Photo: ©albradenphoto.com
By Cyrus Reed
Month two of the legislative session saw both the House Appropriations Committee and the Senate Finance Committee rev up their hearings and their decisions in anticipation of a state budget that will include increased funding for roads, education, clean air programs, local parks, and yes – tax relief. It also saw a smattering of bills filed on environmental issues, many of which were aimed at limiting the power of local government to implement or enforce environmental safeguards, and the power of citizens to contest permits to pollute.
The Only Bill that Must Pass: The Budget
SB 2
Budget discussions are moving at a fast pace. The full Senate Finance Committee heard from dozens of agencies and the public on the funding needs – and wants – of state agencies.
Overall, SB 2 – or the Appropriations Bill as filed in the Senate – increases funding for local parks and some state parks operations, but continues to underfund Parks and Wildlife on state park maintenance and construction as well as wildlife issues like aquatic invasive species. Senate Finance heard testimony from Sierra Club and others about the critical needs to maintain our parks system, and protect and conserve wildlife and habitat.
There was particular focus on funding clean air programs at the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ). Over the last dozen years, the amount of money sitting in an account (balance) in the Texas Emissions Reduction Program (TERP) has skyrocketed to more than $1 billion because the Legislature has failed to appropriate the fees to the program. TERP is designed to help replace large polluting trucks and other engines with cleaner burning vehicles and engines. Advocates, including Sierra Club, the Conference of Urban Counties, and even unlikely allies like the Texas Chemical Council submitted joint testimony calling for all $459 million generated over the next two years for TERP to be allocated to TERP. Senators heard a good and frank discussion about the need for these funds given the impending improvements to the ozone standard by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Similar testimony was received on LIRAP – the Low-Income Vehicle Repair and Replacement Program – that generates nearly $100 million through inspection fees over the two-year budget cycle. Unfortunately only $7 million is allocated currently in the House and Senate base bills.
The Senate is expected to break up into working groups early next month and begin “mark-up” of the budget for these and other agencies.
HB 1
The House Committee on Appropriations, however, is moving faster. Appropriations Chair Rep. John Otto (R-Dayton) named subcommittees in early February, and the subcommittee covering the natural resource agencies – known as Article VI – began mark-up in late February, presenting their recommendations to the wider committee on February 27.
Led by Rep. Larry Gonzales (R-Round Rock), the subcommittee recommended boosting local park grants by some $30 million to a total of $44 million over the biennium, and also funded some specific state projects like a visitors center at Franklin Mountains State Park in El Paso, and additional money to develop Palo Pinto State Park. Nonetheless, despite support for doing more, Gonzales and the subcommittee chose only to recommend approximately $5 million for state park maintenance projects, despite a list of parks needing more than $72 million for capital construction projects.
Legislation may be filed to create more flexibility for the Legislature to move funding between local and state parks, since currently dedicated funding from the sporting goods sales tax is spelled out in statutes. Basically, the subcommittee is being forced to over-allocate money for local parks as opposed to state parks. Other areas that have lacked funding support in the subcommittee include funds to repair Battleship Texas, and a grant for capital improvements at the Texas Aquarium. The subcommittee also did not recommend funding for coast-wide habitat monitoring and only adopted $3.6 million of a $18 million request to combat invasive aquatic species. These were important requests from the TPWD and the Sierra Club.
The subcommittee also considered increasing funding for LIRAP by $81 million (based on a recommendation by the Legislative Budget Board) as well as a recommendation to boost TERP funding by at least $81 million and perhaps much higher. However, Gonzales pended those items, stating that it was a decision for the whole House and Senate and leadership, not the subcommittee. In doing so, he was acknowledging the wide variety of bills that have been filed on TERP and LIRAP that might impact funding levels, as well as the wide support for doing something on funding these programs. TCEQ did receive some support for requests to fund sulfur dioxide monitors, infrared cameras for use in the oil and gas field, and for increased funding for water rights and water permitting programs.
Non-Budget Bills: Parks, TERP, LIRAP, and Highways
A number of legislators filed specific bills intended to better allocate funding to certain programs. Rep. Guillen (HB 82), Rep. Larson (HB 158) and Rep. Paul (HB 1078) filed identical legislation that all sporting goods sales tax be statutorily and constitutionally dedicated to the Historical Commission and TPWD. Sen. Nichols (SB 5) and Rep. Larry Phillips (HB 1370) also filed companion bills dedicating future sales tax on motor vehicles and other related taxes and fees to the state highway fund. Nichols’ bill was passed out of the Senate Transportation Committee on an 8-1 vote.
A variety of bills on LIRAP and TERP were also filed. The LIRAP bills are aimed at giving counties that actually collect LIRAP fees the power to spend the money without requiring the Legislature to actually appropriate them the money. Some TERP legislation is actually aimed at taking some of the TERP money to use for highway development.
Rep. Giddings (HB 1961) filed a bill to allow counties the option of collecting the fees and running the LIRAP programs themselves outside of the appropriation process, while Rep. Huberty (HB 1465) and Rep. Leach (HB 1030) would allow counties to authorize other types of programs using the LIRAP program. A bill by Rep. Leach (HB 1031) would take one-third of the TERP money and one-third of the LIRAP money and dedicate it to highway congestion mitigation projects.
