have a witness from TCEQ on permitting, water rights, compliance, and penalties.

Bills: HB29, HB685, HB1633, HB1689, HB1690, HB1918, HB2010, HB2500, HB2608, HB2626, HB29

Keywords: water audit, water loss, water loss mitigation plan, municipally owned utility, municipal utility, water conservation, Texas Water Development Board, TCEQ, Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, water leakage, leak detection, billing data accuracy, utility validation, water audit validation, water scarcity, water management, infrastructure, public utility, conservation plan, administrative penalty

Transcript Highlights:

• Once you buy it, you have to comply with TCEQ.
• Well, it's not really, they report to TCEQ for quality.
• And through TCEQ on the environmental side.
• You served as commissioner of TCEQ for six years?
• Is TCEQ responsible for tracking the dilapidated utilities?

Bills: HB29, HB685, HB1633, HB1689, HB1690, HB1918, HB2010, HB2500, HB2608, HB2626, HB29

Keywords: water audit, water loss, water loss mitigation plan, municipally owned utility, municipal utility, water conservation, Texas Water Development Board, TCEQ, Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, water leakage, leak detection, billing data accuracy, utility validation, water audit validation, water scarcity, water management, infrastructure, public utility, conservation plan, administrative penalty

Bills: SB 26, SJR 36, SB 26, SB 616, SB 565, SB 384, SB 28, SR 109, SR 122, SR 126, SR 130, SR 136, SR 137, SR 141, SR 142, SCR 20

Keywords: teacher compensation, education funding, public school educators, teacher retention, teacher designation, aquifer, water management, Edwards Aquifer, sustainability, regulatory framework, SB 565, Texas Water Code, TCEQ, Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, compliance agreement, enforcement suspension, utility consolidation, regionalization, water supply, sewer

Summary: The meeting was marked by significant resolutions recognizing various contributions to Texas and celebrating community initiatives. Key discussions included the adoption of resolutions commemorating Texas Hispanic Judges Day and highlighting the 100th anniversary of Memorial Park. Senators expressed appreciation for the judges' dedication and legacy, with notable mentions of individual judges and their impact on the community and legal landscape in Texas. The Senate also honored students and organizations contributing positively to their communities, showcasing the interconnectedness of public service and the legislative process.

Bills: SB 26, SJR 36, SB 26, SB 616, SB 565, SB 384, SB 28, SR 109, SR 122, SR 126, SR 130, SR 136, SR 137, SR 141, SR 142, SCR 20

Keywords: teacher compensation, education funding, public school educators, teacher retention, teacher designation, aquifer, water management, Edwards Aquifer, sustainability, regulatory framework, SB 565, Texas Water Code, TCEQ, Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, compliance agreement, enforcement suspension, utility consolidation, regionalization, water supply, sewer

Transcript Highlights:

• Senator Alvarado had a bill that dealt with TCEQ, and when we had the hearing, we determined that TCEQ
• It's a big reason why I agreed to go over to TCEQ.
• Is there anybody at TCEQ, maybe my question is better asked, is there anyone at TCEQ when it Maybe my
• The legislature has given interim authority to create MUDs to TCEQ, but also has told TCEQ, you can only
• Can they come with their MUD and have it completed when they leave TCEQ, when it leaves TCEQ, the application

Summary: The Senate Committee on Nominations met with a quorum and first took up pending nominations from an earlier agenda. Members severed Douglas McReecken, nominated to the Texas Tech University System Board of Regents, from the rest of the list and then voted to report the remaining nominees to the full Senate by a 7-0 vote. The committee then voted on the severed nomination itself and reported Douglas McReecken to the full Senate as well, by a 5-2 vote. The committee heard testimony from Brooke Pop, reappointed as chair of the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, and later from Commissioner Katarina Gonzalez, also of TCEQ. Questions focused on whether TCEQ rules comply with state law, ex parte restrictions, public transparency, concrete batch plant permitting, MUD approvals, water availability, illegal dams, enforcement, and the agency’s role in local environmental disputes. Both nominees said they follow the law as written, described internal legal review of rules, and emphasized transparency, public outreach, and enforcement; Gonzalez said she had already sent back two rules she believed did not comply with legislation. Members also discussed TCEQ’s authority limits and the need for clearer public communication about what the agency can and cannot regulate. The committee also considered Alethea Sullivan, nominated to the Texas Southern University Board of Regents. Questions centered on TSU’s status as an independent institution, the role of HBCUs amid DEI-related legal changes, and student outcomes. Sullivan said she would focus on ensuring taxpayer and student resources produce valuable credentials and noted concerns from her review of graduation and bar passage rates. The committee then heard from Benjamin Barkley, appointed chief executive and public counsel of the Office of Public Utility Counsel. Barkley said OPUC’s main need is additional funding to recruit and retain attorneys and expert witnesses, reduce turnover, and continue representing residential and small commercial consumers in utility rate cases; he said the office was involved in 73 contested cases and saved Texans $2.2 billion in FY 2024. No final action was taken on the later nominees, and the committee recessed with nominations left pending.

