This Legislative EIS is a collaborative effort of the Lone Star Chapter staff: Tracy Arambula, Environmental Justice Director; Ken Kramer, Chapter Director; Fred Richardson, Communications Director; Erin Rogers, Grassroots Outreach Coordinator; Brian Sybert, Natural Resources Director; Aileen Truax, Development Director; and Jennifer Walker, Administrative Assistant. Fred Richardson compiled and edited the report.

The Sierra Club appreciates the use of many source documents compiled by a number of legislative staff, representatives of other environmental and public interest groups, and state agency staff that served as background for the reviews of legislation provided in this publication.

The Lone Star Chapter is grateful for the work of the organizations supporting the Alliance for a Clean Texas (ACT). The cooperative efforts of the Chapter and 20 other statewide organizations and over 100 regional and community-based organizations were critical to progress made on environmental issues during the 77^th Texas Legislature.

Aileen Truax, Lone Star Chapter Development Director, was instrumental in setting up the Legislative EIS receptions in several cities in Texas for the unveiling of this report.

The Lone Star Chapter of the Sierra Club wishes to express its appreciation to a number of Sierra Club volunteers and supporters for their assistance in the arrangements for the Legislative EIS events, especially Rita Beving, Margie & John Haley, Terry Sullivan, and Wendel Withrow in Dallas; Hector Gonzalez, Mary & Ben Bradshaw, Bill & Beth Lewis in San Antonio; and Frank Blake, Page Williams, Marsha Scott, and the Citizens Environmental Coalition in Houston.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction

This report, Actions and Decisions: 77^th Texas Legislature – An Environmental Impact Statement, produced by the Lone Star Chapter of the Sierra Club, represents the third such review of environmental and related legislation enacted or considered by the Texas Legislature during one of its regular biennial sessions. The initial "Legislative EIS" was prepared in 1997 to report on the work of the 75^th Texas Legislature, and the second EIS followed in 1999. The publication of these legislative reviews is a reflection of the high priority that the Lone Star Chapter of the Sierra Club places on monitoring and working to influence the actions of the State Legislature that affect the environment of Texas and the health of its people.

There were at least five factors that led to this legislative session being a positive one for environmental issues:

The environmental successes of this session were also due to the tremendous work done by state legislators too numerous to name here individually. Some of these individuals are noted in the reviews of various bills that follow. The support of others is demonstrated through their voting records on environmental issues, and those voting records are presented in this document. There is much more work to be done to protect the environment and the public health of Texans, but definite progress toward that end was made during the 77^th regular session.

This document describes legislation enacted by the Texas Legislature during the spring of 2001 that may effect the environment and natural resources of Texas as well as public health. An examination of some of the bills that did not pass the Legislature during the 2001 regular session is included as well. The bills included in that section are ones that might have affected the environment and public health either negatively or positively and that were judged to be important because of their topics or the likelihood that similar bills might be introduced in subsequent legislative sessions. This report does not present an all-inclusive list of the literally hundreds of bills that were tracked by the Lone Star Chapter of the Sierra Club, but it does describe some of the most interesting and significant bills.

Special attention has been given to five issues that reflected the priorities of the Lone Star Chapter and ACT during the 77^th session. These include reform of the TNRCC, closure of the grandfather loophole for dirty old polluters, radioactive waste management, sweeping water legislation known as SB 2, and parks and wildlife management. Each topic is discussed in a separate section of the report. Many other miscellaneous bills on issues ranging from fisheries management to fuel cell development are briefly summarized in four general sections organized according to final disposition of the bill and our judgement as to what the impact on the environment and public health will be or might have been.

The Legislative EIS includes an index to the subject matter of all bills reviewed. The index begins on p. 61. More information about the legislation discussed in this report as well as other legislation enacted by the 77^th Texas Legislature may be accessed from the Texas Legislature’s web site at www.capitol.state.tx.us.

An important feature of the Legislative EIS is the section on record votes. Separate voting records are presented for House and Senate members and were compiled from House and Senate journals as well as the Texas Legislative Service (TELICON) database. These voting records provide important information about how individual members voted on key environmental measures. They are helpful in holding legislators accountable for their actions.

Voting records, however, are not the only measure of a legislator’s actions on the environment or any other issue. Much of the action of the Legislature takes places away from the floor of the House or Senate (for example, the critical action on a bill may take place in the committee of jurisdiction or in the House Calendars Committee, which determines whether a bill is scheduled for House floor debate). Sometimes a legislator will give critical help behind the scenes to certain pieces of legislation but may not wish to be publicly known for providing that assistance.

Another problematic aspect of voting records is that many legislators wish to avoid record votes because they fear their votes will be used (and possibly misused) against them in a political campaign. Therefore, in some sessions there are relatively few record votes available for an evaluation of a legislator’s actions. That was the case again in the Texas House this session, where only a few record votes were deemed appropriate to use in this analysis. A voting record based on such a small number of votes is likely to give an incomplete view of how legislators act on the environment and related matters.

When used accurately and with regard for a legislator’s broader record and actions, voting records can be a useful tool for evaluating legislators and holding them accountable for their actions. But readers must remember that this is an imperfect tool, and should be used in conjunction with other forms of analysis in order to get a complete evaluation of a particular legislator.

The Lone Star Chapter of the Sierra Club hopes that this Legislative EIS will give Texans and others a good sense of how the environment and public health fared in the 77^th session. At the same time, however, what the Legislature enacts as law is only part of the process. Now comes the implementation by state agencies of these new laws and requirements. Sometimes the intention of the Legislature is not accurately or completely reflected in the administration of new laws. The true impact of the legislation enacted this session will be dependent upon numerous actions of state agencies over the coming months and years. As was the case during the legislative session itself, the Lone Star Chapter will be involved in monitoring the work of state agencies to help determine whether the laws passed in 2001 are implemented as intended, and yield the benefits promised to the people of Texas and the natural resources that sustain them.

Senate Bill 2 – Omnibus Water Legislation

The major legislative action on water issues this session centered on Senate Bill 2, sponsored by Sen. Buster Brown (R-Lake Jackson) and Rep. Ron Lewis (D-Mauriceville). This measure was characterized as building upon the regional water planning process initiated by legislation enacted as Senate Bill 1 in 1997 at the urging of then-Lt. Governor Bob Bullock. In some respects that was accurate, but the legislation also reflected a continuation of disputes that arose in the 1999 session about the establishment of single-county groundwater districts and a growing interest in the issue of transporting groundwater outside district boundaries to provide water for thirsty cities. Moreover, as initially filed, the bill sought to eliminate what Sen. Brown and others perceive as an impediment to interbasin transfer of surface water: the so-called "junior water rights" provision of the state water code that applies to such transfers.

SB 2 went through such a laborious and tortuous path in the Legislature and was revamped at so many points in the process that the only rationale way to report on the bill is to summarize the outcomes on some of the major issues that were included in the legislation at one point or another in the process. The overall judgment of the environmental community regarding SB 2 is that it has some positive provisions and avoids making any irrevocable decisions about funding of water infrastructure projects that could pose threats to the environment.

For example, on the positive side, the legislation strengthens the authority of groundwater districts (which are designated as the state’s preferred method of managing groundwater) and takes other affirmative steps toward addressing groundwater issues. SB 2 made some improvements in the regional water planning process, although it failed to address some important issues about the process that were raised by the environmental community and others. The legislation sets up an interim study that holds the promise of evaluating a wide range of water resource issues, including environmental concerns.

On the other hand, SB 2 establishes some new entities in state water resources policy that could prove to be problematic in the future: a Texas Water Advisory Council, a water infrastructure fund (but with no dedicated source of revenue at this time), and a rural water assistance fund (again with no source of revenue). Moreover, Sen. Brown, is on record as favoring a water system for the state that transports vast quantities of surface and groundwater by pipelines crossing the state, and the interim study will look at the issue of water "conveyance" and make recommendations to the next Legislature.

Following is a more specific account of some of the key issues swirling around SB 2:

Gone from the bill when it passed the Senate was a controversial provision in the filed version of SB 2 that would have repealed the "junior water rights" principle that applies to interbasin transfers of water. In 1997 the Texas House had forced the Senate to accept a provision in SB1 that established that any water right acquired for the purpose of transferring water out of one river basin to another would be junior to that of any other water right in the basin of origin. In other words, a junior water right would be honored only after all water rights designated for usage in the basin of origin had been satisfied in times of shortage.

The impact of that provision was characterized as dampening interest in interbasin transfers. The reasoning was that anyone acquiring a water right for an inter-basin transfer would not be very enthusiastic about having a right that would be subject to being curtailed first in times of drought before everyone else’s more senior water right.

Whether or not that assumption was correct, many have viewed the junior water rights provision as an impediment to interbasin transfers, and thus a safeguard for people in river basins who do not wish to cede their water to another basin. Among the most vocal supporters of the junior water rights provision are community and local government leaders in the Southeast Texas area (Beaumont-Port Arthur and its environs) and Sen. David Bernsen (D-Beaumont). Largely as a result of determined opposition from those quarters and from certain House leaders, Sen. Brown tactfully (and tactically) dropped the junior water rights repeal from SB 2 before the bill was reported out of committee. The issue was never raised again during the 77^th session.

Also gone from SB 2 by the time it passed the Senate were virtually all of the new revenue sources for financing water projects that had been in the original version of the bill. These revenue sources included a sales tax on water sales and a dollar per person tax to be collected by counties. These revenue mechanisms fell victim to opposition from various sources.

The only revenue-raising provision in the bill as passed by the Senate was a surcharge on the sale of bottled water, and no one has yet been able to calculate how much money that would generate. The House dropped the bottled water surcharge, and the conference committee on SB 2 did not reinstate it.

SB 2 does set up mechanisms, however, for receiving revenue for water projects if funding sources are later established or if appropriations are made for these purposes. The first financing mechanism is the Water Infrastructure Fund. The second is the Rural Water Assistance Fund. A separate legislative enactment, a proposed constitutional amendment enacted as HJR 81, would provide an initial $50 million out of a $2 billion dollar bond authorization increase for the Texas Water Development Board if the measure is approved by the voters in the fall of 2001.

Members of the environmental community believe that there is no demonstrated need for the Water Infrastructure Fund since there is already a series of funding programs for water projects through the Texas Water Development Board. A program tailored to meet specific rural water needs may be more justified, but no specific revenue source has been identified for that fund.

Clearly, however, the Legislature did not commit the billions of dollars that have been estimated by the SB 1 regional planning groups as needed to fund water projects to meet projected water needs by the year 2050. The Sierra Club and others disagree that the water needs will be as great as projected and thus disagree with the need for billions of dollars in new water funding. The regional plans call for a number of major new dams and pipelines to meet projected water demands, with a shocking price tag of almost $17 billion. Unfortunately, few of the regional plans did any extensive economic analysis of proposed projects to determine which, if any, make sense from a cost-benefit standpoint.

Consider for example that the Dallas region projects that it will "need" $6 billion of that $17 billion for new water projects. Yet the major water user in the region, Dallas, predicts a per capita water use figure over the next 30 years that is higher than that for any other major Texas city. Dallas projects a per capita water use of 264 gallons per day by 2030, almost twice the per capita use expected for San Antonio. It is the only major Texas city to predict an increase in per capita water use. If the per capita water use in Dallas was lowered to a more reasonable amount, a major dam proposed to provide water for the region could be eliminated.

This example raises serious questions about the claim that major new state funding for water projects is needed. It would have been premature for SB 2 to establish new sources of funding for dams and pipelines, especially with the large cost to ratepayers. Consumers deserve a more thorough review of the need for these projects, and state planners should prioritize projects before any financial commitment is made to build them. Indeed one of the positive outcomes of SB 2 is that regional planning groups will now be required to report to the Water Development Board on how they envision their proposed water projects would be funded. That should prompt closer scrutiny of the financial viability of these projects.

SB 2 creates a new Texas Water Advisory Council composed of 13 members, including the chairs and board members from several state agencies, two statewide elected officials, three Texas House members, two Texas Senators, and three members of the general public appointed by the governor (one representing groundwater management, one representing surface water management, and one representing the environmental community). The stated purpose of the Council is to "heighten the level of dialogue on significant water policy issues and, in an advisory role only, strive to provide focus and guidance on state water policy initiatives…."

In the original version of the bill the Council was known as the Policy Council rather than the Advisory Council, and there was much heartburn on the part of many water interests about what this new body might do. There was concern among some groups that eventually the Council would become a new layer of water bureaucracy in the state that, depending upon your point of view, was either going to promote a frenzy of dam and pipeline building or bring new water projects to a screeching halt. Concerns were raised that although greater coordination of state water policy activities and a heightened dialogue on state water issues may be advisable, the creation of a new state council is not necessary to achieve those goals. Lingering concerns of that nature resulted in an eventual compromise between the House and the Senate that "sunsets" the Council within four years unless the Legislature passes new legislation to continue this body.

SB 2 requires the new Council to review river authorities and other water districts similar to river authorities based on certain administrative policies and performance standards – the review would be done on a five-year cycle, and each authority or district would be required to prepare a "self-assessment" for the Council as part of the review process.

As enacted, SB 2 includes an extensive set of provisions regarding groundwater management. It ratifies the groundwater districts that were set up on a temporary basis by legislation enacted in 1999 and makes those districts permanent bodies, subject to confirmation by the voters within the district boundaries.

Most of the provisions are favorable to groundwater districts, which are reaffirmed as the preferred means of managing groundwater in Texas. The authority of districts to regulate wells is clarified to address recent state court decisions that had questioned whether districts had the power to modify the "rule of capture" through well regulation. SB 2 strengthens the enforcement powers of districts, allows them to regulate additional types of wells, and allows the districts to purchase groundwater rights for conservation purposes if the rights are permanently held in trust not to be produced.

SB 2, however, does establish a prohibition against a groundwater district rejecting a proposed permit for groundwater withdrawal if that rejection is based on the fact that the permit would result in the transfer ("export") of groundwater out of the district. What the districts get in return, among other things, is the ability to levy an export fee on water to be transferred out of the district.

An interesting side note on the export fee provision is that the version of the bill that passed the Senate included a "technical" amendment that would have been a boon to oilman, corporate raider and now water rancher T. Boone Pickens. The amendment exempted proposed transfers of groundwater from one district to another from all export fees if the export application was filed prior to April 2001. Pickens, who plans to pump water from a Panhandle aquifer and send it to Texas cities to the south, was one of just two parties in the state to have a groundwater export application on file when the Senate passed SB 2. The exemption was added by the sponsor on the Senate floor as part of a set of "technical" amendments. That exemption was removed in the House, however, and was not restored by the conference committee on SB 2.

In addition, the final version of the bill that was signed by the governor contains the following provisions on groundwater:

Ensuring adequate flows in our rivers and streams is critical—without it we lose birds and wildlife, along with favorite summertime activities like canoeing, swimming, and fishing. Moreover, the ability of a stream to cleanse itself of pollution depends greatly on the amount of water flow. In our coastal regions, freshwater flows into bays and estuaries is critical for sustaining aquatic life in the Gulf of Mexico, as well as the tourism and recreational and commercial fishing that depend upon a healthy ecosystem. This realization has not occurred yet for most Texas legislators, and thus SB 2 missed a good opportunity to enhance protection of instream flows.

As it passed the Senate, SB 2 did include provisions to enhance protection of in-stream uses. The Senate version of the bill:

Unfortunately, despite support for instream use protections by House Natural Resources Committee Chair David Counts (D-Knox City), the House removed all of those provisions from the bill except for the one dealing with studies, and that was modified somewhat. None of the other provisions were included in the conference committee report on the bill, which was the final version of SB 2. The House is on record, however, as saying that the instream use issue needs to be addressed as part of the interim study set up by SB 2.

