Bills: HB75, HB108

Keywords: building standards, youth camps, floodplains, safety regulations, environmental policies, drainage utilities, flood management, land use regulation, county authority, drainage fees

Summary: The committee heard a series of criminal justice and public safety bills, with most measures focused on tougher penalties, victim protections, and procedural changes. Bills discussed included HB 75, requiring magistrates to make written findings when denying probable cause despite believing an arrestee committed an offense; HB 413, limiting pretrial detention so it cannot exceed the maximum jail term for the charged offense, with competency-related exceptions; HB 1422, expanding sexual assault survivor protections and increasing penalties for certain sexual offenses and voyeurism; HB 2073, increasing penalties for violating protective orders or bond conditions while armed; HB 2593, raising indecent assault penalties against elderly or disabled victims; HB 108, enhancing punishment when body armor is used during violent crimes; HB 3816, expanding cruelty-to-livestock offenses to include unlawful controlled-substance administration; HB 2854, requiring parole officers to notify hospitals or law enforcement when violent parolees visit hospital premises; HB 1871, increasing punishment for attempted capital murder of a peace officer and making such offenders ineligible for parole; HB 3463, clarifying notice methods in theft-of-service cases; HB 2348, allowing video-recorded depositions of elderly or disabled witnesses; HB 2594, expanding venue options for cybercrime and digital theft prosecutions; HB 2761, clarifying that children cannot be deemed to consent to prostitution-related offenses; HB 3185, authorizing administrative subpoenas in cybercrime investigations; HB 2017, increasing penalties for certain intoxication manslaughter cases involving undocumented immigrants with prior DWI convictions; HB 2306, making certain trafficking offenses ineligible for parole; HB 1607, allowing a rear-only license plate when a vehicle lacks a front bracket; HB 1828, creating a legislative leave pool for TDCJ correctional officers; and HB 3664, requiring prospective grand jurors to complete training and proposing additional changes to grand jury procedure in a future substitute. The committee also took up HB 3073, the Summer Willis Act, which would clarify consent in sexual assault law and address intoxication-related incapacity; the committee substitute narrowed the language to situations where the perpetrator knows the other person cannot consent because of intoxication or impairment, while removing withdrawal-of-consent and “reasonably should know” language from the House version. Several bills were laid out with committee substitutes adopted, including HB 3463, HB 2594, HB 3073, and HB 3073’s substitute, and most bills were left pending after no invited or public testimony or after hearing testimony. Public testimony was especially extensive on HB 3073, with survivors, advocates, and prosecutors supporting broader consent language, while some prosecutors said the substitute was an improvement but still favored the House version’s broader protections. HB 3664 drew significant opposition from district attorneys, who argued that mandatory transcription or recording of grand jury testimony would be costly, chill grand juror questioning, and complicate timely presentations; concerns were also raised about new-evidence requirements and grand jury shopping. No final votes were taken on the bills discussed in the transcript, and the committee recessed partway through to return to the floor before continuing its hearing.

Bills: HB75, HB108

Keywords: building standards, youth camps, floodplains, safety regulations, environmental policies, drainage utilities, flood management, land use regulation, county authority, drainage fees, 1185, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• While the districts in the region have, in some cases, used arbitrary fee schedules and overly strict
• HB 612 extends cost-based fee protections to include developers, not just retail public utilities.
• It prohibits water districts from imposing pipeline construction fees on a developer greater than the
• However, the fee limitations still apply.
• SB 3058 authorizes the district to use export fees, export fees collected under the current law to fund

Bills: HB2018, HB1633, HB1689, SB612, SB3058

Keywords: agricultural conservation, land preservation, environmental protection, wildlife habitat, Texas Farm and Ranch, groundwater conservation district, Texas Water Code, water permit, permit amendment, groundwater permit, water rights, aquifer, well registration, exempt wells, beneficial use, water conservation, groundwater quality, well plugging, Hill Country Priority Groundwater Management Area, surface water resources