Transcript Highlights:

• Senator Alvarado had a bill that dealt with TCEQ.
• Their location is not up to TCEQ.
• How did it change what TCEQ did?
• Is there anybody at TCEQ—maybe my questions are better asked— is there anyone at TCEQ who looks at, when
• Can a developer come to TCEQ?

Keywords: 1185, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• It requires TCEQ to consider pre-production plastic.
• And so, you know, TCEQ, not to be disrespectful, but TCEQ says, "OK, we're going to look at the well
• We need TCEQ to be able to respond to this, and TCEQ needs direction from the legislature to be able
• All I can do is send them to TCEQ to register now.
• So we move from the TCEQ, who sets the standards.

Bills: HB1341, HB1674, HB4028, SB2321

Keywords: hydrogen sulfide, public health, environmental regulation, Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, ground level concentrations, emissions limit, emissions limits, ground-level concentrations, air quality, PFAS, agriculture, environmental protection, health risks, criminal offense, chemical regulation, preproduction plastic, water quality, pollution control, industrial waste, emissions

Transcript Highlights:

• Okay, the other way... is you can go through the TCEQ and once the TCEQ has your application... for a
• The TCEQ took a larger role and now...
• The TCEQ data shows one.
• Yes, sir, and to provide evidence of that to the TCEQ.
• the TCEQ listen to.

Bills: HB23, HB363, HB447, HB954, HB23

Keywords: third-party review, property development, local government, permits, construction inspection, regulatory authority, land development, liability, occupancy certificate, municipal utility district, petition, county clerk, water code, Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, traffic impact studies, bonds, road projects, eminent domain, extraterritorial jurisdiction, county authority

Transcript Highlights:

• And so do we have a system in place at the TCEQ? We can call the TCEQ resource witness up there.
• Do you have TCEQ witnesses or a resource of members needed?
• And now any questions for TCEQ resource witness?
• I was going to have TCEQ come up. Okay. TCEQ, come on up. Page name here with position on the bill.
• We coordinated this with TCEQ.