The first round of regional planning under SB 1 was a good starting point for an extensive evaluation of water supply needs and a consideration of ways of meeting those needs. The process needs to be more comprehensive, however, in addressing water resource issues. As enacted, SB 2 requires that:

Unfortunately, SB 2 does not include language to clarify that regional planning groups must recommend strategies for meeting environmental water needs, as well as assess the expected environmental impacts of proposed water management strategies. Nor does the bill require a cost-benefit analysis of proposed water projects.

SB 2 establishes a Joint Committee on Water Resources, a legislative interim study composed of three House members and three Senate members. The committee is required to conduct an interim study and make recommendations on the following topics:

The committee is required to receive information about encouraging the effective development of water marketing and water movement, prioritizing the use of state funds for financing water development, and identifying reasonable mechanisms, including measures for encouraging donation of water rights, for protecting instream uses. The committee is supposed to complete and submit a report to the Legislature by November 1, 2002.

There are many other provisions of SB 2 dealing with specific topics that were included at various points in the legislative process – provisions too numerous to describe in this review of legislative action. The full text of SB 2 is available online from the Legislature’s web site.

In general terms, the environmental community said that in order to be effective, SB 2 had to protect current volumes of river and stream flows, enhance the water planning process, protect groundwater, and steer clear of funding new water project boondoggles. SB 2 failed to meet that first test, except through the establishment of study requirements for in-stream uses and the potential for addressing the issue as part of the interim study. On the other measures, the outcome was more positive. Ultimately, the implementation of SB 2 and the outcome of the interim study will determine whether our lawmakers choose a common sense approach to water resource management that protects the environment while meeting human needs, or whether they gamble on a statewide plumbing system that might end up filling the cup of water profiteers while emptying our rivers, streams, and aquifers. The jury is still out.

Texas Parks & Wildlife (TPW) Sunset Review & Appropriations

Texas Parks & Wildlife performs a wide array of diverse functions that directly affect the ecological health of Texas. Some of the agency's functions include land conservation, wildlife management, water resources management, management of commercial fisheries, and enforcement of conservation regulations.

SB 305, the TPW sunset bill, will reauthorize the agency for another twelve years. Authored by Sen. Chris Harris (R-Arlington) and Rep. Fred Bosse (D-Houston), a key provision is a requirement that TPW prepare a "Land and Water Resources Conservation" plan. The agency will inventory all land and water associated with historical, natural, recreational, and wildlife resources in the state that are owned by governmental and non-profit entities that provide public access. The inventory will then be used to develop a conservation plan that will guide future agency decisions on how to meet the state's growing conservation and recreation needs. While it is unfortunate that land holdings of the School Land Board, the General Land Office, and the Permanent University Fund will be exempted from analysis and inclusion in the plan, the implementation of this policy is a significant gain for the natural environment and recreation in Texas.

The Sunset Commission reviewed the issue of increased funding for conservation and recreation. The commission suggested that the Legislature should lift the $32 million dollar cap on the sporting goods sales tax, or alternatively, approve general obligation bonds for the acquisition and development of parks and conservation lands. Unfortunately, this bill does not address this recommendation. Funding for TPW was addressed by the House Appropriations and Senate Finance committees through the appropriations bill.

In addition, the bill states that when making appointments to the Parks & Wildlife Commission, the governor shall attempt to include persons with expertise in historic preservation, conservation and outdoor recreation. The bill also prohibits a person from being a commission member if that person or their spouse is licensed by a regulatory agency in the field of conservation, outdoor recreation, or commercial fishing.

SB 305 also changes the way in which the Parks & Wildlife Commission operates. Now the committees of the commission which have five commission members or more serving on the committee must provide an opportunity for public testimony in an open meeting before making a major decision. Before the passage of SB 305 the committees of the commission did not accept public testimony before making major decisions. Since the bulk of the agency’s major decisions are made in committee meetings, this practice greatly limited public involvement in the commission's decision-making.

SB 305 prohibits TPW from advertising tobacco products in department publications. In the past, tobacco advertisements have provided funding for department activities. The bill requires the commission to adopt policies that govern fund-raising activities of agency employees on behalf of TPW and also requires the state auditor to audit the fund-raising activities of the department.

SB 305 requires TPW to develop a business plan for statewide commercial projects. All statewide commercial ventures undertaken by TPW must be justified by the business plan. Under this section of the bill, the agency must adjust or terminate a statewide commercial project that fails to meet the financial objectives stated in the plan.

SB 305 allows TPW to select and cooperate with non-profit partners to further agency goals. The department must obtain the approval of the commission for all collaborations with non-profit partners.

SB 305 also requires TPW to coordinate with Texas Historical Commission on the preservation of historical sites.

The bill requires the department to conduct a comprehensive study of the shrimp fishery and shrimp industry. The study will be used to determine the ecological health of the fishery and the economic health of the industry. Future policies regulating the shrimp industry will be based on the results of this study.

The funding package for staffing and operational expenses is earmarked primarily for the World Birding Center, Franklin Mountains State Park and Wyler Aerial Tramway, Chinati Mountains State Natural Area, Devil's Sinkhole State Natural Area, Lake Casa Blanca International State Park, Fort Boggy State Park, Government Canyon State Natural Area and Lake Tawakoni State Park.

In addition to the $5 million state parks annual funding package the appropriations bill restores TPW's entrepreneurial spending authority. This provision of the bill authorizes TPW to spend funds that the agency generates from its own entrepreneurial activities.

The Legislative Budget Board estimates that TPW will generate $1.2 million from programs such as the bluebonnet and horned lizard conservation license plates. TPW is also expected to generate an estimated $9 million over the biennium in entrepreneurial revenue for wildlife and fisheries funding. This includes revenues generated by the $3 surcharge on saltwater sportfishing stamps dedicated for the buy-back of commercial fishing licenses.

SB 1 also requires TPW to begin recovering costs that result from administering and managing commercial fisheries. To recover these costs TPW will have to increase fees for commercial fishing licenses.

SB 1 also approves a 4 percent pay increase for all state employees and an escalated bonus pay scale to reduce staff turnover. Unfortunately the pay increase and escalated bonus pay scale will have to be paid for out of the agency's available revenue since no addition funds to cover these costs are appropriated in SB 1.

RADIOACTIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT

Radioactive waste remains deadly for hundreds of thousands of years. The debate about what to do with the waste in Texas has raged on for not quite as many years, but has driven citizen participation in the issue for at least 20 years. During that time, the Sierra Club and other citizen groups have again and again forced the nuclear industry and state officials away from cheap and easy solutions such as dumping the waste in underground trenches in the backyards of low income, Mexican American communities. The 77^th legislative session was filled with more drama and controversy, but in the end no radioactive waste legislation was passed and no nuclear waste disposal facility will be built in the next 2 years. Citizens walked away with another victory under their belts and momentum to build support for safer radioactive waste solutions during the interim.

The showdown over radioactive waste began before the session started, with dueling House and Senate interim studies and dueling waste disposal companies. The House Environmental Regulation Committee study proposed that the state own the license for waste disposal and that assured isolation (above ground management) become an option for dealing with waste that Texas could accept under its compact with Vermont and Maine. (The Texas Compact, ratified by Congress in 1998, provides that if Texas builds a radioactive waste disposal facility it will accept waste from Vermont and Maine.) On the other hand, the Senate Natural Resources Committee interim study proposed that a private company be allowed to obtain a radioactive waste management license and permitted to dispose of nuclear weapons waste from the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). While compact waste from Texas, Maine, and Vermont is expected to be approximately 2.7 million cubic feet over the 35-year lifespan of the compact, estimates on the volume for DOE waste reach into the hundreds of millions of cubic feet over the next ten years.

Similarly, two radioactive waste disposal companies were vying for business in Texas. Envirocare, with land for a possible site in Ward County, was lobbying for a state-owned license and the use of assured isolation. Waste Control Specialists, with a radioactive waste processing facility already located in Andrews County, was lobbying for privatization and below-ground dumping. But just weeks before the legislative session began Envirocare agreed to abandon operations in Texas pursuant to a lawsuit settlement with Waste Control Specialists. Additional pressure was focused on Texas by a court order that DOE clean up 50 years of cold war radioactive mess at over 70 sites throughout the country, as well as the Bush administration’s newly announced energy policy, which calls for the creation of a new generation of nuclear power plants if a cheap disposal option for existing waste and dismantled plants is found.

Tension was high when the session began in January. The Lone Star Chapter and the West Texas-based Texas Radioactive Waste Defense Coalition agreed on nine principles for radioactive waste management which were turned into legislation and filed by Rep. Lon Burnam (see list of bills at the end of this section). The Sierra Club and others prepared to fight the mammoth lobby team of Waste Control Specialists (which had contributed over $600,000 to state officials since 1997), as well as Texas’ nuclear utility giants. Since Waste Control Specialists opened its Andrews County site in 1995 the company has lost $77 million. By passing a bill that would allow it to break into the DOE waste clean-up market, Waste Control hoped to turn its losses into billions in profit.

Senator Robert Duncan (R-Lubbock) introduced SB 1541 only hours before the filing deadline in March. The 100-page bill was kept a secret from all but a few key legislators and industry lobbyists until it was filed. The bill allowed private companies to be licensed to import and dispose of massive amounts of radioactive waste at up to three separate disposal facilities, while transferring ownership of and liability for the waste to the state taxpayers. Senator Duncan invited the Sierra Club, along with several industry groups, to testify at the first Senate Natural Resources Committee hearing on the bill. After many meetings with Senator Duncan, grassroots pressure, and media publicity, Senator Duncan re-wrote the bill and removed many of the worst provisions. The new version attempted to limit the amount of waste imported to Texas and bar the importation of DOE waste. The number of disposal facilities was reduced from three to one.

The next significant action on the bill came when, in the words of one lobbyist, Senator Teel Bivins (R-Amarillo) "hijacked" Duncan’s bill by getting enough votes in a Senate Natural Resources Committee meeting to add a 16-page amendment restoring many of the provisions Senator Duncan had deleted. With four members of the committee present, Senators Brown, Duncan, and Lucio voted for the amendment while Senator Duncan voted against it. The Bivins amendment called for the creation of two private dumps—one for compact waste and one for virtually unlimited amounts of DOE waste, including a new category called "mixed waste": radioactive waste mixed with hazardous chemicals. The amendment was tailor-made for (if not written by) Waste Control Specialists.

The Lone Star Chapter and other organizations and individuals from across the state worked hard to convince 10 Senators to block the bill when it came to the Senate floor. Because Senator Bivins and Waste Control Specialists had convinced more than a majority of the Senate to vote for the bill, the Sierra Club and others attempted to take advantage of Senate rules that require a two-thirds majority of the Senate to bring any bill to the floor. This rule creates a situation in which 10 Senators can block a bill.

All of those who endeavored to find 10 votes to block consideration were bitterly disappointed when the bill was set for debate on the May 2 Senate calendar and only nine senators voted to block the bill (Sierra Club Senate record vote #5, p. 59). Senator Eliot Shapleigh (D-El Paso) offered an amendment to strip the provisions added by Bivins in committee, with Senators Duncan and Truan joining him to object to Bivins’ amendment. Unfortunately, Senator Shapleigh’s attempt to exclude DOE waste failed in a 16 to 13 vote (Senate record vote #6, p. 59), and the bill passed the Senate 19 to 10 (Senate record vote #7, p. 59).

Editorial opposition to the bill poured forth after the Senate vote, with the Austin American Statesman, Waco Tribune-Herald, Dallas Morning News, Alpine Observer and the El Paso Times all strongly denouncing the bill. The Houston Chronicle ran a guest editorial against the bill by a Houston-area Sierra Club member.

On April 3, the House Environmental Regulation Committee held a hearing on all radioactive waste bills filed in the House. A list of those bills and how they fared can be found at the end of this section. Many citizens from West Texas and Austin testified that afternoon against HB 3240, the House companion to SB 1541, and in favor of a slate of bills proposed by the Texas Radioactive Waste Defense Coalition and carried by Rep. Lon Burnam.

The Environmental Regulation Committee did not vote on any bills that day. Instead, Chairman Warren Chisum (R-Pampa) waited until SB 1541 was approved by the Senate and sent to the House. He then re-wrote the bill, changing several small but significant provisions, including a requirement that a private company actually build a facility for Texas Compact waste. This was significant because Bivins’ amendment included no requirement that a licensed private operator that establishes a highly profitable disposal site for DOE waste also establish a site to handle much smaller and less profitable amounts of Compact waste. Advocates of the legislation habitually justified it as necessary to fulfill Texas’ "obligations" under the Compact. (It should be noted that the Compact does not obligate Texas to build a radioactive waste disposal site).

On May 15^th the Environmental Regulation Committee met to vote on SB 1541. Despite

considerable grassroots pressure on committee members to strip the Bivins amendment from the bill, it was approved with the DOE waste provision intact.

SB 1541 was sent to the House Calendars Committee on May 19, only one day before the last House Calendar could be set according to House rules. The Lone Star Chapter, Public Citizen, League of Conservation Voters and numerous citizens from across the state worked to generate calls, letters and visits to Calendars Committee members. On Sunday, May 20^th at 7:00 PM—only 5 hours before the deadline to set the very last House Calendar—the Committee voted 5 to 3 against placing the bill on the calendar, thereby killing the bill. Rep. Debra Danburg (D-Houston) led the charge against the bill, with Representatives Harold Dutton (D-Houston), Brian McCall (R-Plano), Jim Solis (D-Harlingen), and Senfronia Thompson (D-Houston) also voting against it. Representatives Kim Brimer (R-Fort Worth), Gary Walker (R-Plains) and Chairman Barry Telford (D-De Kalb) voted to set the bill on the House calendar.

One last-ditch attempt was made to pass the bill by attaching a crucial element of SB 1541 to another bill as an amendment on the House floor. At 11:30pm on May 22, half an hour before the deadline for passing all bills, Rep. Ron Wilson (D-Houston) offered an amendment to a minor bill relating to the definition of hazardous waste. Wilson’s amendment to privatize radioactive waste disposal would have opened the floodgates to federal weapons waste. The amendment was withdrawn after Rep. Burnam raised a point of order against it, but it was quickly re-written and offered again. This time, several Representatives gathered at the microphone to "chub" (the House version of a filibuster) the bill until the midnight deadline, preventing passage of any legislation to privatize radioactive waste disposal.

Other Legislation Related to Radioactive Material

This bill, as originally filed, would have weakened the financial assurance requirements for uranium mining companies. At least 2 uranium mining companies in Texas have recently threatened bankruptcy in order to raid their clean-up trust funds to pay executive salaries and the opening of new mines. Sierra Club and others alerted Rep. Chisum of the need for greater, not lesser, financial scrutiny of the uranium mining companies. Rep. Chisum agreed, and re-wrote the bill. The new version of the bill deals mainly with fees and penalties for those who are licensed to use radioactive materials, and with the inspection of mammography machines.

Passed out of House and Senate committees but never taken up by the full Senate, this bill would have deleted a cartographic "box" around Sierra Blanca in Hudspeth County, Texas that exists in current law. The law currently stipulates that a radioactive waste disposal facility run by the state must be located within this box.

Attempted to close a gaping loophole in the Texas-Maine-Vermont radioactive waste compact that allows governor-appointed compact commissioners to vote to import unlimited amounts of nuclear power plant waste from other states to be dumped at a Texas disposal facility. This bill required the compact commissioners to take an oath to vote against accepting waste from any state besides Maine or Vermont.

Would have created a Texas Low-Level Radioactive Waste Management Authority to hold the license for long-term radioactive waste management. The authority could then contract with one or more private companies to operate one or more disposal facilities.

