Texas House Bill HB 5172

Texas 2025 - 89th Regular

• Filed: 3/14/25

Caption

Relating to the creation of a district.

Summary

HB 5172 amends Section 49.011 of the Water Code to change the notice and hearing procedures for applications to create certain districts, or to add land to an existing district, when the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (the commission) is involved. The bill requires the commission to issue a notice once an application is administratively complete, and it directs applicants to publish that notice for two consecutive weeks in a local newspaper at least 30 days before the commission may act. The commission must also send the notice to state representatives and senators representing the affected area. The bill allows the commission to act without a public hearing unless one is requested by the commission, the executive director, or an affected person within 30 days after the final publication of notice. If a hearing is held, the commission must inform the parties of the time and place, but it is not required to provide separate public notice of the hearing itself. The bill also adds a cost-shifting and security requirement for hearing requests made by affected persons that are taxing units or water/wastewater service providers, requiring a bond or other security to cover estimated hearing-related costs and providing for reimbursement depending on whether the petition is approved or denied. Finally, the commission must mail its final order to cities with extraterritorial jurisdiction in the county or counties where the district is located if those cities requested a hearing.

Impact

HB 5172 would amend Texas Water Code provisions governing the creation of districts and the addition of land to districts, primarily by tightening and clarifying notice, hearing, and cost-allocation procedures before the commission acts on a petition. It affects applicants for district creation, affected persons, taxing units, water and wastewater service providers, and cities with extraterritorial jurisdiction, while also shaping the commission’s administrative process under Chapters 36, 50, 51, 54, 55, 58, 65, and 66 of the Water Code and related Local Government Code provisions.

Sentiment

There is no recorded committee transcript or vote history in the provided materials, so the bill’s sentiment cannot be measured from debate or roll-call data. Based on the text alone, the bill appears procedural and administrative in nature, with an emphasis on notice, transparency, and allocating hearing costs to parties that request them.

Contention

The main potential points of contention are the bond and reimbursement provisions for hearings requested by taxing units or water/wastewater providers, which could be viewed as discouraging challenges or shifting litigation costs to local governmental or utility entities. Another possible issue is the reduced procedural burden on the commission, since the bill allows action without a hearing unless one is timely requested and does not require separate public notice of a hearing. Supporters would likely favor the bill’s clearer timelines and cost controls, while opponents may argue it makes it harder for affected local entities and residents to participate in district-creation proceedings.