Summary: The committee met with limited attendance at first, then took up a series of water, agriculture, and rural affairs measures. HB 3898 would allow the Texas Water Development Board to provide financial assistance for brackish water desalination projects in certain border counties and related nonprofit suppliers even if the projects are not in the state water plan. Supporters said it is needed to address severe water shortages in places like Webb County and to support future planning; opponents, including the Texas Alliance of Groundwater Districts, argued it bypasses the regional and state water planning process. The bill was left pending after testimony. The committee also heard HB 5339, which would create a higher-education grant program for regenerative agriculture research. A rancher testified that regenerative methods improved soil health, water retention, and farm viability, while a senator noted existing university research but said better coordination could help. Public testimony was closed and the bill was left pending. Members then heard HB 1523, a temporary prohibition on TCEQ issuing Austin a Class 5 injection well permit for an aquifer storage and recovery project in Bastrop and Lee counties until December 2027. Local officials from Bastrop supported the pause, citing unanswered questions about water treatment, recovery rates, and impacts on the aquifer, while Austin Water opposed the substitute, saying the project is central to its long-term water plan and that stakeholder talks were already underway. TCEQ explained its ASR permitting process and said public participation is possible but not always used in the current authorization process. The bill was left pending. HB 5659, concerning the Northeast Texas Municipal Water District and requiring majority city-council approval before certain water sales or interbasin transfers, drew testimony from district officials who said the change could interfere with existing contracts and district authority, but the chair emphasized the need for local buy-in and said the stakeholders had reached a workable compromise; testimony was closed and the bill was left pending. The committee also heard HB 1690, which would expand notice requirements for groundwater export permits so neighboring landowners and potentially affected aquifer areas are informed by certified mail and publication. The sponsor tied the bill to impacts from the Vista Ridge project, and no one testified against it; it was left pending. HB 3333 would prohibit TCEQ from issuing new wastewater discharge permits directly into the Devils River in Val Verde County. The sponsor and a conservation witness said the bill protects one of Texas’s most pristine rivers and reflects a local stakeholder agreement, while TCEQ said it can ensure water quality but acknowledged the river’s unique sensitivity; the bill was left pending. The committee also heard HCR 108 urging continuation of the U.S.-Mexico tomato suspension agreement, with supporters warning of major Texas job and consumer-price impacts if it ends, and HCR 76 urging federal action on imported shrimp, citing public health and industry concerns; both were left pending. Additional measures heard and left pending included HB 4158 on compensation for Texana Groundwater Conservation District directors, HB 654 creating a dismissal path for certain first-time deer hunting violations after self-reporting and hunter education, HB 4530 requiring Texas Water Development Board review of groundwater rights placed in the Texas Water Trust, HB 2128 directing a study of rural versus urban firefighting and rescue disparities, and HB 278 requiring groundwater districts and management areas to track progress toward desired future conditions over shorter intervals. On HB 278, witnesses split over whether the bill’s interim tracking would improve accountability or create new triggers that could be used against local districts, but no final vote was taken and the bill was left pending.

Transcript Highlights:

• So, do we have a system in place that the TCEQ... You can call a TCEQ resource witness up there.
• I was going to have TCEQ come up. Okay, TCEQ, come on up.
• Do you have any comments from the TCEQ side?
• We do have TCEQ here as well.
• We coordinated this with TCEQ.

Keywords: 1185, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Adresses the TCEQ rulemaking and statutory timeline conflict.
• The other way is you can go through the TCEQ and once the TCEQ has your application for a mud, then they
• Now, that's in the TCEQ rules, and they may not be familiar with that.
• The mud only pays for the public infrastructure as approved by the TCEQ.
• Then another notice is provided by the TCEQ.

Bills: HB23

Keywords: property tax exemption, ad valorem tax, Texas Tax Code, nonprofit corporation, charitable organization, educational nonprofit, scientific nonprofit, agriculture support, youth programs, community education, county population threshold, large county, local government revenue, leasehold interest, possessory interest, county property tax, nonprofit-owned property

Transcript Highlights:

• On September 17, I filed a complaint with TCEQ.
• On September 17, I filed a complaint with TCEQ.
• Michelle Risko with the TCEQ also has a resource witness.
• Michelle Risko with the TCEQ also has a resource switch.
• So we've kind of fast-tracked that through PUC and TCEQ when a, that through PUC and TCEQ when a provider

Bills: SB863, SB1190, SB1261, SB1413, SB1624, SB1662, SB1663, SB1855, SB1967, SB2124, SB2204, SB1623

Keywords: Edwards Aquifer, water conservation, reclaimed water, aquifer storage, environmental protection, water loss, municipally owned utilities, Texas Water Development Board, administrative penalties, water audit, water infrastructure, water supply, state water plan, water management strategies, water financing, municipal bonds, revenue bonds, public debt, obligations, TWDB