Would have required the host county of a radioactive waste disposal facility and all adjacent counties to hold a voter referendum on the siting of the facility. A waste disposal facility could be licensed only after an affirmative vote.

A 50-page bill that defined assured isolation, required the state to hold the license for radioactive waste disposal of assured isolation, removed the box around Hudspeth County, prohibited waste disposal within 100 km of the border, attempted to close the compact loophole, mandated that the disposal or assured isolation facility be built in West Texas, among other things.

The House companion to SB 1541.

Indoor Air Quality & Asbestos Regulation

Thanks to the efforts of small group of dedicated lawmakers, significant progress was made on indoor air quality and asbestos regulation during the 77^th session. Representatives Charlie Geren and Garnet Coleman authored bills that will make Texas the national leader in state-level regulation of building materials containing asbestos. Public health in Texas should also benefit from a heightened awareness of the threats posed by toxic mold and volatile organic compounds that are all too common in homes, work places and schools. This heightened awareness was fostered by a series of reports in the Austin American Statesman, by homeowner outrage at insurance companies that have tried to eliminate coverage for mold from homeowners' policies, and by the diligent work of Rep. Elliott Naishtat (D-Austin) and Sen. Mike Moncrief (D-Fort Worth).

Requires that a person who removes resilient floor covering material complete a training course covering such work practices for a minimum of eight hours. The statute also repeals the $5,000 limit on civil penalties for violations of the licensing and registration requirements of the Texas Asbestos Health Protection Act concerning resilient floor covering removal.

Would have required school districts to regularly assess the indoor air quality of public school buildings.

Current indoor air quality guidelines for public schools are voluntary and only offer schools general guidance regarding conditions that may cause poor indoor air quality. Indoor air pollutants in schools can come from several sources including furniture, carpeting, walls, ceilings, bookcases, chalkboards, and computers, as well as toxic forms of mold. Schools also have a variety of problem areas such as kitchens, cafeterias, science labs, and cleaning storage areas.

Would have established mandatory indoor air quality guidelines for newly constructed or substantially renovated schools. The bill also would have prohibited a school district from using state funds to make payments on bonds issued for the construction or renovation of a school unless the district obtained a copy of a survey conducted promptly after the construction or renovation is complete that analyzes the facility's overall indoor air quality.

In 1991 the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court overturned a 1989 EPA rule that had banned most uses of asbestos, particularly in building products. Since the court's decision, the use of asbestos has become prevalent once again, despite the fact that schools and other public entities have spent millions of dollars removing asbestos from their buildings. Prior to HB 1927, Texas law required that asbestos be removed from public buildings, but ironically, there was no prohibition against installing new asbestos products in the same buildings. This legal wrinkle resulted in one Texas school removing old asbestos material at the same time that new floor tile containing asbestos was being installed! Thanks to HB 1927, Texas is the first state in the nation to ban the installation or reinstallation of asbestos in public buildings. Rep. Geren's bill establishes a civil remedy for enforcement.

Prohibits a municipality that issues a renovation or demolition permit for a public or commercial building from doing so unless the applicant provides acceptable evidence that an asbestos survey has been completed or a licensed asbestos surveyor, engineer or architect has certified the lack of asbestos in the affected parts of the building. Current law requires a survey for asbestos building materials to be completed and any existing asbestos to be abated before any demolition or renovation of a public or commercial building, but the compliance rate is low. SB 509 should greatly improve compliance. Texas is the first state in the country to establish such a requirement.

SB 5: Incentives for Air Pollution Reductions

A great deal of debate during the 77^th legislative session centered upon the adoption of legislation that would enable Texas to achieve compliance with federal air quality standards. A major piece of legislation that received broad bipartisan support because of its emphasis on incentive-based voluntary emissions reductions is SB 5, sponsored by Sen. Buster Brown (R-Lake Jackson) and Rep. Steve Wolens (D-Dallas). The provisions of this legislation are a direct response to the State Implementation Plan (SIP) adopted by the TNRCC. The bill establishes a program to provide grants and other financial incentives for emissions reductions and alternatives to certain components of the current SIP. The legislation authorizes the TNRCC to manage all program funds and to submit the provisions of the bill as a revision to the SIP.

SB 5 establishes the Texas Emissions Reduction Plan (TERP), a $133 million annual program, with the majority of funds going to non-attainment areas, such as Houston and Dallas. A major component of TERP is the Diesel Emissions Reduction Incentive Program, which provides incentives to construction companies to invest in cleaner-burning diesel engines. These rewards are designed to offset costs for projects that reduce nitrogen oxide emissions from heavy trucks and construction equipment. A major source of funding for this incentive-based program is through surcharges that will be placed on the sale or lease of construction equipment and heavy diesel trucks, as well as heavy truck registration fees.

The TERP program also benefits from a $75,000 per-ton contribution to the incentive fund in exchange for the offset of SIP requirements above reductions in excess of 80% for facilities in the Houston/Galveston and Dallas/Ft. Worth non-attainment areas. As a measure to prevent abuse of this loophole, facilities that exceed the reductions limit must demonstrate compliance within 5 years of the date mandated in the SIP. Further, environmental advocates requested that language be maintained in SB 5 to ensure that funds acquired under TERP by the offset of emissions reductions ordered by the SIP be used to benefit the community in which the offsetting emissions reductions are made.

A contentious aspect of the funding structure of the TERP program is a provision requiring an increase in the first-time car registration fee for out-of-state registrants—a sharp increase from $1 to $255. In contrast, an incentive of the TERP program for car buyers will be the eligibility for cash rebates of up to $5,000 for purchasing certain clean-engine cars such as the Honda Civic.

There are a number of provisions in SB 5 that create an innovative structure of incentives for finding long-term solutions Texas’ air quality crisis:

Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission (TNRCC)

Sunset Review

The lengthy TNRCC legislative reauthorization process, commonly known as a sunset review, began in 1999 with the appointment of four members of the Texas House of Representatives, four members of the Texas Senate, and two members of the public to the Texas Sunset Advisory Commission.

During the same year, several statewide environmental and public interest organizations joined together under the banner of the Public Interest Sunset Working Group (PISWG). In an ambitious effort, PISWG set out to identify ways that the TNRCC could improve its functions as an agency existing to protect public health, the environment and citizens’ rights. In cooperation with landowners, grassroots community groups and concerned individuals across the state, PISWG compiled a list of recommendations for TNRCC reform. During a two-day public hearing before the Sunset Commission on June 21, 2000, citizen testimonies from across the state made evident a groundswell of concerns that needed to be addressed.

Overall, the Texas Sunset Advisory Commission made significant recommendations to the Legislature for improving the TNRCC, but PISWG and concerned citizens felt its recommendations fell short of the comprehensive changes that were necessary to make the TNRCC a strong pollution control agency.

In the legislative phase of the sunset review process, the Lone Star Chapter joined with 20 religious, consumer and public interest groups in the Alliance for a Clean Texas (ACT). At the advent of the legislative session, ACT joined with PISWG to identify eight priority reform goals for the TNRCC that were not adopted by the Commission. In concert with ACT, several state lawmakers launched a reform agenda at a January 17^th press conference. State Representative Ruth Jones McClendon (D-San Antonio) led the effort with the unveiling of a package of reform legislation.

The unified effort of ACT members and legislators resulted in a number of meaningful reform provisions that will give citizens useful tools to protect themselves from polluters—more than half of the eight original priorities identified in January were achieved or partially achieved in the final version of the TNRCC sunset bill.

The TNRCC sunset bill (HB 2912) and all related legislation were heard in the House Environmental Regulation Committee on March 20^th. During the nine-hour hearing, an impressive showing of citizens and organizations from across the state testified before the committee and Chairman Warren Chisum. All bills were left pending in committee. Some of the reform bills were folded into a revised HB 2912, which was approved by the committee on March 29^th. However, many of the most important reform provisions were left out of the committee rewrite of the bill.

The House floor debate was a promising opportunity for legislators to add a number of floor amendments, many of which were ACT priorities. During the twelve-hour debate, the House considered 150 amendments.

Reform provisions adopted on the House floor as amendments were:

Prior to reaching the Senate Natural Resources Committee, HB 2912 spent a number of suspenseful days in the hands of Sen. Chris Harris (R-Arlington) and his staff as they rewrote the Senate version of HB 2912. When the bill was finally made available just minutes prior to the public hearing, ACT quickly learned that, as suspected and feared, Sen. Harris had either stripped or altered a number of good provisions in the House version, undermining the potential for meaningful reform at the TNRCC. Following is a list of important provisions Harris stripped from the bill that needed to be restored as amendments by the Senate Committee:

The May 3^rd Senate committee meeting consisted of compelling public testimony lasting until midnight. The committee was obliged to reconvene the next day to vote on the Sunset bill and multiple amendments with little time to examine the implications of their votes. Sen. David Bernsen (D-Beaumont) requested postponement of the vote to further examine the legislation, but his request was denied.

Notable amendments considered at the May 4^th meeting were:

In addition to restoring a few critical provisions that were stripped from the House version of HB 2912, ACT focused its efforts for the May 14^th floor debate on supporting Sen. Bernsen’s amendment to close the Grandfather Loophole so that Rep. Chisum’s weaker House amendment would not prevail in the final version of HB 2912.

Reform amendments adopted on the Senate floor were:

· Closure of the Grandfather Loophole, Sen. Bernsen

Required the permitting of grandfathered facilities, including 50% reductions of nitrogen oxide emissions from pipeline facilities in East Texas and the installation of 10 year-old Best Available Control Technology at most grandfathered facilities.

· Raise the Fee Cap on Pollution Volume Discounts, Sen. Barrientos

Raised the 4,000 ton per year cap on pollution fees to 8,000, generating more revenue for

air quality programs and decreasing the anti-competitive burden placed on small businesses.

Only one reform provision was rejected on the Senate floor:

· Change the Mission Statement, Sen. Carlos Truan (D-Corpus Christi)

This amendment would have changed the mission of the TNRCC by completely excluding economic development from the agency’s mission statement.

The House and Senate versions of the bill were sent to a conference committee consisting of Representatives Bosse, Puente, Dukes, Chisum and Counts, and Senators Harris, Bernsen, Bivins, Sibley and Armbrister. The conference committee negotiated a compromise and sent it back to the House and Senate on Sunday, May 28^th, the last day of the session. A comprehensive list of positive reforms adopted in the final version of HB 2912 is as follows:

· Closure of the Grandfather Loophole

Requires permitting of grandfathered facilities, with requirements that grandfathers in the eastern half of Texas install pollution controls by 2006 and pipelines in the East make 50% cuts in annual NOx emissions. For more, see the following section, Grandfather Loophole Closed after 30 Years.

· Consideration of Cumulative Impacts

Requires the TNRCC to develop and implement policies to consider the cumulative impacts of pollution when issuing new permits or expansion permits and to give priority in enforcement and monitoring to areas in which regulated facilities are concentrated. This is an important environmental justice provision that community groups have been seeking for years.

· Increased Public Participation in TNRCC Decision-Making

The Sunset bill gives citizens better access to agency information and a number of new avenues for influencing permitting and enforcement decisions. For example, the TNRCC must now post advisory committee meeting minutes, pending permit and enforcement actions, compliance histories, violations by repeat offenders, and emissions inventories on its website. The TNRCC must also accept complaints via the Internet, keep better complaint files, and conduct an annual complaint analysis. Finally, the TNRCC must accept citizen-gathered evidence in enforcement cases. These are all provisions that industry adamantly opposed.

· Limited Role of Executive Director in Contested Case Hearings

The TNRCC Executive Director (ED) is infamous for defending polluters and opposing citizens in permit hearings. This provision will restrict the ED to participating in a limited number of cases and reduce his or her role to providing administrative information for the record. The ED will also no longer be allowed to help pollution permit applicants meet the burden of proof in contested case hearings.

· Response to After-Hours Complaints

Requires the TNRCC to establish policies for timely response to after-hours complaints.

· Change the Mission Statement

Requires the TNRCC to change the wording of its mission statement from "encourage economic development" to "consider economic development." This language was a compromise between House and Senate versions.

· Broad Definition of Compliance History

Requires the TNRCC to develop a broad definition of compliance history and to use this history in permitting and enforcement decisions, such as whether or not a facility receives an announced or unannounced inspection.

· Increased Accountability for Upset Emissions

Requires the TNRCC to develop a program for the tracking and reduction of upset, maintenance, startup and shutdown emissions. This provision also clarifies the burden of proof for justifying upset, maintenance, startup and shutdown emissions.

· Class B Sludge

This provision requires a permit for the land application of Class B sludge.

· Joint Interim Study on the Role and Authority of the Office of Public Interest Counsel

Requires the Legislature to conduct an interim study on the possible need for an Independent Public Interest Counsel and what role and authority the Counsel might have.

Just as HB 2912 was approved by the House with just one noticeably problematic amendment, so too did the conference report emerge with just one problematic amendment attached—Rep. Capelo’s amendment on the diesel fuel rule.

The Conference Committee failed to adopt a few other important provisions prioritized by ACT. These provisions will likely experience a reincarnation as bills or amendments in the 78^th legislative session:

GRANDFATHER LOOPHOLE CLOSED AFTER 30 YEARS

During the 2000 presidential election campaign, then-Texas Governor George W. Bush touted his voluntary program for asking industrial polluters to clean up plants that had long been exempted from the state’s clean air law. Bush and his staff developed the "Voluntary Emissions Reduction Program"(VERP) prior to the campaign specifically in order to deflect expected criticism that he had done nothing to compel "grandfathered" polluters to reduce the massive amounts of smog-forming materials they produce each year.

When the VERP plan was enacted at the end of the 76^th session in 1999, the program was met by skepticism from environmental advocates who had argued in favor of mandatory controls for grandfathered polluters. Still, when Bush began his campaign for the presidency his VERP program was almost new, and he asked critics to give the program time to yield results. But by the time that Bush assumed the presidency in January 2001—and the Texas Legislature convened its 77^th session the same month—the failure of the VERP program had become painfully obvious: of almost 800 facilities that remained grandfathered in 2000, only one had actually obtained a VERP permit from the TNRCC by the beginning of 2001. The 75 annual tons of grandfathered emissions from the sole permitted facility, Southline Metals of Houston, represented less than one tenth of one percent of the roughly 500,000 tons of air pollution produced by grandfathered facilities in 2000.

The lack of progress in reducing grandfathered air pollution between the 76^th and 77^th sessions was underscored by growing pressure on state policy makers to find solutions to the air quality crisis in Texas’ major cities. Seven metropolitan regions in the state--El Paso, Beaumont/Port Arthur, Dallas/Fort Worth, Austin, Houston, San Antonio, and Longview/Tyler/Marshall—have been declared non-attainment or near non-attainment areas for federal air quality standards. The culmination of the Texas air quality crisis came in 1999 when Houston topped Los Angeles for the number of days in the year that the city violated federal limits on one-hour ozone levels. In effect, Houston had become the smoggiest city in the country. It retained that distinction in 2000.

For the purposes of complying with the federal air quality standards, Texas’ greatest problem is with emissions of "criteria" pollutants such as nitrogen oxide (NOx), and carbon monoxide (CO), key ingredients in smog. According to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency data, Texas led the nation in NOx production in 1998 (latest year for available statistics), with ozone season daily average releases of 5,498 tons. By comparison, California ranked third with daily averages of 3,379 tons. Texas ranked second nationally in releases of carbon monoxide, with 6.7 million tons released in 1998. For a third class of criteria pollutants, volatile organic compounds (VOCs), Texas ranked second nationally with 1.59 million tons released.

