Relating to the ownership of the pore space underlying the surface of land.
Summary
HB 2762 establishes a statutory rule for ownership of “pore space,” defined as the geologic voids and cavities below the surface of land. Under the bill, unless a deed, conveyance, lease, or contract expressly says otherwise, pore space belongs to the owner of the surface estate. The bill is aimed at clarifying title to underground storage space and reducing uncertainty over who controls subsurface voids.
The bill also states that it does not change existing common law governing the relationship between mineral and surface estates. That means the measure is intended to address pore space ownership without disturbing established rules about mineral rights, surface rights, or the legal separation between those estates. The act would take effect immediately if approved by a two-thirds vote in each chamber; otherwise, it would take effect on September 1, 2025.
Impact
HB 2762 would amend Chapter 5 of the Property Code by adding a new subchapter on pore space ownership. It would create a default rule that surface owners own the subsurface pore space unless the parties have expressly allocated that interest differently, which could affect land titles, mineral and surface estate transactions, and future agreements involving underground storage or sequestration. The bill is likely relevant to carbon capture and storage, natural gas storage, and other subsurface use arrangements, while preserving existing mineral estate law.
Sentiment
The available record shows little direct debate or recorded vote activity, so there is no documented opposition or support from committee discussion. Based on the bill’s structure, the measure appears technical and clarifying rather than controversial, with an apparent goal of providing certainty to landowners and developers about subsurface ownership. Its referral to the Energy Resources Committee suggests it was treated as a land and energy policy issue.
Contention
The main potential point of contention is the allocation of subsurface rights: the bill defaults ownership of pore space to surface owners unless altered by agreement, which could matter to mineral owners, operators, and entities seeking to use underground formations for storage. Another possible issue is the bill’s express statement that it does not modify common law regarding mineral and surface estates, which may prompt questions about how pore space rights interact with mineral development, storage projects, and existing property instruments. No specific opposing viewpoints were recorded in the provided materials.
Relating to the rights and liabilities of the owner of the surface estate of the tract of land on which a well to be plugged or replugged by the Railroad Commission of Texas is located.