Summary: The Senate Committee on Water, Agriculture, and Rural Affairs heard several water-related bills, with testimony focused on drinking water quality, groundwater contamination notice, flood infrastructure funding, water rights conservation, and utility service areas. SB 1662 would limit TCEQ’s advance notice to public water systems to no more than 24 hours before testing after a consumer complaint, to reduce the chance of temporary treatment affecting results. SB 1663 would allow TCEQ to notify private well owners, groundwater conservation districts, and nearby residents by direct means about known groundwater contamination, rather than relying mainly on first-class mail and annual reporting. SB 2124 would move the deadline for publishing the Texas Groundwater Protection Committee’s annual report from April 1 to June 1. Witnesses on the first two bills described long-running water quality problems and delayed notice in their communities and supported the measures. No opposition was recorded, and each bill was left pending for a later vote. The committee also heard SB 1967, which would expand eligibility for Flood Infrastructure Fund financing to multipurpose projects that both reduce flooding and create water supply. Senator Hinojosa and Hidalgo County representatives described the Delta Reclamation Project as a shovel-ready example that would capture flood and drainage water, treat it, and produce new potable supply while also providing detention and flood mitigation. A Sierra Club witness also supported the bill, saying such projects could help manage floodwaters and reduce polluted discharges to bays and estuaries. The bill was left pending. A lengthy and divided discussion followed on SB 1413, which would expand the streamlined expedited release process for landowners seeking removal from a water or sewer CCN in additional counties. Senator Nichols said the bill was a property-rights measure aimed at legacy monopolies and bad actors who use CCNs to hold landowners hostage, while supporters described cases where developers could not get timely service, including fire flow, or were asked to fund infrastructure without reasonable recoupment. Opponents from rural water corporations and utility associations argued the bill would undermine investment in water infrastructure, strand debt, and weaken the return on planned expansion. PUC and TCEQ resource witnesses explained that compensation is handled case by case through appraisal and can include stranded costs, planning, design, construction, and some legal fees, but members noted the statute is unclear and discussed possible committee substitute language. Public testimony was closed with the bill left pending. Later, SB 1624 would allow the Texas Water Trust within the Texas Water Bank to hold donated water rights for conservation purposes and protect them from use-it-or-lose-it cancellation, and SB 863 would address Edwards Aquifer utilities that straddle the aquifer boundary by allowing them to continue using Edwards water within their certificated areas under specified conditions. Both bills were laid out, received no public opposition in the hearing, and were left pending.

Transcript Highlights:

• TCEQ, Chairwoman Popp. Thank you.
• I'm the first woman that's ever chaired TWDB and TCEQ.
• Surface water is managed by TCEQ through water rights.
• The public water system must notify TCEQ of that issuance, and TCEQ oversees the certification.
• TCEQ looks at the MUD from the...

Keywords: 1185, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• And this bill, there is an expedited air permitting process right now at TCEQ.
• That's what we're talking about here, that the TCEQ has received.
• We do have TCEQ here as a resource. Sure. HB. We do have TCEQ here as a resource. Sure. Let's see.
• This was my first time working on one through TCEQ.
• We had concerns with the bill in general that it ties the hands of TCEQ.

Summary: The committee first heard House Bill 1904, which would classify intentionally released helium balloons as litter and create criminal penalties for balloon releases. The author and supportive witnesses argued that balloon releases harm wildlife, livestock, waterways, and infrastructure, and that the bill would close a loophole in current litter law. Several members questioned whether criminal penalties were appropriate, and the author said he was willing to work toward civil penalties and fines instead. No vote was taken, and HB 1904 was left pending. The committee then took up several pending bills and reported them favorably to the full House, including HB 3249, HB 3866, HB 4112, HB 1768, HB 1499, HB 573, and HB 464. These measures dealt with topics such as TCEQ contested-case procedures, outdoor storage containers, high-level radioactive waste, concrete plant permitting and grants, unannounced concrete batch plant inspections, and a scrap tire grant program. Most were adopted with substitutes and passed on recorded votes, generally with unanimous or near-unanimous support. A major portion of the meeting focused on HB 3997, which would create expedited permitting timelines for LNG facilities and related wastewater permits. Industry witnesses said the bill would provide certainty for multibillion-dollar projects without eliminating public participation, while environmental groups opposed parts of the bill that they said could limit contested-case participation and be unrealistic for SOAH timelines. TCEQ staff described the current wastewater permitting process and said some of the bill’s timing provisions could be workable, especially with an expedited fee. The bill was left pending after the author said he would continue working on committee substitute language. The committee also heard HB 1237 on extending the renewal window for expired TCEQ occupational water licenses, and HB 4519, a TERP consolidation bill that would combine several clean transportation grant programs into fewer programs. HB 1237 was left pending without testimony, while HB 4519 drew broad support from environmental and industry witnesses who favored simplifying the program, though some asked for stronger emphasis on particulate matter and hydrogen funding. The committee withdrew the substitute on HB 4519 and left it pending. Finally, HB 5033, which would eliminate the motor vehicle emissions inspection and maintenance program if federal authority changes, drew opposition from environmental and inspection-industry witnesses who warned it would weaken air-quality protections and could remove an important enforcement tool. The author said the bill was intended as a trigger mechanism and would be refined, and HB 5033 was left pending. The committee also heard HB 1227 on municipal solid-waste franchise fees and private-provider access; the author said he would bring a substitute after hearing concerns from cities, and the bill was left pending.