In addition to Texas’ heavy smog problem, Texas led the nation in toxic air pollution emissions in 1997 and ranked 2^nd overall in 1998. According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Toxic Release Inventory, Texas industries spewed 119 million pounds of toxins into the atmosphere in 1998. While total emissions of these compounds are small compared to the "criteria" air pollutants that create smog—they are measured in pounds, not tons—their potential impact on human health can be great.

While environmental advocates had argued for years that poor air quality in Texas was a major public health problem, it seems that the threat of losing tens of millions of dollars in federal highway funds has been an even more compelling factor in prompting Texas lawmakers and regulators to seek air quality improvements.

In order to reduce emissions of smog-forming materials and other pollutants, policy makers have three primary sources to target: automobiles, heavy industry, and power plants. With grandfathered industries and power plants producing as much nitrogen oxide in 1997 as 18 million automobiles, obtaining emissions reductions from grandfathers became a political imperative.

The need to comply with the federal Clean Air Act, and the abject failure of the VERP program, kept the grandfather issue in the forefront of environmental issues when the 77^th session convened, and left industry and its allies in the Legislature with no cause to argue that a voluntary program was a tenable solution any longer. Indeed, a poll conducted by Opinion Research Services in February 2000 found that 87% of the respondents supported closure of the Grandfather Loophole. Thus the 77^th session began with broad consensus that the grandfather loophole would be closed. The central question to be debated was by what date grandfathered plants would be required to achieve emissions reductions.

When the Legislature enacted the Texas Clean Air Act in 1971, industry representatives pleaded for exemption from the statute, claiming that most of their existing facilities would be retired or modified within 8 years. Lawmakers consented, exempting from the law any facility that was operating or under construction at the time. The Grandfather Loophole was thus born, and all facilities falling through the loophole were effectively exempted from the law. The only way that a grandfathered facility was brought under the standards of the statute was if the facility was modified or expanded, which triggered a requirement that the facility obtain a permit and install modern pollution controls.

Strictly speaking, the designation "grandfathered" means that under Subtitle C, Chapter 382 of the Texas Health and Safety Code, an industrial facility fits within the definition of facilities described in section 382.0518(g), which is to say that they are exempted from the permitting requirements established elsewhere in the chapter. Facilities exempted by section 382.0518(g) did not have to obtain what is called a pre-construction permit from the state environmental regulatory agency, originally the Texas Air Control Board (TACB). By virtue of the circumvention, such grandfathered plants are also generally exempt from associated permit requirements, including public health effects reviews, installation of best available pollution control technology (BACT), and opportunities for the public to request evidentiary hearings on the appropriateness of an industrial facility’s location and emissions allowances.

Consequently, these older facilities have in general not been required to meet BACT standards. This means that many older plants have been authorized to continue to pollute at their pre-1971 levels, with the exception of U.S. Clean Air Act mandates that are gradually taking effect, such as "phase II" acid rain requirements and other applicable rules. Grandfathered plants are, in fact, allowed to increase their emissions by increasing their annual hours of operations, so long as no physical modification is made.

While the types of grandfathered emissions across the state are diverse, the single greatest problem is with nitrogen oxide (NOx), a clear and odorless gas but a primary component in ozone formation. Excessive volumes of NOx emissions is the leading culprit in turning 7 metropolitan regions in Texas into non or near non-attainment areas for federal air quality standards under the U.S. Clean Air Act.

Between 1971 and 1996 the issue of grandfathered plants occasionally arose in public forum, but generally there was little attention paid to the issue.

Grandfathers received initial scrutiny in 1984 during the first sunset review of the Texas Air Control Board (TACB), which is now the air program of the TNRCC. At the time, the agency did not possess an up-to-date database of the numbers of facilities that were grandfathered in the state or their annual criteria emissions.

In 1985, while the Legislature worked to craft a reauthorization bill for the Board, the Lone Star Chapter mounted the first challenge to the Grandfather Loophole by testifying about the continued exemptions from the permitting system and BACT standards. The Legislature generally ignored the problem that year, but did pass legislation requiring a statewide "registration" of all grandfathers. The statute required the TACB to conduct a mandatory "Grandfathered Registration" survey of all such facilities in the state by February 28, 1986, and to submit its finding to the Legislature in 1986.

The TACB report, "Grandfathered Facilities: Summary and Listing of Facilities Registered with the Texas Air Control Board" was issued in November, 1986. The report identified more than 20,000 grandfathered facilities at 888 individual plant sites, but many were insignificant sources such as cotton gins and other small businesses. Therefore the report focused on 6,641large industrial facilities with significant emissions. These larger sources accounted for 1.6 million tons of air pollution in 1985.

When the TACB and TWC were merged by the Legislature in 1991 to create the TNRCC (effective September 1, 1993), a minor error occurred in the legislative language which effectively prohibited grandfathered facilities from continuing to operate without a permit unless the law was amended. Since so many companies desired to continue their grandfathered status and also wanted to be able to obtain permit exemptions at refineries, chemical plants and other major sources, an effort was mounted to amend the law in 1997.

Rep. Ray Allen (R-Grand Prairie) sponsored a bill to allow grandfathers to apply for and receive so-called "standard exemptions" for their grandfathered emissions. One TNRCC Commissioner testified that the agency lacked accurate emissions inventory data on the numbers of grandfathered facilities and their annual emissions totals. The Legislature passed a bill requiring the TNRCC to undertake a new survey of grandfathered facilities in 1997 and make the information public by October 1998.

The subject was brought back to scrutiny in the mid-90s by a series of reports by public interest groups. In 1997, using agency records submitted by the electric utility industry in their Title V permit applications showing which boilers were grandfathered vs. permitted, the Sustainable Energy and Economic Development (SEED) Coalition published The Grandaddy of All Loopholes: How Sixty-Six Texas Power Plants Escape Our State’s Toughest Air Pollution Laws. In April 1998 the Lone Star Chapter of the Sierra Club and the Galveston-Houston Association for Smog Prevention, with assistance from other public interest organizations, produced Grandfathered Air Pollution: the Dirty Secret of Texas Industries.

Using data obtained from the TNRCC, this second report presented statistics on grandfathered facilities and their emissions that the agency had said could not be compiled. (Summary statistics in the report use 1997 data for the total number of grandfathered facilities, annual tonnage of emissions, and other key measures—thus later reports and discussions on the subject frequently use 1997 statistics as a baseline for measurements of progress.)

The report found that at least 1,070 plants (43 percent of the industrial plants active in Texas in 1997) were heavily grandfathered. Other findings included:

· 916 of these plants were fully grandfathered.

· In total, these 1,070 plants were spewing 984,00 tons annually of criteria air pollutants.

· Emissions of criteria pollutants from grandfathered facilities constituted 37 percent of all statewide industrial emissions.

· Grandfathered facilities were producing as much NOx as 18.4 million cars each year.

· Gandfathered plants included virtually every type of industrial classification.

· Electric utilities and petrochemical facilities were leaders in the volume of emissions of criteria pollutants, including NOx.

· The biggest producer of grandfathered emissions in the state, Alcoa’s Rockdale power plant and aluminum smelter, produced 104,000 tons of NOx in 1997, more than that produced by 1 million cars.

But what many of the members of the CARE committee did not know was that the final recommendations that the committee would ultimately make had already been cooked by executives from Exxon and Marathon Oil and the governor’s staff before the committee even had its first meeting.

Thanks to a suit filed by the SEED Coalition under the Texas Open Records Act, it was discovered that the CARE committee was cynically established in order to lend credibility to an industry-crafted pseudo-solution to the grandfather problem.

In a suit filed May 4, 1999, SEED contended that the governor's office had concealed records about the development of the CARE plan. SEED did, however, obtain dozens of memos and notes of meetings held among state officials and industry representatives prior to the formal establishment of the CARE committee.

At one meeting of this working group in June 1997, Gov. Bush’s aide for environmental policy made a joint presentation with Exxon officials on the development of the voluntary program. One representative from a major chemical manufacturer was genuinely surprised by the cynicism of the program, and later wrote in an email to a colleague: "The concept put forward was that the industry group and the Governor’s Office would develop the program, then take it to some broad-based group, including public representatives, who would then tweak it a little bit and approve it."

Notes taken by TNRCC Executive Director Jeff Saitas revealed the level of resistance from industry to taking any steps to actually reduce pollution from grandfathered facilities. According to Saitas’ notes, for example, a representative of Texas Utilities told the group that the "utility industry [is] concerned about [the] entire concept - if it doesn't involve retrofits or $, maybe we can sell it."

Gov. Bush did try to sell it, announcing that after a thorough review by the CARE committtee, the best way to handle grandfathered air pollution would be to ask grandfathers to voluntarily seek permits and reduce emissions. As part of the CARE plan, Bush proposed blanket amnesty for any facility seeking a CARE permit, even if the facility had violated the Texas Clean Air Act by expanding a grandfathered facility without seeking a required permit. (This form of cheating was believed to be widespread.)

Reaction to the CARE program from the press and environmental community was appropriately skeptical,

but Gov. Bush and industry allies in the Legislature pushed ahead with a plan to turn the CARE program into state law in the 76^th session. Health advocates, editorial boards, and thousands of citizens called for mandatory permits and pollution cuts, but the Legislature ultimately opted to pass SB 766, a measure codifying Gov. Bush’s plan under a new name: Voluntary Emissions Reduction Permit program (VERP).

Despite this disappointment, an important exception to SB 766 was made when the Grandfather Loophole was closed for publicly held electric utilities as part of SB 7, the electric utility deregulation bill. The interest by many state leaders and organizations in setting up a competitive environment for electric power provided an opening to use the deregulation bill to crack down on grandfathered power plants.

Thanks to the efforts of Rep. Steve Wolens (D-Dallas), the House sponsor of the bill, a significant number of the largest grandfathered facilities in the state had their grandfathered status repealed and were forced to seek permits by September 1, 2000. By May 1, 2003, once-grandfathered power plants must reduce emissions of NOx by 50 percent and emissions of sulfur dioxide by 20 percent from annual average emissions of those pollutants in 1997.

Due to emissions cuts ordered by SB 7, the remaining inventory of grandfathered emissions was significantly reduced by the time the 77^th Legislature convened in January, 2001. In a report to the Legislature that same month, the TNRCC reported that 494,000 tons of emissions were produced by grandfathered facilities in 2000, meaning that 403,966 tons of emissions had shifted to permitted status since 1997.

While the inventory of grandfathered emissions was cut by almost 50 percent from 1997 levels, the number of facilities still grandfathered in 2000 remained close to the 1997 figure, with 762 facilities still operating without Chapter 382 permits. These facilities included refineries, carbon black plants, paper mills, chemical plants and pipeline facilities such as compressor stations and storage tanks. Collectively, the ten worst remaining grandfathered plants in Texas—including Alcoa’s Rockdale plant--produced roughly 285,000 tons of grandfathered pollution in 2000, over half the remaining total.

Ironically, the 30^th anniversary of the grandfather loophole came during the 77^th session, on March 25.

"When we put in the grandfather loophole we didn’t know any better," said Jim Clark, a former legislator who helped write the 1971 Texas Clean Air Act. "Now we have the information that shows how wrong we were to let all those plants be grandfathered."

By the time the Texas Legislature convened the 77^th session in January, widespread consensus had been reached that the Bush VERP program had been an unequivocal failure. The TNRCC’s January report confirmed that only 74 of the 898,025 tons of the 1997 inventory of grandfathered emissions had been permitted under the VERP program. For all practical purposes the debate over whether to close the loophole and require grandfathers to obtain standard permits was over. The only issues that remained to be resolved were: 1) by what dates grandfathers would be required to apply for permits and install modern pollution controls; 2) what standard for pollution control technology would be required of grandfathers; 3) what requirements for public notice and hearings would be included in the permitting process for grandfathers: and 4) whether to require grandfathered pipeline compressor engines and storage tanks to obtain permits, and what level of emissions reductions those facilities would be required to make.

Two bills introduced during the 77^th session offered competing deadlines for grandfathered facilities to enter the permitting process. The Sierra Club and other environmental advocates favored HB 356 by Rep. Zeb Zbranek (D-Winnie) and companion bill SB 493 by Sen. David Bernsen (D-Beaumont). These bills offered quick compliance timelines that became the starting point for negotiations with industry representatives and legislators in their corner.

The legal mechanism in HB 356 and SB 493 for closing the Grandfather Loophole was simple. The legislation would have repealed the exemption for grandfathered facilities by requiring all grandfathers to file a permit application with the TNRCC by September 1, 2002. Facilities not filing applications by that date would be considered to be operating without a permit, and would have faced applicable sanctions under existing law. Zbranek and Bernsen’s legislation required grandfathered plants to adopt current "Best Available Control Technology" as the standard for the level of pollution controls they would put in place. The bills also protected the public rights of notice, comment and opportunity to request a contested case hearing that are standard in the Texas permitting process for plant expansion and new sources.

HB 3545 by Rep. Warren Chisum (R-Pampa) offered compliance timelines that were preferred by industry associations and grandfathered facilities, and represented industry’s starting point for negotiations. These timelines were drawn to give grandfathered facilities far longer to apply for and obtain permits than the Zbranek and Bernsen bills allowed.

HB 3545 was the first bill to offer a two-track approach for grandfathered facilities in different regions to obtain permits on separate schedules. Under Rep. Chisum’s bill grandfathered plants in regions that had been declared air quality non-attainment areas as of Sept. 1, 2001 would have been required to apply for a permit by Sept. 1, 2003, while grandfathered plants in attainment areas would not have been required to apply for a permit until Sept. 1, 2005. While the Sierra Club and other environmental groups thought these timelines were too slow, especially for grandfathers in attainment areas, Rep. Chisum’s two-track system gained currency and most proposals that followed incorporated Chisum’model, albeit with significant modifications.

Rep. Chisum’s bill also provided special exemptions for pipeline facilities by exempting them from the general requirements in his bill for other classes of grandfathered facilities. Under HB 3545, the TNRCC would have been left to determine in which counties or regions of the state grandfathered natural gas pipeline facilities would be required to cut emissions of nitrogen oxide and volatile organic compounds. For areas where the TNRCC decided to require cuts, the agency would have been limited by statute from ordering more than a twenty percent reduction in NOx and VOCs from 1997 emissions levels. Moreover, Rep. Chisum’s pipeline provision would have required the TNRCC to issue a single permit for an entire pipeline, regardless of the number of compressor facilities along the length of the pipeline, and allowed emissions reductions to be made entirely at one source or averaged among multiple sources along a pipeline.

HB 356 and 3545 were both considered in a hearing on March 27 by the House Committee on Environmental Regulation. Testimony was extensive, but the committee left both bills pending in order to allow Representatives Zbranek and Chisum to negotiate a compromise.

Ultimately, efforts to forge a compromise bill did not bear fruit, and Rep. Zbranek determined that offering an amendment to close the loophole to the TNRCC sunset bill was the best way to force industry to negotiate and keep the issue in play. When the TNRCC sunset bill (HB 2912) came to the floor of the House on April 19, Zbranek offered an amendment that drew on Chisum’s two-track compliance schedule. Zbranek’s amendment required plants in the "East Texas region" (defined as all counties traversed by or east of Interstate Highway 35 north of San Antonio or traversed by or east of IH 37 south of San Antonio, as well as Bexar, Bosque, Coryell, Hood, Parker, Somervell, and Wise counities) and the "El Paso region" (El Paso County) to apply for permits by September 1, 2002 and meet all permit requirements, including emissions reductions, by September 1, 2005. For plants in the "West Texas region" (all counties not in the East Texas or El Paso regions) those dates were September 1, 2003 and September 1, 2006, respectively.

