Tennessee House Bill HB0237

Tennessee 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 1/21/25
• Refer: 2/3/25
• Refer: 2/10/25
• Chaptered: 3/21/25
• Passed: 3/21/25

Caption

AN ACT to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 4, Chapter 29 and Title 64, Chapter 1, Part 2, relative to the Chickasaw basin authority.

Summary

HB0237 is a Tennessee government-operations measure concerning the Chickasaw Basin Authority. The bill amends two sections of Tennessee Code Annotated: it removes the authority from one statutory list in Title 4, Chapter 29, and adds it to another list of entities in the same chapter. The practical effect is to update the authority’s statutory treatment within the state’s framework for public entities and their oversight or reauthorization status. The bill also references the Chickasaw Basin Authority’s enabling law in Title 64, Chapter 1, Part 2, but does not appear to change the authority’s core powers, duties, or governance structure. Instead, it makes a technical statutory adjustment to ensure the authority is properly categorized in Tennessee law. The act took effect immediately upon becoming law.

Impact

This bill amends Tennessee’s statutory lists of state entities by deleting the Chickasaw Basin Authority from one provision and adding it to another, thereby aligning the authority with the current reauthorization/oversight structure in Title 4. It affects the legal status of the Chickasaw Basin Authority and the state code provisions that govern which agencies and authorities are subject to periodic review or continuation under Tennessee law.

Sentiment

The bill appears to have been noncontroversial and broadly supported. It passed the House Government Operations Committee unanimously and then passed the House on the consent calendar with 89 yeas and 0 nays, indicating little to no opposition. The absence of committee transcript debate also suggests the measure was viewed as a routine or technical update rather than a substantive policy change.

Contention

There is no recorded substantive contention in the available materials. The committee vote was unanimous, the floor vote was unanimous, and there are no transcript excerpts showing disagreement. Any potential concern would likely have been limited to the technical implications of changing the authority’s placement in the code, but no member objections or competing viewpoints are documented.