Transcript Highlights:

• They can update their crumbling infrastructure and remove redundant approval and paperwork from TCEQ.
• oversight, nor TCEQ plan submittals.
• Right now, that TCEQ approval process is really redundant, timely, and costly.
• We do have a resource witness from TCEQ if anyone would like to hear from the resource...
• We do have a resource witness from both TCEQ and DIR here to answer any questions.

Bills: HB3115, HB5671, HB5693, SB790, SB1055, SB1302, SB1504, SB1625, SB1663, SB2692

Keywords: Cow Creek Groundwater Conservation District, groundwater, water wells, domestic well, livestock well, exempt well, metering device, well meter, groundwater conservation district, Special District Local Laws Code, Water Code, Section 36.117, groundwater regulation, water rights, aquifer management, municipal utility, retail public utility, groundwater export, water supply contract, election

Summary: The Committee on Natural Resources heard testimony on a series of water, utility, and groundwater-related bills. Early items included HB 5693, which would let Drainage District 7 hold board elections in November of odd-numbered years when a countywide election is occurring, and HB 5671, which would update the Johnson County Special Utility District by clarifying board eligibility, allowing bond issuance, and removing redundant TCEQ approval language to reduce costs and delays. Both bills were left pending after brief testimony from bill sponsors and local witnesses. The committee also heard SB 1504, which would update the Gulf Coast Authority to allow video-conference participation in meetings, and SB 1302, aimed at closing a TCEQ permitting loophole that allowed dischargers with prior denials or suspensions to reapply through an automated process without meaningful review. SB 2692 drew substantial discussion: it would change the signature threshold for outside-city-limits customers appealing municipal utility rates to the PUC by customer class. Valero supported the bill as a way to avoid requiring large-volume users to gather signatures from unrelated residential customers, while the City of Corpus Christi opposed it, arguing that lowering the threshold to one customer could trigger expensive appeals costing $500,000 to $1 million. A PUC witness said such cases are increasing and that the agency would need additional staff under the fiscal note. SB 790, creating a simplified PUC complaint process for small water and wastewater billing disputes, and SB 1663, expanding TCEQ notice requirements for nearby residents when groundwater contamination is discovered, were also heard and left pending. Additional bills included HB 3115, clarifying that the Cow Creek Groundwater Conservation District cannot require meters on exempt domestic or livestock wells; SB 1055, raising the Southeast Texas Groundwater Conservation District’s production fee cap from 1 cent to 7 cents per 1,000 gallons; and SB 1625, requiring private water and wastewater utilities to report cybersecurity incidents to TCEQ and DIR. The committee then took up pending business and adopted a substitute for SB 7, which made several changes to water fund use, eminent domain coordination, and EDAP-related provisions, and voted 10-0 to report it favorably. The committee also adopted a substitute for HB 2347, a county water conservation program bill, and reported it favorably 9-1. HB 5675 and SB 2476 were each reported favorably 10-0. The meeting concluded with adjournment.

Transcript Highlights:

• I do have resource witnesses from TCEQ and I reserve the floor. of the right to close.
• I mean, have y'all — sounds like you've had conversations with TCEQ about the issue. right? Yes.
• TCEQ, obviously, being the regulatory agency. So, are they out of compliance?
• I also have resource witnesses from TCEQ that can ask any questions.
• We'll have a resource witness members from TCEQ if you have any questions. If not, chair.