While Chisum provided a longer period for plants in attainment areas to apply for and obtain permits, Zbranek’s amendment offered more time to plants in the west, other than El Paso. The difference between Chisum’s attainment/non-attainment model and Zbranek’s east/west model is that Chisum’s plan grouped dozens of grandfathered plants in East Texas attainment areas in the slower track, despite the fact that emissions from those plants have an almost direct impact on air quality in six non-attainment and near non-attainment areas. Since NOx, VOCs, particulate matter and other pollutants are easily transported by wind over long distances, it was crucial to include all grandfathers in East Texas in the fast track clean-up schedule.

As for public notice and hearing requirements, Zbranek’s amendment applied the standard provisions of Section 382.056 of the state air quality code to grandfathers applying for permits. Practically speaking, this meant that a grandfathered facility would have to publish notice of a permit application in a local newspaper, citizens would have an opportunity to comment on the proposed permit during a public comment period, public meetings could be held on the matter, and potentially affected parties would be afforded an opportunity to request a contested case hearing on the permit. However, in order to provide grandfathers and incentive to make large and quick emissions cuts, Zbranek’s amendment provided that if a grandfathered facility’s draft permit calls for a 40 percent or more cut in emissions from 1997 levels, the plant’s permit would be exempted from a contested case hearing challenge.

Chisum responded to Zbranek’s amendment by offering a version of HB 3545 as a 2^nd degree amendment to Zbranek’s. After extensive debate, Zbranek motioned to table Chisum’s amendment. Zbranek’s motion failed by a vote of 45 to 98 (House Record Vote #154; Sierra Club House record vote #3, p. 53), keeping Chisum’s proposal in play.

Next, Rep. Pete Gallego (D-Alpine) offered an amendment seeking to toughen the standards for pipeline emissions reductions in Chisum’s amendment. As noted above, Chisum’s proposal allowed the TNRCC to require no more than a 20 percent reduction in emissions from selected pipelines. Gallego sought to raise the ceiling on pipeline reductions to no more than 50 percent of current emissions of NOx and VOCs. Despite spirited debate, Gallego’s amendment was rejected by a vote of 47 to 96 (House Record Vote #155).

Debate on the grandfather issue concluded when Rep. Chisum’s amendment was affirmatively accepted on a 91-22 division vote, followed by a voice vote accepting Zbranek’s underlying amendment. The net result was that the House agreed to close the grandfather loophole, but with the later deadlines and lax standards for pipelines offered by Rep. Chisum.

The Senate took up consideration of HB 2912 on May 15. By that time environmental advocates had thoroughly canvassed the Senate on the issue and found broad support for strengthening the provisions on grandfathered facilities in HB 2912. While the provisions on grandfathered facilities were not altered when the Senate Natural Resources Committee approved HB 2912, the bill was successfully amended by Senator David Bernsen on the Senate floor. Just as debate on HB 2912 was far more subdued in the Senate than in the House, Sen. Bernsen’s amendment (Senate #F26A) was accepted by the Senate with far less controversy. With bipartisan support, Bernsen’s amendment was adopted by a vote of 22 to 7 (Sierra Club Senate Record Vote #3, p. 58).

The Bernsen amendment requires all grandfathered facilities to apply for permits by September 1, 2003 if the facility is located in the East Texas or El Paso regions, and by September 1, 2004 if the facility is located in the West Texas region. The agency must take action on all applications within a year of receiving a complete application. In addition, grandfathered facilities must comply with all conditions of their permits, including installation of emissions controls or reductions of emissions of air contaminants, by March 1, 2007 for facilities in the East and El Paso regions and March 1, 2008 for facilities in the West.

Bernsen’s version calls for the installation of 10 year-old Best Available Control Technology (in the year that retrofitting take places) at most grandfathered facilities.

In addition to the improvements on application and compliance deadlines, Sen. Bernsen managed to improve Rep. Chisum’s provisions on pipelines. Like Chisum’s amendment, Bernsen’s directs the agency to issue a single permit to all facilities along the length of pipeline, and allows mandatory emissions reductions to be achieved at one source or by averaging reductions among multiple sources along a pipeline. However, Bernsen’s amendment stipulates that for reductions that are achieved by averaging, the average may not include reductions achieved in order to comply with other state or federal laws. And while Chisum’s amendment allowed the agency to require no more than 20 percent reductions in emissions from pipelines in selected regions, Bernsen’s amendment stipulates that the agency can permit a pipeline internal combustion engine in the East Texas or El Paso regions only if the permit requires at least a 50 percent reduction in hourly emission rates of nitrogen oxide.

As for public notice and hearing requirements, Bernsen’s amendment provided the standard procedures for pre-construction permits found in Texas Clean Air Act. An exception was made for "small business stationary sources," which were authorized to provide notice using alternative means if "the commission finds that the proposed method will result in equal or better communication with the public, considering the

Ultimately, the bulk of Bernsen’s amendment was kept intact when the House-Senate conference on HB 2912 approved a unified version of the bill. The conference report maintained the permitting and compliance deadlines from the Bernsen amendment, the public notice and hearing requirements, and the requirement that all permits for grandfathered internal combustion engine pipeline facilities in the Eastern region require nitrogen oxide reductions of at least 50 percent. Compromise is necessary in most legislative negotiations, and concessions were made to West Texas legislators on pipelines in the Western region. The conference report allows the agency to require no more than 20 percent reductions in nitrogen oxide and volatile organic compounds from pipelines in the West as a condition of receiving a permit.

In addition to this relaxed standard for West region pipelines, the conference report shifted permitting and compliance deadlines for all grandfathered facilities in El Paso County from the East (2003/2007) to the slower track for the West region (2004/2008). This shift most likely reflects the desire of El Paso-area legislators to secure relaxed enforcement policies in light of claims that air quality improvements have been made recently in El Paso. It may also indicate a sense of resignation on the part of Texas legislators that no great improvement can be made in El Paso’s air quality until a bilateral agreement is reached with Mexico to reduce industrial and automobile emissions in Ciudad Juarez.

While El Paso is the only city in West Texas with serious air quality problems, atmospheric transport of pollutants across the state may be a very serious problem, particularly for the Big Bend region, where the prevalence of unnatural haze in the spring and summer has caused dramatic reductions in visibility.

Expressions of concern about regional air quality from area residents and visitors to Big Bend National Park prompted the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the National Park Service to undertake an extensive $6.3 million study in 1999 to determine exactly what contaminants constitute the Big Bend region haze and what atmospheric conditions drive the transport of the pollutants. Some of the suspected pollution sources include the Piedras Negras coal-fired power plants in northern Mexico, petrochemical plants along the Texas Gulf Coast, coal-burning power plants in East and Central Texas, industrial areas along the border, the El Paso-Juarez metropolis, as well as heavy industry and pipelines in West Texas.

Until the results of the study are available, it is unclear whether the slower and lower levels of emissions reductions ordered from grandfathered facilities in West Texas will be sufficient to meet a requirement of the 1990 U.S. Clean Air Act amendments that the EPA and states develop regional clean air plans to improve visibility in the national parks.

In the 77^th session this topic was generally ignored, as lawmakers focused their attention on air quality issues exclusive to Texas, particularly the Houston air crisis. One exception is that Rep. Pete Gallego (D-Alpine) amended the TNRCC appropriations bills with a provision (rider 24) that requires the TNRCC to dedicate funds to a study of the air pollution problem along the Texas-Mexico border, with an emphasis on haze in Big Bend National Park. The rider requires the agency to analyze causes, human health effects and potential remedies by January 1, 2003.

Rep. Gallego's measure notwithstanding, the over-riding concern for most lawmakers dealing with air pollution was whether or not particular air quality bills would help the ozone non-attainment regions in the state comply with the requirements of the U.S. Clean Air Act by the compliance deadline in 2007. Nowhere was this more important than for greater Houston, where the State Implementation Plan (SIP) crafted by the EPA and TNRCC for Houston came under legal challenge by a coalition of industry groups and companies. A settlement agreement between the TNRCC and the industry group was reached just days before adjournment of the session, and the agreement assumed that substantial cuts in grandfathered and upset emissions could be used to offset a loosening of the SIP requirements in other areas. As a result, the provisions in HB 2912 concerning grandfathered and upset emissions are now key elements in what will be a court-approved legal settlement, which should protect the clean-up requirements from legislative tampering in 2003 and 2005.

The Grandfather Loophole has dominated air quality debates in Texas for the past five years. With the vast majority of grandfathered emissions covered by SB 7 and HB 2912, environmental advocates will be able to pursue other air issues in future sessions. More information is needed on upset emissions and what portion of total industrial emissions they comprise by region and across the state. Strengthening of the provisions on upsets could be pursued in the 78^th session. Another issue that has received little media coverage is the so-called "volume discount" for large polluters (for more information see the previous section, "TNRCC Sunset Legislation"). Environmental advocates were disappointed by the outcome of conference report language on the volume discount in HB 2912, and will seek to address this shortcoming in 2003.

Environmental injustice continues to be an enormous problem in Texas, especially along the Gulf Coast, and regional and statewide plans generally do not address specific situations where low-income communities, particularly Hispanic and African-American neighborhoods, are deluged by toxins and particulate matter from nearby industrial sources.

Finally, an agreement will be needed with Mexico to adequately address air quality problems in El Paso, Big Bend, and other areas along the Texas-Mexico border, and this cannot happen without leadership from the Bush Administration. As noted above, the 1990 Clean Air Act amendments require states to develop plans with national parks and federal wilderness areas to improve visibility over protected federal lands. This will require affected states to modify state implementation plans as necessary to meet federal visibility requirements by 2013. But in the case of Texas, and Big Bend NP in particular, that standard is unlikely to be met without cooperation from Mexico. In conjunction with the EPA and TNRCC, the U.S. Department of State must seek talks with the Mexican national government to develop an agreement for improving air quality in the border region. If the Administration has not undertaken pursuit of an agreement by 2003, efforts must be made by the Texas Legislature to prompt the Administration to initiate talks.

Closure of the Grandfather Loophole was a tremendous victory for public health and the environment, and would not have happened without tireless research, advocacy and activism by hundreds of citizens and over a dozen non-profit organizations over the course of many years. Noteworthy contributors to this cause include Neil Carman and George Smith of the Lone Star Chapter, Jane Elioseff of the Galveston-Houston Association for Smog Prevention, Ramon Alvarez and Jim Marston of Environmental Defense, Peter Altman of the Sustainable Energy and Economic Development Coalition, Robin Schneider and Todd Main of the Texas Campaign for the Environment, Tom "Smitty" Smith of Texas Public Citizen, Rick Abraham and Jim Baldauf of Texans United, Gene Collins of the Odessa Chapter of the NAACP, Travis Brown, Billie Woods, Michelle Gagnes and Ron Giles of Neighbors for Neighbors, as well as citizen activists such as Marcie, Alan and Josh Schonborn, LaNell Anderson, Paul Robbins, and the Reverend Roy Malveaux. In addition to Representative Zeb Zbranek and Senator David Bernsen, Representative Glen Maxey and his staff have been instrumental to this effort. The commitment and tireless efforts of these groups and individuals will pay back great dividends in clean air and clear skies in coming years.

More on this topic is available from the following sources:

The Grandaddy of All Loopholes: How Sixty-Six Texas Power Plants Escape Our State's Toughest Air Pollution Laws, SEED Coalition. October 1997

http://www.seedcoalition.org/pdf/gfentire.pdf

Grandfathered Air Pollution: The Dirty Secret of Texas Industries, Lone Star Chapter of the Sierra Club, Galveston-Houston Association for Smog Prevention. April 1998

Legislative Interim Report 1998: A Preview of Environmental Issues in the 1999 Texas Legislature, Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission. September 1998

Dirty Air, Dirty Money, Texans for Public Justice. June 1998

http://www.tpj.org/reports/grandfather/grandfather.html

Follow the Money: Grandfathered Air Polluters and Campaign Contributions, Public Research Works.

April 1999

A is For Air Pollution: How the Grandfather Loophole Threatens Texas Schoolchildren, SEED Coalition, SEED Coalition, Texas Campaign for the Environment, Lone Star Chapter of the Sierra Club. January 1999

Too Little, Too Late: an Analysis of the Voluntary Permitting Program, Environmental Defense Fund.

November 1998

Senate Bill 766, One Year After, Texas Air Crisis Campaign. October 2000

Grandfathered Facilities Report: A legislative report on the progress of permitting and reducing air emissions from grandfathered facilities (SFR-071), Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission. January 2001

Laws Enacted by the Texas Legislature That Should Have a Positive Impact on Public Health or the Environment of Texas

Authorizes auto insurers doing business in Texas to offer "mile-based" vehicle insurance policies as well as "time-based" vehicle insurance policies. This would allow people to purchase vehicle insurance on the basis of how many miles they drive each year rather than just pay a flat rate– thus giving people an incentive to drive less. Driving fewer miles would produce less air pollution in Texas cities and consume less fuel – both important environmental and natural resource benefits.

The Coastal Coordination Council (CCC) administers the Texas coastal management program, linking federal, state, and local activities along the coast. The CCC's grant program is an important part of the agency's coastal management functions. During the CCC's sunset review, the Sunset Commission found that the agency lacked statutory guidance for administering its grant program.

HB 906 reauthorizes the CCC for another twelve years. The bill authorizes the CCC to award grants to projects that protect and preserve the state's coastal natural resources. The bill requires the council to establish procedures for awarding grants.

HB 906 modifies the composition of the council to include a public interest representative, and an additional city or county elected official who resides in a coastal area. The bill eliminates a requirement that the council appoint only persons who live in Texas coastal areas to the CCC advisory committee. The bill requires the CCC to report to the legislature on population growth, infrastructure needs and use of resources along the coast.

Authorizes the establishment of a "low-income vehicle assistance, retrofit and accelerated vehicle retirement program" for certain counties experiencing air pollution problems. The authors' goal is to reduce air emissions from older, polluting cars and trucks. The legislation requires TNRCC to use some of the funds collected by the motor vehicle inspection fee to finance this program. This program should benefit clean air efforts in various cities if local officials establish such a program in their area, if it is implemented properly, and if it is not used as a substitute for reductions in emissions from stationary sources of air pollution.

Amends the Transportation Code to designate U.S. Highway 69 between Interstate Highway 10 in Beaumont and Loop 287 in Lufkin as the Big Thicket National Preserve Parkway. The bill requires the Texas Department of Transportation to design and construct markers indicating the designation as the Big Thicket National Preserve Parkway and any other appropriate information.

Allows community development programs to engage in activities that promote water use efficiency and allows these programs to give grants for water conservation projects. The legislation also allows the Texas Higher Education Board to allocate incentive funding for colleges and universities based on the achievement of goals related to water conservation, rainwater harvesting, and water reuse. The new law also authorizes neighborhood enterprise associations to provide water conservation projects.

Requires owners of an apartment house, manufactured home rental community, or multiple use facility on which construction begins after September 1, 2003 to provide for the measurement of water consumed by an occupant of one of the units through the installation of individual meters. This will allow each apartment dweller, for example, to be charged for the exact amount of water that they use rather than pay a flat monthly fee or an equal percentage of the total water bill for an apartment complex. This change will promote water conservation by giving people an incentive to use less water – a lower monthly water bill.

Provides an alternate method of determining the amount of water that a wholesale supplier shall distribute to each wholesale customer during a time of water shortage. This legislation allows the supplier to consider the water conservation achievements of its customers in determining allocations of water during a shortage. (Current law provides that during shortages a limited supply of water shall be divided among all customers according to the amount established in the respective customer’s contract with the supplier.) This alternate method provides an incentive for water conservation.

