Print 🖨

The Senate Committee on Agriculture, Water, and Rural Development met on March 20 to take up legislation related to special utility districts, drinking water in SSLCs, water rights, and seed regulation. The report below covers SB 248, SB 546, SB 864, SB 1172.
 
SB 248 (Schwertner) Relating to the dissolution of a special utility district after the transfer of all obligations and services.

  • Schwertner – CSSB 248 creates framework to dissolve a SUD that has transferred all existing assets, debt, and certificate to another political subdivision
  • Assists in dissolving SUDs and bypasses long TCEQ process
  • Perry – So it only allows SUDs to dissolve when nothing is left behind?
    • Yes, avoids requirements to meet for no purpose

 
John Fisher, Bell County Commissioner – Against SB 248

  • This is shift of water from a rural area to the thirsty Georgetown area
  • Georgetown is making the administrative decisions for Bell County via the Chisholm case

 
Tim Brown, Bell County Commissioner – Against SB 248

  • Process to dissolve a defunct district is complex, but the Chisholm case is not appropriate for this
  • Legislature should let the courts decide on the Chisholm case

 
Leonard Dougal, Attorney for Chisholm Trail Special Utility District – For SB 248

  • Bill fixes a gap in the water code allowing for dissolution of SUDs
  • Legislation does not block pending litigation
  • Schwertner – Chisholm Trail was not doing its job and CCN was transferred to the city of Georgetown; has been ratified with repeated votes
  • Perry – Would this legislation have an impact on ongoing litigation?
    • Schwertner – Does not have an impact on current litigation, any court may intervene or act
  • Perry – So is the current board representative of district where CCN is from?
    • Since transfer, it has gone through 2 election cycle ratifying need of Chisholm Trail to be transferred

 
Jim Briggs, City of Georgetown – For SB 248

  • Should be a more effective process for dissolving special districts

 
Delton Robinson, Chisholm Trail SUD – For SB 248

  • Bill will correct a gap in the water code to allow for disposition of SUD
  • Kolkhorst – So the dissolution is a vote of the board?
    • Yes, after CCN has been transferred and assets +liabilities been disposed of
  • Kolkhorst – And this is applicable to all SUDs
    • Yes, not bracketed
  • Kolkhorst – This would be absorbed by Georgetown?
    • Already is, Georgetown overtook Chisholm Trail SUD after Board was overthrown
  • Perry and Schwertner discuss the SUD area, Perry asks if there was any water shift through this process
    • No, there was not

 
Art Rodriguez, City of Georgetown – Resource

  • No water rights are transferred in the case at all, Chisholm had a contract with Brazos River Authority that did transfer

 
CSSB 248 voted out
 
SB 546 (Kolkhorst) Relating to the quality of water provided by public drinking water supply systems to state supported living centers.

  • Kolkhorst – CSSB 546 contains changes based on Commission recommendations, makes several language changes to incorporate and reflect role of TCEQ, clarifies that bill looks at lead and copper regulations
  • Bill came from several SSLCs experiencing contaminated water

 
Nona Rogers, Self – For SB 546

  • Pleased that SB 546 will help monitor water at SSLCs

 
Luke Metzger, Environment Texas – For SB 546

  • Appreciates efforts to improve water quality in SSLCs, also supports improving Texas water generally

 
CSSB 546 voted out
 
SB 864 (Perry) Relating to the procedure for obtaining a right to use state water if the applicant proposes an alternative source of water that is not state water.

  • Perry – Seeks to fix a problem with surface water permits at TCEQ, requires that surface permit applications that use groundwater must provide notice to GCDs with rights over that water

 
SB 864 voted out
 
SB 1172 (Perry) Relating to the regulation of seed by a political subdivision.

  • Perry – Creates uniformity in seed regulation across the state, takes general standards for pesticide and herbicide use and applies them to seeds; supported by many associations

 
Jim Reaves, Texas Farm Bureau – For SB 1172

  • Bill helps agricultural interests play by the same rules across the state
  • Perry – And this is specific to seeds, it does not limit pesticide and herbicide, correct? Wouldn’t change federal or state enforcement of pesticide and herbicide regulation?
    • Correct

 
Denise Gentsch, Texas Seed Trade Association – For SB 1172

  • Would help members do business

 
Joy Casnovsky, Sustainable Food Center – Against SB 1172

  • Could restrict local control over seed regulation
  • Hinojosa – This bill doesn’t restrict what farmers can use
    • No, but it preempts local decisions about seed markets, can have implications in crop mixing or GMO contamination
  • Hinojosa – Seems like it would be difficult anyways to block seeds from local communities
  • Kolkhorst – So local jurisdictions/counties can dictate what plants you can plant?
    • Yes
  • Kolkhorst – Have any counties passed any seed type legislation?
    • No, preemptive strike to keep counties from doing this
  • Perry – Differing seed type regulations could cause chaos in the market, bill is not about GMOs, pesticide, or herbicide
    • Rodriguez – Bill has language referring to “cultivating plants,” this could include pesticide and herbicide
  • Perry – This tracks existing regulations, does not change any existing regulations on pesticide and herbicides
    • Rodriguez – I can see this bill negatively impacting local control
  • Without SB 1172, those local ordinances are already preempted by Agricultural Code
  • If pesticide and herbicide is having an impact, it should be a statewide initiative rather than a local regulation
  • Rodriguez – So the bill goes further and preempts local regulations on seeds?
    • Correct
  • Rodriguez – Seems like this would prohibit cities like Corpus Christi from replacing grasses with drought resistant grasses or something similar

 
Ryan Simpson, League of Independent Voters – Against SB 1172

  • Bill erodes local control and could prevent local entities from responding to problems

 
Judith McGeary, Farm and Ranch Freedom Alliance – Against SB 1172

  • Removes ability to address local concerns over seed planting, other states who have enacted legislation like this are now reconsidering
  • Bill “cultivation” language is unclear

 
Rebecca Sebald, Farmer – Against SB 1172

  • Crop dusters and pesticide ruined her grape crop, communities need help with regulations and addressing needs
  • Kolkhorst – When did this happen?
    • 2012
  • Perry – What was done to you was wrong, but there are remedies and repercussions; bill is about seeds and not about pesticides
  • Rodriguez – What does this bill have to do with your situation?
    • “Cultivation” could include all kinds of activities

 
Tom Tagliabue, Corpus Christi – On SB 1172

  • Has concerns over whether “cultivation” includes replacing grasses with drought tolerant grasses
  • Perry – Seems there some kind of balance to strike on this, will continue to work
  • Rodriguez – Are you aware of any cities regulating beyond their authority?
    • Not that I’m aware

 
John Clement, Austin – On SB 1172

  • Have concerns on ability of cities to re-cultivate after construction, Austin has a list of seeds that are appropriate for the area in and around the city
  • Hinojosa – There is a difference in talking about crops and city development efforts with grasses and erosion control, etc.
  • Perry – Are the seed lists mandatory?
    • In some instances yes

 
Sari Albornoz, Food Gardener – Against SB 1172

  • Important for local entities to be nimble to respond to needs, “cultivation” should be worked on
  • Neonicotinoids are a major concern

 
SB 1172 left pending