Bills: HB 1089, HB 1163, HB 1177, HB 1238, HB1318, HB1400, HB1407, HB1532, HJR7, HJR7

Keywords: coastal protection, environmental management, Gulf Coast, storm risk management, funding, Texas General Land Office, healthcare, insurance reform, patient access, insurance regulation, affordable care, health insurance, consumer rights, coverage transparency, claims process, insurance regulations, aggregate production, environmental impact, financial responsibility, reclamation

Transcript Highlights:

• The TCEQ can make this determination? I trust the TCEQ can come to a learned permit resolution.
• And even then, if TCEQ finds that there are additional issues with this project, TCEQ can still say no
• But in your area, and roughly so, and I'll speak to TCEQ in a second.
• As you know, TCEQ can...
• TCEQ will still retain the authority to reject a permit.

Bills: HB4, HB20, HB40, HB46, HB101, HB112, HB117, HB121, HB127, HB146, HB150, HB186, HB229, HB426, HB521, HB541, HB549, HB632, HB713, HB796, HB1052, HB1106, HB1135, HB1234, HB1306, HB1403, HB1523, HB1532, HB1690, HB1960, HB2035, HB2217, HB2399, HB2488, HB2517, HB2594, HB2655, HB2686, HB2731, HB2757, HB2820, HB2963, HB3005, HB3053, HB3073, HB3225, HB3320, HB3333, HB3336, HB3441, HB3483, HB3516, HB3520, HB3697, HB3748, HB3793, HB3848, HB4099, HB4134, HB4144, HB4158, HB4233, HB4236, HB4285, HB4350, HB4359, HB4464, HB4580, HB4690, HB4730, HB4848, HB4904, HB4995, HB5196, HB5294, HB5381, HB5435, HB5437, HB5509, HB5606, HB5646, HB5658, HB5661, HB5663, HB5666, HB5672, HCR40, HCR59, SB867, SB2919, SJR5, SJR27, SB4, SB6, SB7, SB9, SB13, SB15, SB23, SB27, SB30, SB40, SB57, SB66, SB140, SB268, SB293, SB331, SB413, SB447, SB457, SB467, SB506, SB510, SB512, SB571, SB650, SB763, SB777, SB785, SB800, SB850, SB863, SB865, SB973, SB974, SB1191, SB1281, SB1300, SB1362, SB1494, SB1522, SB1540, SB1567, SB1579, SB1580, SB1610, SB1660, SB1723, SB1760, SB1838, SB1923, SB1946, SB1957, SB1964, SB2018, SB2024, SB2121, SB2167, SB2217, SB2221, SB2321, SB2337, SB2368, SB2373, SB2407, SB2431, SB2477, SB2587, SB2615, SB2753, SB2807, SB2900, SB2965, SB2972, SB2986, SB3039, SB3047, SB3059, SB3070, SB1, SB17, SB21, SB260, SB379, SB509, SB1198, SB1405, SB1506, SB1637, SB1833, SB2155, SB2308, SB2601, SB2778, HB300, HB2011, HB2525, HB5246, HB100, HB101, HB119, HB227, HB252, HB322, HB346, HB654, HB705, HB718, HB721, HB824, HB1094, HB1234, HB1306, HB1506, HB1523, HB1629, HB1690, HB1868, HB1960, HB1973, HB2012, HB2035, HB2037, HB2078, HB2128, HB2213, HB2240, HB2348, HB2520, HB2598, HB2686, HB2694, HB2820, HB3005, HB3057, HB3092, HB3112, HB3171, HB3181, HB3185, HB3333, HB3388, HB3516, HB3546, HB3619, HB3623, HB3629, HB3642, HB3686, HB3697, HB3749, HB3793, HB3812, HB3815, HB3848, HB3909, HB4081, HB4145, HB4157, HB4158, HB4170, HB4202, HB4211, HB4214, HB4233, HB4285, HB4350, HB4361, HB4463, HB4464, HB4466, HB4559, HB4630, HB4748, HB4765, HB4848, HB4894, HB4904, HB4995, HB5093, HB5196, HB5320, HB5437, HB5624, HB5650, HB5651, HB5652, HB5654, HB5655, HB5656, HB5658, HB5661, HB5662, HB5664, HB5665, HB5666, HB5670, HB5672, HB5674, HB5677, HB5679, HB5682, HB5689, HB5690, HB5694, HB5695, HB5698, HB5699, HCR46, HCR76, HCR81, HCR83, HCR84, HCR111, HB748, HB5652, HB3395, HB180, HB1306, HB5650, HB4894, HB1629, HB5698, HB3171, HB2694, HB5664, HB4690, HB4464, HB3623, HB2520, HB2213, HB252, HB146, HB5596, HB3619, HB5320, HB5651, HB5670, HB5665, HB5437, HB5679, HB5661, HB5662, HB5654, HB5672, HB5656, HB2035, HB721, HB346, HB5695, HB5694, HB5674, HB3185, HB2348, HB1135, HB101, HB5666, HB5677, HB5682, HB5658, HB4144, HB3642, HB3815, HB2686, HB2012, HB1960, HB227, HB654, HB4158, HB4630, HB1523, HB1973, HB3333, HB3697, HB3546, HB3225, HB2820, HB186, HB119, HB4466, HB4170, HB3909, HB4081, HB4145, HB4285, HB4463, HB4995, HB5624, HB1449, HB2598, HB3629, HB4361, HB824, HB1868, HB4848, HB40, HB117, HB3686, HB3793, HB112, HB104, HB718, HB4904, HB4202, HB4765, HB4559, HB4350, HB4214, HB3388, HB3112, HB5196, HB3516, HB3092, HB4233, HB1094, HB2037, HB3005, HB3848, HB121, HB3336, HB5294, HB5646, HB4236, HB1052, HB5509, HB5435, HB3520, HB3320, HB2517, HB2488, HB5663, HB2731, HB3073, HB2655, HB2399, HB541, HB4099, HB111, HB1532, HB3483, HB2963, HB4580, HB3748, HB713, HB632, HB426, HB4730, HB127, HB5690, HB5689, HB5655, HB3385, HB2757, HB4359, HB5381, HB20, HB123, HB549, HB5606, HB2217, HB2594, HB796, HB1057, HB3664, HCR141, HCR40, HCR59, HCR76, HCR81, HCR46, HCR111, HCR83, HCR84, SJR36, SJR50, SJR63, SCR12, SCR39, SB2023, SB62, SB666, SB847, SB284, SB854, SB810, SB1505, SB583, SB507, SB1434, SB1772, SB2016, SB1122, SB731, SB397, SB508, SB1436, SB287, SB1882, SB393, SB1791, SB209, SB2429, SB1085, SB1975, SB2717, SB1262, SB636, SB2056, SB884, SB1200, SB1845, SB2458, SB801, SB3014, SB3013, SB758, SB2797, SB2076, SB2876, SB1640, SB1449, SB1181, SB1234, SB2926, SB2841, SB1528, SB1854, SB317, SB1250, SB2082, SB1237, SB2819, SB629, SB2608, SB1602, SB2009, SB867, SB640, SB1698, SB2680, SB913, SB1071, SB1086, SB1087, SB1483, SB1444, SB1553, SB1556, SB1703, SB2133, SB2297, SB2298, SB2622, SB2955, SB2334, SB1367, SB2044, SB2363, SB2565, SB1888, SB3036, SB3057, SB3043, SB3063, SB3035, SB203, SB2688, SB2522, SB2459, SB2655, SB2251, SB1884, SB2928, SB2566, SB2549, SB2553, SB2919, SB1944, SB1232, SB1798, SB2603, SB2607, SB2683, SB1319, SB3045, SB3071, HB40, HB117, HB121, HB426, HB541, HB713, HB1052, HB1532, HB2217, HB2488, HB2517, HB2655, HB2757, HB2963, HB3073, HB3697, HB4099, HB4144, HB4158, HB4236, HB4285, HB4848, HB5435, HB5437, HB5509, HB5646, HB5666, HB14, HB1240, HB796, HB1523, HB5294, SR559, SR587, SR614, SCR53, SJR59, SB10, SB22, SB25, SB34, SB36, SB38, SB261, SB777, SB924, SB1188, SB1318, SB1333, SB1398, SB1448, SB1621, SB1862, SB2405, SB2406, SB8, SB12, SB37, SB441, SB1566, SB2878, HB300, HB2011, HB5246, HB101, HB119, HB227, HB252, HB346, HB654, HB718, HB721, HB824, HB1306, HB1629, HB1868, HB1960, HB1973, HB2012, HB2035, HB2037, HB2213, HB2348, HB2520, HB2598, HB2686, HB2694, HB2820, HB3005, HB3092, HB3112, HB3185, HB3333, HB3388, HB3516, HB3546, HB3619, HB3623, HB3629, HB3642, HB3686, HB3815, HB3848, HB3909, HB4081, HB4145, HB4170, HB4202, HB4214, HB4350, HB4361, HB4463, HB4464, HB4466, HB4559, HB4630, HB4765, HB4894, HB4904, HB4995, HB5196, HB5320, HB5624, HB5650, HB5651, HB5652, HB5654, HB5655, HB5656, HB5658, HB5661, HB5662, HB5664, HB5665, HB5670, HB5672, HB5674, HB5677, HB5679, HB5682, HB5695, HB5698, HCR46, HCR76, HCR81, HCR83, HCR84, HCR111, HB1094, HB3171, HB3793, HB4233, HB5689, HB5690, HB5694