Requires the State Energy Conservation Office to develop a statewide plan for the coordinated acceleration of the commercialization of fuel cell generation in Texas. The Office is required to seek the assistance and support of TNRCC and the Public Utility Commission in developing the plan. By September 15, 2002 the Office must report to the House Energy Resources Committee and the Senate Business and Commerce Committee on its findings and recommendations for a fuel cell commercialization initiative. Extensive commercial use of fuel cells would provide an environmentally friendly alternative to most current sources of power generation.

Requires the applicant for a TNRCC wastewater discharge permit for a facility that is proposed in a municipality to publish notice of the proposed permit at least once in a newspaper of general circulation within the municipality. Prior to this new law, an applicant was required to publish notice only in the newspaper of largest circulation in the county (which might not be the newspaper that residents of a small municipality with a local newspaper would most likely read).

Requires the TNRCC to provide incentives that encourage the use of environmental management systems by regulated entities. Incentives include on-site technical assistance, accelerated access to information about programs, and an expedited process for permit renewal, modification or amendment. These changes will enhance the ability of environmental management systems to help regulated businesses reach and maintain compliance with environmental regulations.

Authorizes the TNRCC to establish a "protection zone" for sole source surface drinking water supplies and clarifies that specific requirements for water quality protection apply to any proposed facility or structure of a confined animal feeding operation located within such a protection zone. This act requires the TNRCC to designate sole source surface drinking water supplies and subsequent protection zones within 45 days of the effective date of the legislation. The new law is an extension and clarification of a law enacted in a previous session. If properly implemented, the law could be protective of certain water bodies meeting the "sole source" designation.

Will establish a uniform process for administering and enforcing occupational licenses and registrations under the TNRCC’s jurisdiction, thereby decreasing confusion resulting from the "layered" registration and management processes currently in place.

Requires Texas Parks & Wildlife, with the assistance of the Comptroller, to develop, adopt, and distribute to each appraisal district standards for determining whether land qualifies for wildlife management use. A landowner whose land qualifies for wildlife management status can receive the wildlife tax valuation. HB 3123 should help resolve conflicts that have arisen between landowners and appraisal districts over whether the land qualifies for wildlife management use.

Authorizes and state agencies, school districts, local governments, and state colleges and universities to enter into contracts for water conservation and establishes regulations and procedures for such contracts. The State Energy Conservation Office is required to coordinate all the water conservation-related activities under this statute. The Texas Water Development Board is required to provide technical assistance to state agencies in developing water conservation and reuse requirements and standards.

Requires that any water quality management plan certified by the State Soil & Water Conservation Board for an agricultural facility that covers land on which animal carcasses (such as poultry carcasses) will be buried must include disposal management practices and burial site requirements. The legislation also limits burial of poultry carcasses on site to a major die-off that exceeds the capacity of a poultry operation to dispose of the carcasses by normal means. This new law, if properly and fully implemented, might help address some of the water quality concerns in certain watersheds with large-scale poultry operations.

Reauthorizes the existence of the Texas Railroad Commission for another 12 years, and makes certain changes in procedures at this state agency based on recommendations from the Texas Sunset Advisory Commission. Most of the provisions of the bill deal with administrative and procedural aspects of the agency. The legislation establishes a new voluntary cleanup program for contaminated oil and gas production sites that are under the regulatory jurisdiction of the Railroad Commission that is similar to the TNRCC's voluntary cleanup program for other types of sites.

The bill was also amended three times by Rep. Kitchen in order to help protect citizens from dangers posed by pipelines. Rep. Kitchen first amended the bill during House committee consideration by convincing colleagues to accept a modified version a bill she had introduced earlier, HB 1858. As introduced the bill would have placed a limit on the authority of certain limited partnerships to engage as common carriers in the pipeline business unless the limited partnership obtained liability insurance coverage of at least $2 billion. The provision applied only to oil pipelines, any segment of which was constructed before January 1, 1960 that was originally used for transporting oil products before January 1, 2001. Rep. Kitchen's amendment requires the Railroad Commission to study the desirability of requiring liability insurance of common carriers. The amendment authorizes the commission to adopt rules to specify the form and amount of any financial responsibility required of limited partnerships.

In addition to this amendment, Rep. Kitchen was successful in adding two more amendments to SB 310 when the bill was considered on the House floor. The first amendment requires a public notice and comment period before the Railroad Commission can issue an operating permit to a new or overhauled pipeline. Kitchen's last amendment requires that any pipeline located within one-quarter mile of a school must develop an emergency response plan and present it before a public meeting of the local school board.

Reauthorizes the existence of the Texas Water Development Board for another 12 years and makes certain changes in procedures at the agency based on recommendations of the Texas Sunset Advisory Commission. The legislation establishes a pilot program for water and wastewater project loans in rural communities, and extends the ability of the Board to provide assistance for non-point source pollution to private entities as well as political subdivisions. The bill also establishes a colonia "self-help" program to try to enhance the provision of water and wastewater services to colonias. In addition, the legislation requires the Board and the State Soil and Water Conservation Board to jointly conduct a study of ways to improve or expand water conservation efforts, and prepare a report to the Legislature on this topic.

Authorizes the TNRCC to participate in environmental projects in Mexico. In cooperation with governmental authorities in Mexico, the TNRCC may take and finance any action that, in the opinion of the commission, will yield environmental benefits to the state of Texas.

Updates state law in conformity with federal flood insurance program requirements and terminology. The legislation authorizes local political subdivisions to adopt more comprehensive floodplain management rules, participate in floodplain management and mitigation initiatives developed by other government agencies, and collect reasonable fees to cover the cost of administering a local floodplain management program.

Will require all state agencies that have jurisdiction over matters related to environmental protection, quality, development, conservation, or preservation to develop a single information link through the "TexasOnline" portal on the Internet. The portal will be developed in cooperation with the Department of Information Resources and will provide electronic access to information and services related to the agencies' authority and duties, including access to agency rules and other public information.

Prohibits motor vehicle traffic on sand dunes on the seaward side of the dune protection line. Driving on sand dunes results in shoreline erosion, damage to wildlife habitat, and encroachment of public beach easement onto private property. The act makes driving on sand dunes is a Class C misdemeanor.

Requires each owner or operator of a poultry operation to develop, implement, and maintain a site-specific water quality management plan certified by the State Soil & Water Conservation Board. The Board and TNRCC are required to adopt rules for the certification of these plans. TNRCC is authorized to bring a cause of action against a poultry operator who violates this requirement. Water pollution from large-scale poultry operations has been identified as a serious problem in certain watersheds.

Requires the TNRCC to immediately shut down a facility that is operating without a pre-construction permit as required by the Texas Clean Air Act. The TNRCC will also be required to impose a penalty of $10,000 for each day that a facility operates in violation of standard permit requirements. This law applies to rock-crusher or concrete plant facilities that perform wet batching, dry batching, or central mixing operations.

Provides that abandoned crab traps be defined as litter, and authorizes the Parks & Wildlife Commission to close the crab trap season for a certain period. The bill also requires the Parks & Wildlife Commission to adopt rules to govern the disposal of abandoned crab traps. Currently thousands of abandoned crab traps litter Texas bays and estuaries, and are a health and safety hazard. The abandoned traps also contribute to the depletion of the crab fishery.

Authorizes Texas Parks & Wildlife (TPW) to regulate floating cabins in coastal waters. Floating cabins create environmental problems, such as the discharge of sewage, and interfere with navigation and recreational uses of coastal waters. This bill requires floating cabins to be permitted by TPW and establishes a time by which the agency will no longer issue permits.

Laws Enacted by the Texas Legislature That May Have a Negative Impact on Public Health or the Environment of Texas

This law is a setback for affected citizens wishing to have a voice in TNRCC permitting process. It amends the Texas Health and Safety Code to allow the TNRCC to issue uncontestable permit amendments for the construction or modification of a facility when Best Available Control Technology (BACT) is used by the facility. This shortcut eliminates the opportunity for contested-case hearings, as well as the public notice and comment period that are standard administrative aspects of the pre-construction permit review process.

Provides for the issuance of additional general obligation bonds by the Texas Water Development Board in an amount not to exceed $2 billion. This joint resolution is a proposed constitutional amendment that must be ratified by the voters in an election to be held on November 6, 2001 in order to become effective. If approved by the voters, the constitutional amendment also requires that $50 million of the bonds authorized would be put into the water infrastructure fund created under SB 2. The impact of the passage of this proposed constitutional amendment and the issuance of bonds authorized by it would depend upon the projects most likely to be funded by the Water Development Board. Opposition to the proposed bonding increase is expected by some environmental and fiscal conservative groups because of concerns about the over-estimation of water infrastructure needs by some of the regional water planning groups.

Exempts small hydroelectric facilities (capacity of less than two megawatts) from water quality management and "watermaster" fees. This legislation apparently affects only one facility and has a negligible impact on any fee revenue, but it might set a precedent for further proposals for exemptions that might have a greater impact.

Establishes a trust fund for a Texas Spaceport to provide for the development of spaceport-related infrastructure. A commercial spaceport that would be used to launch satellites and reusable spacecraft would most likely be located along the Texas coast. The development of a large industrial complex that would be needed to accommodate the spaceport could result in significant damage to the coastal environment. SB 813 helps to bring the spaceport and its potentially destructive development one step closer to reality.

Authorizes the TNRCC, to the extent allowed by federal law, to substitute certain reductions of air emissions in Juarez for certain reductions of air emissions in El Paso if specific criteria are met. These criteria include that the emissions reductions in Juarez must be surplus to those required under applicable laws and must be quantifiable and enforceable. In addition, any substitution of emissions reductions of one pollutant for another pollutant must be "of equal or greater significance to the overall air quality of the area" than emissions reductions for the other pollutant, and both pollutants must be ones for which the area has been designated as "nonattainment." Finally, the substitution must "clearly result in greater health benefits for the community as a whole" than the ordered emissions reductions.

Extends the deadlines for commencement and completion of the construction of the proposed Lake Eastex in East Texas. Under this legislation, the commencement of construction shall be no later than September 1, 2011, and the completion of construction shall be no later than September 1, 2017. This reservoir received a permit from the state a number of years ago but has yet to begin construction because the project lacks financing. The permit was about to expire, which would normally require the TNRCC to grant a permit extension. This act overrides that requirement, and the environmental community objects to legislative action to override such state agency procedures. As of now, however, there is still no financing for the project.

This resolution urges the U.S. Department of the Interior to reconsider listing the Arkansas River shiner as a threatened species and reconsider designating critical habitat for the Arkansas River shiner in Texas. The Arkansas River shiner is a highly endangered fish that inhabits the Canadian River in the Texas Panhandle.

Bills That Died That Might Have Had a Positive Impact on Public Health

or the Environment of Texas

Would have defined the term "colonia" to include non-border colonias, including areas in Harris and Dallas counties. Under-serviced, unincorporated housing developments that fit the definition of colonia are eligible for water and wastewater treatment project grants from state and local funds.

Would have given legal authority to citizens of unincorporated areas lacking basic services to contract with a public or private utility to collect solid waste and charge disposal fees. This incentive would have made service costs economical for residents, thereby greatly reducing practices of burying and burning trash, as well as illegal dumping.

Would have provided technical assistance on pollution prevention environmental self-audits, or Supplemental Environmental Projects. These self-audits allow entities that violate pollution regulations to invest the fines and fees that the violating entity would have to pay into environmental improvement projects. The bill would have created an avenue for the Legislature to directly monitor the success of these solutions.

Would have amended the Government Code to require state agencies with jurisdiction over matters related to environmental protection or quality or to the development, conservation, or preservation of natural resources to develop a single information link through the "Texas Online" portal in cooperation with the Department of Information Resources (DIR).

Would have closed a loophole whereby trash-dump centers, which are already heavily regulated, could no longer hide under a blanket of protection as self-named recycling centers, which have little to no regulation. The bill would have established equally stringent standards for recycling facilities and mandated compliance on both sides of the trash/recycling heap.

Would have required the TNRCC to establish a beverage container redemption and recycling program, and prohibited the sale of beverage containers that did not hold a return value of five cents or more. This bill was based on other successful state programs that have helped reduce landfill masses and clean up highways by considerable amounts.

Would have given prosecutors more freedom to pursue environmental violators by lifting a requirement that prosecutors prove that a defendant was in a culpable mental state when committing a crime. The bill was designed to bolster enforcement of certain provisions of the Texas Clean Air Act, and would have increased the penalties for those who pollute, with or without a "culpable mental state."

Part of a legislative package proposed by Rep. Edwards that was designed to provide the public better protection from particulate matter (PM’s) produced as a by-product at industrial rock crushing facilities. HB 2342 would have prohibited a portable rock crusher from operating less than one mile from any residence, recreational area, or other structure that is occupied by a person other than the operator or employees of the rock crusher facility. This bill would have further limited the height of rock, gravel and aggregate piles maintained in the vicinity of a rock crusher.

Would have amended the Water Code to require the TNRCC to include at the beginning of each public notice a succinct and informative summary of the subject of the notice.

Would have provided protection from harassment lawsuits for "whistleblowers" in government agencies. Under current law, it is possible for a whistleblower to be found liable for slander or libel, even if the information he or she makes public is completely accurate. The only way for a whistleblower to avoid liability in a harassment suit brought against them is from a final court verdict, which can require a person to incur considerable legal expenses. HB 2723 would have required the court to make a summary judgment in favor of the witness if the witness brought a complaint to a governmental entity in good faith, excluding employee-employer matters. The bill would have also provided for recovery by a defendant of specified costs, fees, and damages. Gov. Rick Perry vetoed this bill on June 17, 2001, stating that the bill "is a radical departure from traditional concepts of our adversarial justice system and the role of the courts. It also creates new causes of action by holding lawyers liable for the accuracy of information provided to them by their clients."

Would have amended the Water Code to create the colonia self-help program and self-help account, authorizing the account to be used to reimburse eligible non-profit organizations engaged in self-help water, wastewater, and platting projects in the colonias for specified expenses. This legislation would have provided enhancement to programs already endorsed by the Legislature, such as the Bootstrap Loan Program run by the Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs and the self-help plumbing projects administered by the TNRCC. By building their own water or wastewater projects, colonia residents can save up to 40 percent of the cost of a traditional project.

Would have required the state energy conservation office of the General Services Commission to coordinate the delivery and marketing of mortgage incentives to purchase energy-efficient residential housing. Gov. Perry vetoed HB 2839 on June 17, 2001 under the objection that the bill would have called for an inappropriate use of the Oil Overcharge Fund. The OOF was established "to fund energy conservation programs for state agencies, higher education, public schools, and other units of local government."

Would have required state agencies to notify TPW before the agencies propose to sell state lands under their jurisdiction. The bill would have also required TPW to review state lands proposed for sale to determine their value to the state for conservation and recreation purposes. In the past, environmentally sensitive lands that should have remained in state ownership have been sold to private developers. The bill was left pending in the House Land and Resources Management Committee.

Would have removed the requirement under current law that the TNRCC must set a hearing to be held not later than the 30th day after the date that the agency receives an application for a permit for development of land over closed municipal solid waste landfills. Compliance with this requirement generally means a hearing must be held before technical review of the application is complete, thereby reducing the effectiveness of the hearing and the ability of the TNRCC to adequately address public concerns.

Would have amended the Texas Health & Safety Code to include coal combustion waste in the definition of "hazardous waste." Coal combustion waste typically contains toxins such as selenium, mercury, arsenic, and chromium, but is currently unregulated. The disposal of coal combustion waste in unlined pits can contaminate the groundwater below the site, and the heavy metals found in coal combustion waste

have been found to contaminate bodies of water around Texas's power plants. The concentrations of chemicals can be so high that the water is unsafe for consumption. Coal combustion waste disposal in Texas is not regulated as strictly as hazardous waste, and there is serious concern that stronger regulations are needed to curb potential threats to public health and to the environment.