Rep. Pickett (HB 624) and Rep. Hinojosa (SB 324) filed similar bills that would allow a portion of the TERP money to be used for highway funds. Rep. McClendon’s bill (HB 457) would take some TERP money and allow it to be used for rail relocation to improve congestion.
Sierra Club is generally opposed to efforts that would take money away from TERP and LIRAP that is not related to the fundamental purpose of those programs – to reduce air pollution from vehicles and other equipment. While some congestion mitigation projects might reduce air pollution, they would need to be carefully analyzed to make sure they were a cost-effective use of TERP or LIRAP funds and would actually improve air quality.
Bills on TERP that Sierra Club supports include HB 652 by Rep. Isaac and SB 603 by Sen. Hinojosa, which extend the dates of TERP programs by two years.
Legislators Attack Citizens and Cities
Following comments by Governor Greg Abbott in January, many legislators took it upon themselves to ensure that cities, counties, and local political subdivisions couldn’t pass any ordinances designed to protect their citizens. Ranging from the ability of cities to restrict or ban the drilling of oil and gas, to the ability of cities to restrict the sale of plastic bags, or even the ability of a city to adopt and implement local building codes designed to make buildings more energy efficient, many legislators seem intent on destroying local control. Apparently, under these proposals, the long arm of state government – meeting 140 days every two years – would determine what cities and counties can and cannot do.
Among the worst bills filed are HB 539 by Rep. Phil King, SB 440 and SB 720 by Rep. Burton, which are aimed at fracking bans. HB 1736 by Rep. Villalba is aimed at delaying state adoption of new building codes and limiting the ability of cities to adopt new building codes. HB 1939 by Rep. Rinaldi is aimed at banning ordinances related to plastic bags. HB 1442 by Rep. Workman is aimed at limiting the ability of cities to protect old growth trees. Perhaps worst of all is HB 1556 by Rep. Rick Miller, which appears to prohibit local governments from doing much of anything.
While some legislators want to limit the ability of cities to protect themselves from pollution, others want to limit the ability of cities, counties, landowners, and citizens to protest certain kinds of permits. Thus, some legislators seem intent on allowing those seeking water rights to get them faster by limiting the rights of those concerned. Rep. Leach (HB 201) and Sen. Van Taylor (SB 109) are literally carrying the water for certain water interests.
For other environmental permits, advocates for weakening the state’s long-standing Contested Case Hearing process received some beneficial help from Senate Natural Resources Committee Chair Troy Fraser and the new Chair of the Environmental Regulation Committee, Geanie Morrison, as they filed companion bills SB 709 and HB 1865. Among other provisions, the bills, which are sponsored by the Texas Chemical Council and the Texas Association of Business, would:
- Statutorily declare that any draft permit issued by the TCEQ is protective of public health and the environment;
- Limit the issues which may be discussed in a Contested Case Hearing before an Administrative Law Judge to only those issues determined by the Commission;
- Limit the time of the hearing to no more than 180 days;
- Limit who can participate in a hearing to only those who have submitted comments before the issues are sent to the State Office of Administrative Hearings (SOAH) for an initial hearing and limit the issues to only those issues initially identified by applicants.
Other legislators took aim at certain procedures within the contested case process. Rep. Clardy’s bill (HB 1113) attempts to limit standing for contested case hearings, and Rep. Smith’s bill (HB 1247) would shift the burden of proof from the applicant to the protestant.
Not All Bad News
While Sierra Club will be working to defend citizen and city’s rights to protect themselves, plenty of legislators took time to file legislation supported by the Sierra Club. On water, for example, Rep. Isaac (HB 1192) and Rep. Howard (HB 1902) filed good legislation on the use of “gray water”, while a number of good bills related to recommendations by the Legislative Budget Board to improve water planning and groundwater management were filed (HB 1635 and HB 928 by Rep. Guillen and SB 329 by Sen. Hinojosa).
Rep. Lucio III has a number of bills filed on groundwater management, water conservation funding, and better mapping of groundwater resources (HB 1232), while Sen. Uresti has filed an important bill that requires that groundwater districts be notified when a permit to dispose of oil and gas wastes or other wastes is within 10 miles of their district. Meanwhile, Sen. Seliger has proposed a bill that would allow the Water Conservation Advisory Council to make legislative recommendations to the Legislature (SB 551).
On energy efficiency, Rep. Clardy (HB 599) filed an excellent bill that allows the State Energy Conservation Office (SECO) to better manage energy saving performance contracts for university buildings – designed to save the state money and improve energy use performance. The bill was already heard in committee and Sierra Club testified in support.
Many other bills of support – and probably a variety of concern – will be filed before March 13 – the filing deadline for the 84th Legislature. Sierra Club will be watching.
[Editor’s Note: If you’d like to read any of the bills mentioned in this update, visit Texas Legislature Online at www.capitol.state.tx.us/MnuMyTLO.aspx.]