Keywords: applied sciences, career education, high school diploma, certificate program, work-based learning, job placement, high-growth jobs, technical training, business court, civil procedure, litigation, jurisdiction, arbitration, low-THC cannabis, dispensing organization, Texas Compassionate-Use Program, medical use, patient access, registration, healthcare

Transcript Highlights:

• I've worked with TCEQ a little bit.
• OPIC is part of TCEQ, but works independently. of other TCEQ divisions and parties to present a public
• Last, I'll talk about how OPIC interacts with TCEQ.
• Though OPIC necessarily maintains an independent role. at TCEQ, OPIC is also part of the TCEQ team.
• And it was an application at TCEQ.

Bills: HB512, HB2248, HB2679, HB2832, HB3112, HB3368, HB3490, HB3512, HB3623, HB3666, HB3700, HB3711, HB3770, HB3963

Keywords: grievance procedures, state agency, employee rights, workplace regulations, employment law, employees, employment actions, appeal, state employees, workplace rights, disciplinary actions, employment conditions, employment disputes, job protections, public information, transparency, government accountability, information access, notification requirements, federal funding

Transcript Highlights:

• We spent 3.5 years in a rigorous process with TCEQ.
• We spent 3.5 years in a rigorous process with TCEQ.
• Why are we going after the TCEQ quality permit?
• Why are we, we going after the TCEQ quality permit?
• That is listed with the TCEQ back in 20...

Summary: The committee first took up SB 2203, relating to certification of discovery issues in TCEQ contested cases referred to SOAH. The chair noted the House had already passed the companion HB 3249, then moved SB 2203 without amendments. The motion prevailed on a 5-0 vote, and the bill was reported favorably to the full House. The committee then heard SB 1898, which would prohibit the use of PFAS-containing firefighting foam for testing and training, while still allowing it in emergency firefighting. The sponsor described PFAS as “forever chemicals” and said the bill would protect firefighters, water supplies, and public health. Testimony in support came from Environment Texas, which cited contamination concerns and noted other states and federal actions restricting PFAS foams. No one testified against the bill, and after closing testimony the committee left SB 1898 pending. The remainder of the hearing focused on SB 1758, a Grayson County pilot program aimed at addressing potential conflicts between Global Wafers’ semiconductor wafer facility and a proposed Black Mountain Cement/aggregate operation. Supporters, including Global Wafers, Grayson County officials, and manufacturing groups, argued that vibration from mining or blasting could threaten a major national-security semiconductor investment and that an independent BEG study was needed to set safe parameters. Opponents from Black Mountain Cement and related industry groups argued the bill would improperly interfere with a lawful permitting process, pick winners and losers, and harm Texas’ pro-business climate; they also said they had already revised operations and removed blast mining. The discussion included extensive questioning about geology, vibration, the permitting timeline, and whether the issue was really about mining rather than the air permit. No vote was taken on SB 1758 in the portion provided.