Would have amended the Health and Safety Code to prohibit a manufacturer from using or selling a product containing mercury without first filing a notification form with the Texas Department of Health. The bill also would have established a public education program on the hazards of mercury to households.

Would have amended the Health and Safety Code to require a person who stockpiles aggregates to saturate the aggregates with water in order to reduce the amount of particulate matter released from the pile in accordance with guidelines and procedures imposed by the TNRCC. The bill was designed to work in accordance with HB 2342 to reduce the threat of concrete particulate matter to public health.

Overlapped with HB 3116, and would have required the TNRCC to adopt aggregate stockpile saturation standards consistent with those of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The legislation would have also required that aggregate piles be no more than fifteen feet high and at least one mile from residential and recreation areas.

Would have enhanced public participation in the contested case hearing process by requiring a public hearing, when requested by a member of the Legislature, to be held before a mobile rock-crusher facility could be relocated to a new site.

Provided an exemption from the Public Information Act for information regarding the location of caves. Once government agencies obtain information on caves, that information is subject to a public information request. Public disclosure of the location of caves through the Public Information Act could result in the destruction of bat colonies, looting of archaeological and paleontological sites, and the destruction of delicate cave formations. While the Sierra Club supports the intent of SB 839, it does have some concern that exempting the location of caves from the Public Information Act could present a barrier to legitimate scientific research. The bill passed the Senate and was left pending in the House State Affairs Committee.

Would have required the TNRCC to conduct a study of the brick-making processes of brick production facilities in Texas and Mexican border states. The study would have required the TNRCC to survey current fuel sources for kilns and solicit expert advice regarding efficient processes and fuels for maintaining proper temperatures for brick production, while minimizing emissions of air pollutants. The legislation would have required a summary report and list of recommendations to be submitted to the Governor, Lieutenant Governor, and Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Would have required the Texas Department of Transportation to study current regulations affecting billboards in Texas, including vegetation control regulations, and the feasibility of adopting a scenic byways program in accordance with the federal National Scenic Byways Program. The bill required the department to report the findings of the study to the 78th Legislature not later than January 1, 2003. The bill passed the Senate and was recommended for the Local and Consent Calendar by the House Transportation Committee, but was never placed on the Local Calendar.

Bills That Died That Might Have Had a Negative Impact on Public Health or the Environment of Texas

Would have restricted the ability of federal land managers in Texas to comment on applications for pollution permits that could affect air quality in areas such as Big Bend National Park.

As introduced, HB 128 increased the standard of proof required to rein in a polluter that is shown to have a negative impact on air quality over protected federal lands by requiring the state to find by a "preponderance of the evidence" that the particular source of pollution is affecting a park. In addition to the unreasonably high "preponderance of the evidence standard," the bill required peer review and publication of the data showing a negative impact on park air quality from a point source. Finally, the bill would have curtailed the ability of federal land managers to comment on state permit applications for industrial point sources of pollution.

There is a good likelihood that HB128 would have violated the supremacy clause of the Constitution, as it contravenes provisions of 1977 amendments to the U.S. Clean Air Act that require states to develop plans to clean up and prevent further air pollution in national parks.

Rep. West’s legislation was based on "model" legislation provided by the American Legislative Exchange. Environmental advocates groups and park friends groups in other states might expect to see similar measures introduced in their state legislatures.

This bill would have eliminated an essential community liaison from pipeline emergency preparation meetings. Advocates of the legislation argued the change in law would be made for the sake of convenience, avoiding the effort required to coordinate communication of the liaison with appropriate police, fire and other local officials.

Would have prohibited Texas Parks & Wildlife from closing any part of the Texas coast to shrimping, except to protect the health, safety, and welfare of the public. Closures are one of the most effective management tools for maintaining healthy populations of shrimp, finfish, and other important marine organisms such as endangered sea turtles. Given current downward trends in the Gulf shrimp fishery, it is likely that additional closures will be needed in the future to prevent a collapse of the fishery. This bill would have tied the hands of TPW at a time when careful management is essential to maintain the long-term vitality of the shrimp fishery and the industries that depend upon it. The bill received a hearing in the House State Recreational Resources Committee but remained pending until the end of the session.

Would have made it difficult to convert abandoned railroad right-of-ways into public hiking and biking trails and would have interfered with efforts by federal, local governments, and nonprofit organizations to acquire abandoned railroad right-of-ways for any other public purpose. Under this bill, railroad companies would be required to grant the right of first refusal to purchase an abandoned right-of-way to any person who constructed a structure, installed equipment, or made any other type of improvement to the right-of-way or owned property adjoining the abandoned right-of-way. The state would be granted the right of first refusal to acquire an abandoned railroad right-of-way over a person in certain situations. The bill was passed by the House late in the session but never received a hearing in the Senate State Affairs Committee.

This bill was an attempt to exempt landowners from having to purchase hunting licenses to hunt nongame wildlife on their property. During the interim the State Recreational Resources Committee studied the issue of hunting license exemptions for landowners and found that it would result in unintended negative impacts that would make enforcement of hunting regulations difficult for game wardens. The interim committee report concludes that, "that there is no need to reinstate the landowner hunting license exemption that existed until 1985." By exempting landowners from having to purchase a hunting license HB 1208 would allow the unregulated taking of public wildlife resources. Hunting license exemptions for landowners would make it difficult for the Texas Parks & Wildlife to effectively monitor hunting activity and wildlife impacts. In addition the bill would have allowed the unregulated taking of public wildlife resources without the compensation that revenue generated by the sale of hunting licenses would provide to the state. The bill was heard in House State Recreational Resources Committee but remained pending until the end of the session.

This bill sought to reduce state administrative costs by requiring the TNRCC to offer incentives to regulated entities for the installation of pollution monitoring devices that send continuous data via electronic means to a central TNRCC computer. Incentives to be provided, which included on-site technical assistance, expedited permitting, reduced reporting and record keeping requirements, and reduced inspections, were based on a set of recommendations from the Comptroller's "E-Texas" study of efficiency in Texas state government. While the Sierra Club understood Rep. Hamric's good intentions, the bill was too vague, and the possible impact of the recommendations from the Comptroller did not seem to be well researched for their potential unintended impacts on citizen participation on the TNRCC permit review process.

Similar incentives and rewards will be provided to industrial facilities with strong compliance records through HB 2912, the TNRCC re-authorization bill. The provision of real-time data to regulators is one means of establishing such a track record, but it is not a substitute for the standard regulatory requirements that are the foundation for establishing a solid compliance track record.

Would have restricted Texas Parks & Wildlife from holding public hearings that affect commercial fishing activities during the period in which commercial fishing is most active. Because there is always a high level of commercial fishing activity year round in Texas coastal waters it is impossible for TPWD to schedule a public hearing that would not occur when some segment of the commercial fishing industry is most active. Because shrimping occurs in the bays when the Gulf is closed and vise versa it is impossible to find a time when commercial fishing activity is not highly active. The bill was heard in House State Recreational Resources Committee but remained pending until the end of the session.

If passed, this bill would have been the final step in a series of successful efforts by the concrete industry to erode citizen rights in concrete batch plant permitting. Because of protracted resistance in one Houston suburb to the siting of a concrete batch plant nearby, the concrete lobby sought legislation that would make it impossible for affected citizens to challenge the siting of new concrete batch plants. In 1999, Brown and Chisum collaborated to enact legislation that prohibits the TNRCC from requiring that an applicant for a batch plant permit conduct modeling of the air pollution impacts of the plant before a permit is granted.

SB 546/HB 1477 was designed to take away all remaining decision-making authority from the TNRCC on concrete batch plant permits. SB 546 would have stripped residents living near proposed concrete batch plants of the right to contested case hearings on batch plant applications, and required the TNRCC to approve these permits in a lightning-fast 45 days.

Concrete batch plants produce tremendous amounts of dust, most notably crystalline silica, which has been designated a Level 1 carcinogen by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (asbestos and vinyl chloride have also received the Level 1 designation). Batch plants also generate great amounts of noise and heavy truck traffic. The siting of a batch plant in or near a residential community can severely reduce property values and severely impact the health of nearby families.

SB 546 was approved by the Senate Natural Resources Committee, but encountered mounting opposition as it was posted on the Senate intent calendar. SB 546 was never brought to the Senate floor, while the House Committee on Environmental Regulation took no action on HB 1477 subsequent to a public hearing.

Similar to HB 1227, this bill would have offered reduced inspections as an incentive to regulated firms for the installation of air pollution monitoring devices linked via the Internet to the TNRCC’s "data link" system. Anticipating fewer inspections, these firms would have a greater economic incentive to emit levels of pollution beyond their permit allowances from vents and stacks that lack monitoring devices.

Would have allowed recreational use of metal detectors in areas of state parks determined by the Parks & Wildlife Commission. The bill would have also allowed the removal of artifacts found with a metal detector if the artifacts were less than fifty years old. Digging and removal of artifacts from state parks would damage archeological and historic sites as well as plants and wildlife habitat. The disturbance to ground caused by digging would lead to soil erosion and degradation of park aesthetics. The bill passed the Senate but was never heard in House State Recreational Resources Committee.

Would have required Texas Parks & Wildlife to make annual hunting and fishing licenses, stamps, tags, and permits valid from the date of issuance through the day before the first anniversary of the date of issuance. Under current law hunting and fishing licenses, stamps, tags, and permits, are valid only during the yearly period for which the license is issued, September 1 through August 31, without regard to the date on which the license in acquired. This would have resulted in a loss of approximately $9.5 million in revenue over a five-year period for Texas Parks & Wildlife. Such a substantial loss in revenue would have severally hampered many of the agency's activities. The bill was left pending in the Senate Natural Resources Committee.

Would have provided permit applicants the option to proceed directly to a contested case hearing under certain conditions, thus bypassing the standard open period for public comment. The bill sought to shortcut the process of community involvement, making it easier for industry to expedite controversial projects. Some changes were made to the bill as it moved through the legislative process that made it less objectionable.

Would have prohibited utilities from denying service to a landowner, business, political subdivision, or other entity as part of the utility's habitat conservation plan or as part of an agreement with the federal government. Though this bill was aimed at the habitat conservation plan for the Houston toad in Bastrop County, it would have prohibited the implementation of habitat conservation plans where utilities were involved throughout the state. In addition to being an impediment to the implementation of habitat conservation plans and a limitation on possible mitigation options the bill was not consistent with federal law. The bill passed out of the Senate late in the session but was never heard in the House Land and Resource Management Committee.

Other Laws Enacted by the Texas Legislature That May Impact Public Health or the Environment of Texas

Authorizes industrial development corporations to undertake cleanups of contaminated property and authorizes the use of revenue from sales and use taxes for such cleanups, if voters approve such use. Requires the General Services Commission and state agencies to give preference to products produced by businesses established on formerly contaminated properties that have been cleaned up, assuming those products meet other required specifications. This legislation is intended to promote voluntary cleanup of contaminated sites, but it is not clear whether industrial development corporations will take advantage of this opportunity, and voluntary cleanups do not undergo the same level of public scrutiny available for required cleanups.

Authorizes the Lower Colorado River Authority (LCRA) to enter into an agreement with "a municipality" (specifically the San Antonio Water System, or SAWS) to sell and distribute up to 150,000 acre feet of water annually to SAWS (for up to 80 years from the base period). The legislation sets certain conditions on the agreement. For example, the water diverted for this purpose must be made available from new off-channel reservoirs downstream of the Highland Lakes and may not affect the operation of those lakes. Also, LCRA must assure that beneficial flows sufficient to maintain the ecological health and productivity of Matagorda Bay remain after the diversions are made for any transport of water from the Colorado Basin to San Antonio. Environmentalists are concerned about this transfer, but a series of studies will be conducted over the next seven years or so to determine the possible environmental effects of such a transfer before any such transfer would take place. LCRA has committed not to complete such a transfer if any negative environmental consequences of such a transfer cannot be mitigated.

Ratifies several local groundwater districts overlying the portions of the Carrizo-Wilcox aquifer in the Brazos Valley and neighboring areas, subject to voter confirmation. The bill also creates the Central Carrizo-Wilcox Coordinating Council in order to coordinate the activities of those districts. One of those activities is the development of a comprehensive groundwater management plan for the area. The counties potentially covered by this Council, if the new entity is approved by the districts, are Bastrop, Lee, Robertson, Brazos, Milam, Burleson, Leon, Madison, and Freestone.

Expands the definition of "project" for the purposes of economic development corporations. Now these corporations may undertake water conservation programs and finance the construction of facilities for the development of water and sewer systems.

Requires the TNRCC to report to the Legislature by February of each year the water consumption rates of various clothes-washing machines that were imported into the state during the previous year. The original legislation as filed would have set water conservation requirements for clothes washers and dishwashers sold in Texas, but was dramatically altered as a result of pressure from appliance manufacturers. The manufacturers used anticipated new federal requirements for water conservation for such machines as an argument for not establishing additional requirements in Texas.

Makes a number of changes in the administration of the program for the remediation of problems associated with petroleum storage tanks and the replacement of old storage tanks. This legislation also extends the life of the petroleum storage tank reimbursement program to September 1, 2006 (the program had been set to expire in 2003) and extends the life of the fee that funds reimbursements to storage tank owners.

Authorizes the Brazos River Authority (BRA) to discover, develop, and produce groundwater in the Brazos River Basin for the use of its customers. When producing groundwater, the BRA is subject to all laws or regulations of groundwater districts and the Central Carrizo-Wilcox Coordinating Council that relate to groundwater. BRA is not authorized to regulate groundwater in its basin nor to transport or assist in the transport of groundwater pumped in the basin to destinations outside the basin.

Designates a site known as the Post Reservoir site on the North Fork of the Double Mountain Fork of the Brazos River, northeast of the town of Post, as a site of unique value for the construction of a dam and reservoir. Such designations are allowed under the provisions of SB 1, the 1997 omnibus water law. This legislation further finds "that the [reservoir] project shall receive priority for existing and uncommitted bond authorization in the state participation account" administered by the Texas Water Development Board, and authorizes the Board to acquire 100% of the project. Such legislation directing a state agency to take certain actions regarding specific water infrastructure projects is considered to be problematic by environmental and other public interest groups. Whether this legislation results in the construction of a project, however, and what the environmental impacts of that project would be are not clear.

Revises the process for determining whether or not a person may receive an exemption from the payment of ad valorem taxation for property that is claimed to be used to control pollution. One of the aims of the new law is to avoid abuse of the pollution control property tax exemption by businesses claiming the exemption for property that does not qualify.

This law accompanies a slate of legislation intended to develop infrastructure to better manage increased traffic resulting from NAFTA. It requires the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) to establish the Border Trade Advisory Committee to develop a strategy and make recommendations to the department for addressing the highest priority border trade transportation challenges.

Amends the Texas Transportation Code to require TxDOT to initiate efforts to meet at least semi-annually with counterparts in Mexican border-states to discuss transportation and infrastructure issues.

Provides that if authorized by an applicable regulatory authority the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) may pay a fee to a public agency or private entity in lieu of acquiring or agreeing to manage property for the mitigation of adverse environmental impacts that are a result of a state highway improvement project. The bill would also allow TxDOT to contract with any public or private entity for the management of property for mitigation of adverse environmental impacts directly resulting from the construction or maintenance of a state highway. Prior to the passage of SB 416, TxDOT was limited to contracting with Texas Parks & Wildlife for the purpose of mitigation. As passed by the Senate, the bill required TxDOT to consult with Parks & Wildlife "to ensure that the proposed contract is in the best interest of the state’s natural resources." That language was stripped out by the House Transportation Committee. TxDOT has informally agreed to continue to work with TPW to ensure that such contracts for mitigation projects are appropriate and protect the state's natural resources.