Summary: The Senate Water, Agriculture, Rural Affairs Committee heard several bills focused on groundwater management, water infrastructure, and agricultural land conservation. SB 612 would limit certain water districts in Hidalgo, Cameron, and Willacy counties from charging developers pipeline construction fees above actual, documented costs; the committee substitute removed a developer challenge mechanism to preserve district discretion over construction standards. HB 1633 would require groundwater conservation districts to consider registered exempt wells when reviewing or amending permits, and testimony from landowners, district representatives, and advocacy groups largely supported the bill as a way to protect domestic and livestock wells from drawdown caused by large export projects. HB 1689 would clarify that export fee revenues may be used for well operability, alternative water supplies, and aquifer monitoring, including through interlocal cooperation, and HB 3058 would give the Post Oak Savannah Groundwater Conservation District authority to use export fees for county road improvements and environmental programs tied to well inspection and groundwater management. HB 2018 would clarify that the Texas Farm and Ranchland Conservation Program is intended to purchase conservation easements only on working agricultural lands, with support from cattle raisers and Farm Bureau representatives. The committee also considered HB 29, which would require large water systems to validate water loss audits and submit mitigation plans; a committee substitute removed the water-loss threshold and adjusted the timeline for more detailed validation. Public testimony on the bills was generally supportive, with several witnesses describing declining well levels, road damage from export projects, and the need to preserve agricultural land and local water supplies. The committee adopted committee substitutes and voted favorably on HB 29, HB 1689, HB 2018, SB 612, and SB 3058, recommending several of them for the local and uncontested calendar; HB 1633 was left pending awaiting a committee substitute.

Transcript Highlights:

• While the districts in the region have, in some cases, used arbitrary fee schedules. and overly strict
• construction requirements to extract fees from developers far beyond their means and actual costs.
• It prohibits water districts from imposing unreasonable fees.
• However, the fee limitations will apply.
• I will say this: the export fee we got in before, and the export fee is...

Bills: HB2018, HB1633, HB1689, SB612, SB3058

Keywords: agricultural conservation, land preservation, environmental protection, wildlife habitat, Texas Farm and Ranch, groundwater conservation district, Texas Water Code, water permit, permit amendment, groundwater permit, water rights, aquifer, well registration, exempt wells, beneficial use, water conservation, groundwater quality, well plugging, Hill Country Priority Groundwater Management Area, surface water resources

Transcript Highlights:

• members, uh, Senate Bill 612 is to prevent water districts from charging excessive pipeline construction fees
• Water districts in the region have in some cases used arbitrary fee schedules and overly strict construction
• requirements to extract fees from developers far beyond actual costs.
• This prohibits the water districts from imposing pipeline construction fees on developers greater than

Bills: SB 612, SB 1855, SB 2568, SB 3058

Keywords: SB 612, Texas Water Code, Section 49.2127, conservation and reclamation district, water district, reclamation district, developer fees, pipeline construction, water pipeline, sewer pipeline, associated infrastructure, subdivision infrastructure, cost recovery, fee cap, actual reasonable documented costs, engineering fees, legal fees, inspection fees, infrastructure relocation, utility connections

Transcript Highlights:

• Drainage District 7 DD7 was established in 1946 and serves over 100 square miles in Jefferson and South
• Nederland, Port Neches, and nearby unincorporated areas, playing a critical role in flood control and drainage
• This will save the ratepayers redundant engineering and administrative fees associated with the regulatory
• These additional fees easily run $25,000 to $50,000 a project.
• Development of capital improvement plans, master plans, and impact fee programs are highly regulated

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.

