HB 5375 would create the Northern Cameron and Willacy County Water Authority as a regional water authority under Chapter 11020 of the Special District Local Laws Code. The authority would be formed by Cameron County, Willacy County, and a list of participating cities and water systems, with a process for additional local governments or private entities to join or withdraw as sponsors. The bill establishes a board of directors, sets appointment and term rules, and allows the authority to manage water supply and wastewater infrastructure, including reservoirs, wells, pipelines, treatment facilities, aquifer storage and recovery projects, reuse systems, and wholesale water and wastewater service.
The bill gives the new authority broad operational and financial powers. It may adopt rules, enter contracts, set rates and fees, accept grants and loans, issue revenue bonds and other obligations, and exercise eminent domain for property needed to carry out its purposes, though it may not condemn land to acquire groundwater or water rights. The authority is prohibited from imposing an ad valorem tax, so its funding would come from user fees, contract revenues, grants, and bond proceeds rather than property taxes. The bill also includes provisions allowing sponsors to convey utility assets to the authority without an election and exempting certain transactions from Chapter 1502, Government Code.
In state-law terms, the bill would add a new special district local law chapter and create a new governmental entity with powers similar to other regional water authorities. It would affect Cameron County, Willacy County, the named cities, and any future sponsors or customers that contract with the authority for water or wastewater services. It also authorizes the authority to issue tax-exempt revenue debt and to use condemnation authority if the bill receives the required two-thirds vote; if not, the bill is structured to remove eminent domain power through a fallback provision.
The overall sentiment in the available record appears neutral to supportive, but limited. The bill was referred to the House Natural Resources Committee and there are no recorded committee transcripts or votes in the provided materials, so there is no evidence of formal opposition or endorsement in the record beyond the bill’s introduction. The structure of the bill suggests it is intended as an infrastructure and regional planning measure, which typically draws support from local governments seeking coordinated water supply and wastewater capacity.
The main point of contention is likely the authority’s power to condemn property and the scope of its financial and governance powers. Eminent domain is explicitly addressed, including a fallback provision that removes that power if the bill does not achieve a two-thirds vote, indicating sensitivity to that issue. Other potential concerns include the authority’s ability to impose fees, issue debt without an election, and absorb sponsor assets and obligations, all of which could affect local control, ratepayers, and existing utility arrangements.
HB 5375 would amend the Special District Local Laws Code by creating a new regional water authority with legal authority to plan, finance, build, acquire, and operate water and wastewater infrastructure in northern Cameron County and Willacy County. It would authorize the authority to set rates and fees, issue revenue bonds and other obligations, enter contracts and interlocal agreements, accept grants and loans, and, if the bill passes with the required vote, use eminent domain for property necessary to its functions. The bill would also regulate how sponsors are added or removed, how directors are apportioned, and how local utility assets may be conveyed to the authority, while prohibiting ad valorem taxation.
The available record shows little direct debate, but the bill’s design suggests generally favorable treatment as a regional infrastructure measure. It was referred to the House Natural Resources Committee and no votes or transcripts are provided, so there is no documented floor or committee opposition in the supplied materials. The inclusion of a special fallback removing eminent domain if the bill lacks a two-thirds vote suggests the sponsor anticipated possible concern about that power, even if the overall proposal is framed as a public-purpose water management authority.
The most notable contention is the authority’s eminent domain power, which is expressly granted but also conditionally removed if the bill does not receive the constitutionally required supermajority. That indicates sensitivity to property-rights concerns. Additional likely points of concern are the authority’s ability to issue debt without an election, impose rates and fees on sponsors and customers, and require sponsors to bear financial obligations tied to authority projects. Local governments may also scrutinize the governance structure, including board apportionment, sponsor addition/removal procedures, and the transfer of utility assets without an election.