Promotes development of transportation infrastructure along the border by allowing communities within the nineteen counties adjacent with the Texas-Mexico border to create a border port authority to identify and meet the needs of the border region to expedite commerce.

Amends the Water Code to create a distinction between intentional and unintentional illegal discharges of a waste or pollutant from a point source, and imposing lesser penalties for unintentional negligence and higher penalties for intentional discharges.

Makes changes in the public notice and hearing requirements for multiple plant permits where air quality is concerned.

Transfers the state weather modification program (cloud-seeding to produced rainfall) from the TNRCC to the Texas Department of Agriculture, with certain responsibilities given to the Texas Department of Licensing and Regulation.

Amends the Health and Safety Code to authorize the Railroad Commission of Texas to regulate Naturally Occurring Radioactive Material (NORM) oil and gas waste.

Makes a wide range of changes in the general powers and authority of water districts and water supply corporations established under Chapter 49 of the Water Code (these districts are for provision of water supply and are not the groundwater management districts created under Chapter 36 of the Water Code).

Sierra Club Environmental Voting Record for the Texas House of Representatives, 77^th Legislative Session (2001)

There were few record votes on environmental issues in the Texas House during the 77^th regular session. Most of the bills dealing with environmental and related issues that came to the floor passed the House by either a voice vote or a division vote (which is not recorded), and most relevant amendments were handled in the same manner. Thus, only three record votes are included in the Sierra Club’s voting record for Texas House members this session. This number of record votes is not adequate to establish clear distinctions among legislators as to their support for or opposition to environmental measures. Therefore, the Sierra Club offers this voting record of House members only as an indication of their views on the three specific issues covered by the votes presented here. This record is not a comprehensive overview of the environmental leanings of these legislators.

Eighty amendments were voted on during the 10-hour House debate on the TNRCC Sunset bill. One of the most important amendments was by Rep. Puente (D-San Antonio) to create an independent Office of Natural Resources Public Interest Counsel to represent the public interest in TNRCC decisions, rule-makings, and permit and enforcement hearings. It would also have given the Counsel the authority to appeal TNRCC permit decisions. An independent public defender was one of the priority issues for community groups across the state that had contended with the TNRCC’s pervasive industry bias in contested case hearings. The motion to table (kill) Rep. Puente’s amendment creating the independent public interest counsel failed by the narrowest of margins--70 to 71. A vote AGAINST tabling the bill was a vote in favor of the Sierra Club’s position.

After the motion to kill Rep. Puente’s amendment for the independent counsel failed by only one vote, suspense filled the chamber as the vote to pass the amendment took place. The doors of the House chamber were closed and locked and the roll was called to make sure each representative who was shown as voting was actually present. The amendment passed 74 to 70. A vote FOR the amendment was a vote for the Sierra Club position.

Early in the session Rep. Zbranek (D-Winnie) and Rep. Chisum (R-Pampa) offered competing bills to close the Grandfather Loophole for old air polluting industries. Rep. Zbranek’s bill, HB 356, was favored by environmentalists, while Rep. Chisum’s bill, HB 3545, was favored by polluters. Both bills were left pending in the House Environmental Regulation Committee, and HB 2912, the TNRCC sunset bill, became the battleground for the fight to close the Grandfather Loophole. Rep. Zbranek offered an amendment to HB 2912 that was a modified version of HB 356 (p.28), and required all grandfathered plants in East Texas and El Paso to apply for permits by September 1, 2002, and to meet all permit requirements, including actual emissions reductions, by September 1, 2005. The amendment required grandfathered plants in the rest of Texas to apply for a permit by 2003 and comply by 2006. Rep. Chisum attempted to turn Rep. Zbranek’s amendment into a modified version of HB 3545, Rep. Chisum’s original filed bill (p. 28), by offering an "amendment to the amendment." After an extensive debate, Rep. Zbranek made a motion to table (kill) Rep. Chisum’s amendment. Rep. Zbranek’s attempt to salvage his amendment to close the Grandfather Loophole failed 45 to 98. The Chisum amendment was then approved in a separate vote (91 to 22). A vote FOR the motion to table the Chisum amendment is a vote for the Sierra Club position.

LEGEND

+ voted for Sierra Club position

- voted against Sierra Club position

A absent

E excused absence

LEGEND

+ voted for Sierra Club position

- voted against Sierra Club position

A absent

E excused absence

LEGEND

+ voted for Sierra Club position

- voted against Sierra Club position

A absent

E excused absence

LEGEND

+ voted for Sierra Club position

- voted against Sierra Club position

A absent

E excused absence

P present, not voting

Sierra Club Environmental Voting Record for the Texas Senate,

77^th Legislative Session (2001)

As mentioned in the previous section on House record votes, Rep. Chisum’s amendment on grandfathered polluters allowed the TNRCC to require no more than 20% reductions of air pollution emissions from grandfathered pipeline facilities. Many grandfathered pipeline facilities use diesel oil to fuel their internal combustion engines, and emit large amounts of nitrogen oxide and volatile organic compounds. Sen. Harris (R-Arlington), the Senate sponsor of the TNRCC Sunset bill, re-wrote the bill before sending it to the Senate Natural Resources Committee, and raised the 20% ceiling to 30%. When the bill got to the floor of the Senate, Sen. Haywood (R-Wichita Falls) offered an amendment that would have brought the ceiling back to 20%. The motion to adopt this amendment failed 20 to 10. A vote AGAINST the amendment was a vote for the Sierra Club position.

The TNRCC’s mission statement requires the agency to encourage economic development while simultaneously protecting public health and the environment. Citizens from across the state found this to be outrageous, and pushed for a change in the mission of the state environmental agency. Rep. Lon Burnam attached an amendment to HB 2912 on the House floor that required a change in mission. However, that amendment was stripped from HB 2912 when Sen. Harris re-wrote the bill before sending it to the Senate Natural Resources Committee. Sen. Truan (D-Corpus Christi) attempted to amend the bill on the Senate floor by putting the mission statement change back in. A motion to table the amendment was approved 21 to 6. A vote AGAINST tabling the amendment was a vote for the Sierra Club position.

Sen. Bernsen (D-Beaumont) worked very hard on an amendment similar to Rep. Zbranek’s attempt to close the Grandfather Loophole. Sen. Bernsen’s amendment required all East Texas and El Paso grandfathered facilities to apply for permits by September 1, 2003, and by September 1, 2004 if the facility is in West Texas. The amendment required East Texas and El Paso facilities to make reductions by March 1, 2007, and West Texas facilities to do so by March 1, 2008. Sen. Bernsen’s amendment called for the use of 10 year-old Best Available Control Technology for most grandfathered facilities. The amendment also improved Rep. Chisum’s provisions on pipelines (see #1 above). Among other provisions, Sen. Bernsen’s amendment stipulated that the TNRCC can permit pipeline internal combustion engines in East Texas or El Paso only if the permit requires at least a 50% reduction in hourly emission rates of nitrogen oxide. With the support of the bill’s sponsor, Sen. Harris, Sen. Bernsen’s amendment was adopted by a vote of 22 to 7. A vote FOR the motion to adopt the amendment was a vote for the Sierra Club position.

This bill, which was enacted, poses a serious setback for affected citizens who wish to have a voice in the TNRCC permitting process. It amends the Texas Health and Safety Code to allow the TNRCC to issue uncontested permit amendments for the construction or modification of a facility when Best Available Control Technology (BACT) is used by the facility. This shortcut eliminates the opportunity for contested case hearings, as well as the public notice and comment period that are standard administrative aspects of the pre-construction permit review process. The bill was approved by the House and sent to the Senate. The Senate passed HB 2518 on second reading on May 17. Opponents of the bill, however, blocked suspension of the "three-day rule" by a vote of 22 to 7, and the bill was not passed that day. (The three-day rule requires that a bill be read on three separate days, but that constitutional rule may be suspended by a four-fifths vote of the senators present. Because of absences that day, only six senators were need to block suspension of the rule that day. ) The bill was passed the next day, however, when only a two-thirds vote was necessary to bring it to the floor). A vote against the motion to suspend the three-day rule on May 17 was a vote for the Sierra Club position.

SB 1541 by Sen. Duncan (R-Lubbock) was the bill that allowed a private company to build two radioactive waste dumps in West Texas and import virtually unlimited amounts of long-lived radioactive waste, as well as radioactive waste mixed with hazardous chemicals ("mixed waste"). Because of Senate rules and tradition, two-thirds of the Senators present must always vote to bring any bill to the floor for debate and a final vote. Thus, 11 or fewer Senators are able to block any bill from being brought to the floor. The vote to block, in legislative lingo, is a vote on the "motion to suspend the regular order of business." In this case, the Sierra Club hoped to persuade 11 Senators to vote against the motion to suspend the regular order of business because it was known that Sen. Bivins and the industry lobbyists had the votes to pass the bill (16 votes, or a majority of the Senate). The Sierra Club and others against the bill ultimately came within one vote of blocking the bill. The motion passed 20 to 9, with Sen. Harris absent. A vote AGAINST the motion was a vote for the Sierra Club position.

In the Senate Natural Resources Committee, Sen. Bivins (R-Amarillo) added an amendment to SB 1541 allowing a private company to build and operate not one but two radioactive waste dumps in Texas. The second dump would be for radioactive and mixed waste from the U.S. Department of Energy’s cleanup of hundreds of contaminated nuclear weapons production sites across the country. The "Bivins Amendment" as it became known, dramatically changed the nature of the bill, which previously had intended to limit the amount of waste imported to Texas to waste from the Texas-Maine-Vermont compact. The Bivins amendment increased the amount of waste that would have been dumped in Texas by a hundred times. When SB 1541 (as amended by Bivins) came to the Senate floor, Sen. Shapleigh (D-El Paso) strongly urged the other Senators to remove the Bivins amendment. The vote to table (kill) Sen. Shapleigh’s amendment (which stripped the Bivins amendment/second DOE dump) passed 16 to 13, and therefore the second dump for DOE waste was approved. A vote AGAINST the motion to table was a vote for the Sierra Club position.

This was the vote on passage of the entire bill, known in legislative lingo as "passage to third reading." (A bill must be read on three separate occasions in each house of the Legislature before it is finally passed. The first "reading" of the bill is when the bill is introduced. The second and third "readings" are the actual two votes taken on a bill on the floor of each house. The second reading vote is usually considered to be more critical than the vote on the third reading.) Four amendments were adopted during floor debate—mainly regarding the location of the two radioactive waste dumps. Sen. Shapleigh attached an amendment prohibiting the dumps from being placed near the Texas-Mexico border or the Pecos River. Sen. Staples (R-Palestine) passed an amendment requiring the dumps to be in West Texas by stipulating that they be located in an area that receives less than 26 inches of rainfall per year. Sen. Bivins passed an amendment on financial security and another amendment that prohibited the disposal of liquid radioactive waste—a provision already required by the federal government. The bill passed 19 to 10. A vote AGAINST passage was a vote for the Sierra Club position.

LEGEND

+ voted for Sierra Club position

- voted against Sierra Club position

A absent

E excused absence

HB 3355 p. 38 (also "Water Resources")

SB 1339 p. 40 (also "Water Resources")

HB 45 p. 36

HB 128 p. 46 (also "Parks")

HB 1477 p. 48

HB 2134 p. 36

HB 2338 p. 43

HB 2342 p. 43

HB 2518 p. 41 (also "Public Information & Participation")

HB 2912 pp. 26-35 (closure of grandfather loophole)

HB 3116 p. 45

HB 3117 p. 45

SB 5 p. 19

SB 546 p. 48

SB 602 p. 48 (also "Environmental Management")

SB 688 p. 52 (also "Public Information & Participation")

SB 905 p. 45 (also "Border Environment")

SB 1390 p. 40

SB 1561 p. 41 (also "Border Environment")

HB 2776 p. 44 (also "Water Resources")

SB 195 p. 51

SB 224 p. 51

SB 465 p. 52

SB 749 p. 39 (also " Environmental Management")

SB 905 p. 45 (also "Air Quality")

SB 1561 p. 41 (also "Air Quality")

HB 906 p. 36

HB 937 p. 46

HB 2615 p. 47

HB 2684 p. 37

HB 3302 p. 47

SB 813 p. 41

SB 1162 p. 39

SB 1410 p. 40

SB 1573 p. 40

HB 484 p. 46

HB 2839 p. 44

HB 2845 p. 37

HB 3002 p. 44 (also "Hazardous Waste Management")

HB 1226 p. 43

HB 1227 p. 47

HB 2997 p. 37

SB 602 p. 48 (also "Air Quality")

SB 749 p. 39 (also "Border Environment")

HB 1858 p. 38 (pipeline regulation – see SB 310 discussion)

HB 2334 p. 36 (designation of Big Thicket National Preserve Parkway)

HB 2723 p. 44 (whistleblower protection)

HB 3085 p. 45 (regulation of products containing mercury)

HB 3111 p. 38 (occupational licenses under TNRCC jurisdiction)

SB 1 p. 12 (appropriations bill – Parks & Wildlife Dept. section)

HB 3002 p. 44 (also "Energy")

HB 1279 p. 17

HB 2006 p. 17

HB 2007 p. 17

HB 2008 p. 17

HB 1927 p. 18

SB 509 p. 18

HB 1125 p. 46

HB 2907 p. 44

SB 839 p. 45

SB 1129 p. 45

HB 128 p. 46 (also "Air Quality")

HJR 97 p. 12

SB 934 p. 48

HB 1027 p. 50

HB 2687 p. 51

HB 3121 p. 51 (also "Property Taxes")

SB 687 p. 52

SB 1338 p. 52

HB 3121 p. 51 (also " Pollution Control")

HB 3123 p. 38 (also "Wildlife Management")

HB 1476 p. 43

HB 2947 p. 37

HB 2518 p. 41 (also "Air Quality")

HB 2653 p. 44

HB 2970 p. 44 (also "Solid Waste Management")

HB 3119 p. 45

SB 688 p. 52 (also "Air Quality")

SB 1071 p. 49

SB 1146 p. 39

HB 8 p. 15

HB 85 p. 15

HB 1099 p. 15

HB 2370 p. 15

HB 2371 p. 15

HB 2905 p. 16

HB 3086 p. 16

HB 3283 p. 16

HB 3420 p. 16

HB 987 p. 43

HB 2271 p. 43

HB 2291 p. 43

HB 2970 p. 44 (also "Public Information & Participation")

HB 2912 pp. 20-25 (TNRCC; also "Air Quality" – Grandfather Loophole)

SB 305 p. 11 (Texas Parks & Wildlife Department)

SB 311 p. 38 (Texas Railroad Commission)

SB 312 p. 39 (Texas Water Development Board)

HB 829 p. 43

HB 1629 p. 50

HB 1784 p. 50

HB 2379 p. 50

HB 2401 p. 36

HB 2403 p. 50

HB 2404 p. 37

HB 2588 p. 37

HB 2776 p. 44 (also "Border Environment")

HB 2847 p. 51

HB 3023 p. 38

HB 3096 p. 51

HB 3286 p. 38

HB 3355 p. 38 (also "Agriculture")

HJR 81 p. 41

SB 2 pp. 6-10

SB 289 p. 41

SB 312 p. 39 (also "Sunset Review")

SB 936 p. 39

SB 1174 p. 52

SB 1339 p. 40 (also "Agriculture")

SB 1444 p. 52

SB 1600 p. 42

HB 1208 p. 47

HB 3123 p. 38 (also "Wildlife Management")

SB 416 p. 51

SB 953 p. 48

SB 1122 p. 49

SB 1194 p. 40

SCR 51 p. 42