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

Transcript Highlights:

• Senate Bill 612 is to prevent water districts from charging excessive pipeline construction fees to developers
• Water districts in the region have, in some cases, used arbitrary fee schedules and overly strict construction
• requirements to extract fees from developers far beyond actual costs.
• This prohibits the water districts from imposing on developers fees greater than the actual reasonable

Bills: SB612, SB1855, SB2568, SB3058, HB49

Keywords: SB 612, Texas Water Code, Section 49.2127, conservation and reclamation district, water district, reclamation district, developer fees, pipeline construction, water pipeline, sewer pipeline, associated infrastructure, subdivision infrastructure, cost recovery, fee cap, actual reasonable documented costs, engineering fees, legal fees, inspection fees, infrastructure relocation, utility connections

Transcript Highlights:

• Lastly, the committee substitute prohibits a groundwater conservation district from collecting export fees
• And then lastly, the second part is about removing export fees for districts.

Bills: HB1523, HB2109, HB2694, HB3525, HB3898, HB4646, HB5188, HB5219, HB5320, HB5651, HB5655, HB5659, HB5662, HB5672

Keywords: aquifer conservation, Class V injection well, environmental regulation, groundwater protection, municipal water supply, temporary prohibition, water management, reservoir construction, state water plan, Texas Water Code, environmental impact, Brazoria Drainage District, commissioners, elections, vacancies, resignation, HB 3525, North Texas Groundwater Conservation District, groundwater permit, permit amendment

Summary: The Committee on Natural Resources heard House Bill 2109, which would remove certain long-proposed reservoir projects from the state water plan after 50 years without progress. Chairman Van Deaver and many landowners, local officials, timber interests, and conservation advocates testified in support, arguing that the Marvin Nichols Reservoir has burdened Northeast Texas landowners for decades with the threat of eminent domain, depressed property values, and uncertainty over homes, farms, ranches, schools, churches, and cemeteries. Supporters also said the project would flood tens of thousands of acres, require extensive mitigation, harm timber and agriculture, and that Texas now has better alternatives such as conservation, reuse, aquifer storage and recovery, and desalination. Several members expressed sympathy for the affected families and questioned whether a project could remain in the plan indefinitely without progress. Opposition came from North Texas water interests, including the North Texas Commission, Tarrant Regional Water District, and the Texas Water Association, who argued that the bill would interfere with the state’s long-term water planning process and remove needed future supply options for a fast-growing region. They said Region C faces major projected shortages by 2070, that conservation and reuse have already delayed the need for new supplies, and that reservoirs remain one tool in the state’s water-planning toolbox. TWDB staff explained the existing inter-regional conflict process and noted that the substitute would affect several unique reservoir sites, not just Marvin Nichols. After testimony, Chairman Van Deaver closed by urging passage of the bill, but the committee withdrew the substitute and left HB 2109 pending. The committee then took up House Bill 5188, a brackish groundwater bill. The author said the bill would reduce permitting burdens for wells in designated brackish groundwater production zones, and the committee substitute added requirements on monitoring, groundwater-rights ownership, and allocation of pumpage limits while removing some exclusions and export-fee provisions. Texas Wildlife Association testified against the bill, warning that the exemptions could weaken groundwater conservation districts’ ability to protect freshwater resources and surface-owner rights. San Antonio Water System testified in favor, saying brackish groundwater is a key future supply and that the substitute would help speed development of desalination and brackish projects. The Texas Alliance of Groundwater Districts testified neutrally but raised concerns about reduced district oversight, especially around injection-well exclusions and the loss of export fees, and said discussions on the bill were ongoing.

Transcript Highlights:

• The committee substitute prohibits a groundwater conservation district from collecting export fees for
• The second part is about removing export fees for districts.

Bills: HB1523, HB2109, HB2694, HB3525, HB3898, HB4646, HB5188, HB5219, HB5320, HB5651, HB5655, HB5659, HB5662, HB5672

Keywords: aquifer conservation, Class V injection well, environmental regulation, groundwater protection, municipal water supply, temporary prohibition, water management, reservoir construction, state water plan, Texas Water Code, environmental impact, Brazoria Drainage District, commissioners, elections, vacancies, resignation, HB 3525, North Texas Groundwater Conservation District, groundwater permit, permit amendment

Transcript Highlights:

• be known as Montgomery County water control and improvement Improvement District No. 7 to provide drainage
• Stark County by merging the Stark County Groundwater Conservation District into the Stark County Drainage
• District and renaming the combined entity. as the Starr County Drainage and Groundwater Conservation
• It is for one of my drainage districts back home.
• It is one of the only drainage districts in the state that elects its commissioners by partisan election

Bills: HB1523, HB2109, HB2694, HB3525, HB3898, HB4646, HB5188, HB5219, HB5320, HB5651, HB5655, HB5659, HB5662, HB5672

Keywords: aquifer conservation, Class V injection well, environmental regulation, groundwater protection, municipal water supply, temporary prohibition, water management, reservoir construction, state water plan, Texas Water Code, environmental impact, Brazoria Drainage District, commissioners, elections, vacancies, resignation, HB 3525, North Texas Groundwater Conservation District, groundwater permit, permit amendment

Transcript Highlights:

• penalties if we do get to the point of. severing the production from the lease, there is a $750 reconnect fee

Bills: HB 13, HB143, HB144, HB145, HB366, HB470, HB805, HB912, HB13, HB143, HB144, HB145

Keywords: emergency communication, infrastructure, first responders, grant program, interoperability, Texas Interoperability Council, local governments, HB 143, Texas Railroad Commission, Public Utility Commission of Texas, Natural Resources Code, oil and gas, well site, surface facility, electrical power line, National Electrical Code, NEC, electrical safety, utility disconnect, service disconnection

Transcript Highlights:

• Based the value of the unlawful contribution or expenditure and reasonable attorney's fees.
• So, Texas utilities already implement anti-solar rates and fees in the absence of regulation.
• In 2024, we published a study of solar compensation rates and fees at 127 of the 141 non-competing. in
• the grid which is net metering and El Paso electricity already has a It already has discriminatory fees
• And given this pattern of proposing and implementing anti-solar rates and fees, we don't believe that

Bills: HB 13, HB143, HB144, HB145, HB366, HB470, HB805, HB912, HB13, HB143, HB144, HB145

Keywords: emergency communication, infrastructure, first responders, grant program, interoperability, Texas Interoperability Council, local governments, HB 143, Texas Railroad Commission, Public Utility Commission of Texas, Natural Resources Code, oil and gas, well site, surface facility, electrical power line, National Electrical Code, NEC, electrical safety, utility disconnect, service disconnection

Transcript Highlights:

• <01:14:15.360> Uh semantics of a fee or a tax. Uh semantics of a fee or a tax.
• Laramie is about to tell you about how they suspended fees and then reduced their storm water fee.
• <01:19:09.520> and fee.
• Cheyenne is reducing its fee and fee.
• a normal fee? a normal fee? >> Mr.<01:27:37.600> Mayor, >> Mr.

Bills: SF0099, SF0116, SJ0006

Keywords: easement, electricity delivery, public utility, prescriptive easement, landowner rights, surface water, drainage utilities, municipality, elections, environmental management, shared parenting, family law, joint custody, child well-being, parental rights, 916, all

Transcript Highlights:

• When those fleets seek resolution, some deputy registrars waive the fees; others don't.
• <01:19:00.880> So,<01:19:01.120> businesses the fees, others don't.
• So, businesses the fees, others don't.
• So the associated fees themselves are roughly $30 depending on what you do and where you do it.
• So the associated fees a big deal.

Bills: HF4693

Keywords: transportation, license plates, validation stickers, replacement fees, government fees, 1183, house

Summary: The Transportation Finance and Policy Committee approved the April 13, 2026 minutes and then heard a presentation from Charles Carlson of Metropolitan Transportation Services on regional transit governance and finance in the Twin Cities area. Carlson reviewed the history of transit governance from private streetcars and buses to public control, including the creation of the Met Council and Metropolitan Transit Commission in 1967, later fragmentation through suburban opt-outs and the Regional Transit Board, and the 1994 consolidation that made Metro Transit part of the Met Council. He also explained the role of the Transportation Advisory Board as a state-created advisory body to the council’s federally designated MPO function, and noted that any major structural change to the Met Council could trigger federal redesignation requirements. The presentation then focused on funding changes over time. Carlson said transit was long supported by fares, property taxes, and federal aid, but that property taxes for operations were prohibited in 2001, federal operating assistance ended, and the state shifted to general fund support and then motor vehicle sales tax revenue. He described the 2006 constitutional dedication of motor vehicle sales tax, the volatility of that revenue during the Great Recession, and the use of one-time state appropriations and later federal COVID relief to cover operating gaps. He said the 2023 legislature created the regional 3/4-cent transportation sales tax to stabilize transit operations, reduced the state’s rail operating obligation, and moved Metro Mobility/Metro Move into a state forecast-based program effective in 2025. Members asked several questions about the structure of suburban “opt-out” providers, including Maple Grove and Plymouth, and how they can contract with Metro Transit or private providers while still retaining control of their allocated funds. Carlson explained that replacement service municipalities receive statutory and formula allocations and choose how to use them. He also described Metro Move as a waiver-based service begun in 2024 that uses human services and Medicaid funds to reduce pressure on the state general fund. Later discussion covered ridership and service shares, with Metro Council providing the vast majority of regional transit service and suburban providers accounting for a small share. No votes or bill actions were taken beyond adoption of the minutes; the chair indicated a bill would be taken up later in the meeting.

Transcript Highlights:

• this basically giving the county commission the right obligation to promote a resolution to issue a $2 fee
• if... to promote a resolution to issue a $2 fee if you don't...
• Section on the amendment baseline, lines 11 and 12 on page one, provides for the registration issuing fee
• Um, as a matter of fact, even our own county pondered the idea of adding as much as a $10 fee in a work
• So the $2 fee is brought by the sheriff, and this is where I'll end.

Bills: SB314

Keywords: motor vehicle fees, Shelby County, law enforcement funding, registration fees, county commission, 1136, house, all

Bills: HB402, HB402

Keywords: rural impact, legislation, agriculture, school funding, transparency, data assessment, rural communities, land bank authority, property acquisition, tax-delinquent properties, real estate management, local government revenue, floodplain management, stormwater drainage, emergency powers, 1136, house, all

Bills: HF1667, HF2526, HF68

Keywords: correctional fees, supervision fees, probation, Department of Corrections, criminal justice funding, electronic home monitoring, drug testing, restitution collection, community service work, postprison supervision, court-ordered services, fee sunset, fee phaseout, offender fees, community corrections, supervised individuals, 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• The district had a fee schedule that's locked into statute.
• They requested a change in that statute so they can raise their fees.
• They threaten you with the fees that they're going to impose on the community whether they win or lose
• We could be saddled with thousands of dollars in legal fees. bills that we can't afford.
• Marta Fee, separate legislation, separate law.

Bills: SB1169, SB1285, SB1583, SB1611, SB1898, SB1976, SB2160, SB2161, SB2658, SB2661, SB2662, SB2692, SB1055, SB1359, SB2660

Keywords: water service, sewer service, public utility, joint operation, infrastructure, municipality, compliance, SB 1285, bats, bat protection, wildlife protection, Texas Parks and Wildlife Code, Parks and Wildlife Code Section 63.101, hunting bats, bat possession, bat sales, bat trade, pest control, licensed pest control professional, animal control officer

Transcript Highlights:

• cannot own the water, cannot condemn the water, and currently has no authority to charge a production fee

Bills: SB1169, SB1285, SB1583, SB1611, SB1898, SB1976, SB2160, SB2161, SB2658, SB2661, SB2662, SB2692, SB1055, SB1359, SB2660

Keywords: water service, sewer service, public utility, joint operation, infrastructure, municipality, compliance, SB 1285, bats, bat protection, wildlife protection, Texas Parks and Wildlife Code, Parks and Wildlife Code Section 63.101, hunting bats, bat possession, bat sales, bat trade, pest control, licensed pest control professional, animal control officer