Overall Vote Recommendation

Vote No; Amend

Principle Criteria

Free Enterprise

Property Rights

Personal Responsibility

Limited Government

Individual Liberty

Digest

SB 1302 proposes amendments to Section 26.040 of the Texas Water Code, which governs general permits for waste discharge into or adjacent to state waters. The bill introduces two new subsections—(h-1) and (h-2)—designed to increase regulatory oversight over entities whose authority to discharge under a general permit has been previously denied or suspended by the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ).

Under the new Subsection (h-1), any entity that has had its authority to discharge under a general permit denied or suspended may not resume discharge until the executive director of TCEQ explicitly reauthorizes it. Importantly, Subsection (h-2) specifies that this reauthorization must be a deliberate, manual act—the executive director is expressly prohibited from using automated systems or processes to restore permit eligibility.

The proposed changes apply only to denials or suspensions that occur on or after the effective date of the bill, which is set for September 1, 2025. This narrow scope ensures the bill's provisions will not retroactively impact prior decisions or current permit holders. The bill aims to strengthen administrative oversight, likely in response to concerns about the adequacy of prior monitoring or the need for more accountability in pollution control.

The originally filed version of SB 1302 proposed a strict and inflexible approach to regulating entities whose authority to discharge waste under a general permit had been denied or suspended by the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ). It added a new provision—Subsection (h-1)—to the Water Code, stating that once a discharger’s permit is denied or suspended, the commission may not reauthorize that entity to discharge under a general permit for five years. This blanket prohibition aimed to create a deterrent effect and ensure prolonged accountability but offered no room for case-by-case consideration or remediation.

In contrast, the Committee Substitute for SB 1302 replaces the five-year prohibition with a more nuanced framework that emphasizes regulatory oversight rather than a fixed penalty period. The substitute adds two new subsections. First, Subsection (h-1) still prevents automatic resumption of discharge activity but allows reauthorization once the executive director of TCEQ explicitly authorizes it. Second, Subsection (h-2) prohibits the use of automated processes to make such authorizations, thereby ensuring human oversight in all such decisions. This approach maintains accountability but introduces flexibility, allowing the agency to consider individual circumstances when determining whether to restore discharge privileges.

Overall, the key difference between the two versions lies in rigidity versus discretion. The original bill imposed a mandatory five-year penalty without room for mitigation, while the substitute empowers the agency to act based on a case-specific review. This shift reflects a legislative intent to maintain strong regulatory control but in a manner that permits earlier reinstatement if deemed appropriate, balancing environmental protection with administrative pragmatism.

Author

Lois Kolkhorst

Co-Author

Nathan Johnson

Borris Miles

Royce West

Sponsor

Cecil Bell, Jr.

Contact the Author

Sen. Lois Kolkhorst

Capitol Phone:

(512) 463-0118

Capitol Office:

CAP GE.4

E-Mail:

[email protected]

Visit Official Website

Fiscal Notes

According to the Legislative Budget Board (LBB), SB 1302 is not expected to have a significant fiscal impact on the state. The analysis assumes that any administrative or operational costs associated with implementing the bill—specifically, the manual review and authorization of dischargers by the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ)—can be absorbed within the agency’s existing budget and resources. This indicates that no new appropriations or staffing increases are anticipated to fulfill the bill’s requirements.

Similarly, the bill is projected to have no significant fiscal impact on local governments. The proposed changes do not mandate any new responsibilities or expenditures at the local level, nor do they alter the revenue streams or regulatory authority of municipalities or regional environmental agencies.

Overall, SB 1302 is viewed as a cost-neutral policy shift in terms of fiscal administration. While it changes procedural requirements—moving from automatic to manual permit reauthorization—it does so within the scope of the existing regulatory framework and personnel capacity at TCEQ, ensuring no additional financial burden on state or local governments.

Vote Recommendation Notes

SB 1302 aims to close a regulatory loophole in the general permitting process used by the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ). The bill responds to a real-world incident involving a sand mine that resumed discharging into protected waters after a permit denial, exploiting automated reauthorization protocols. The legislation requires that any discharger whose permit was denied or suspended under Section 26.040(h) may not resume discharging until the TCEQ executive director explicitly authorizes it. Additionally, the bill prohibits the use of automated processes for this reauthorization, ensuring human oversight in future permit decisions.

The bill’s stated intent is to maintain environmental integrity without imposing unnecessarily burdensome regulations. By replacing the original version’s rigid five-year ban with a more flexible but closely monitored executive review, the committee substitute allows for case-by-case assessment while maintaining strong regulatory controls. This strikes a balance between environmental protection and administrative efficiency, aligning the permitting process with existing provisions in Section 5.222 of the Water Code.

However, while the committee substitute addresses overregulation concerns, it still expands the discretion of a state agency executive, which can raise questions about transparency, predictability, and due process for regulated entities. As currently written, the bill lacks clear criteria or timelines for how and when the executive director must act, which could create uncertainty for permit applicants and potentially lead to inconsistent enforcement.

Therefore, Texas Policy Research recommends that lawmakers vote NO on SB 1302 unless amended as described below. To better align with principles of limited government, individual liberty, and free enterprise, the bill should be revised to include clear guidelines, timeframes, and due process protections for the reauthorization process. These changes would improve administrative accountability and reduce the risk of arbitrary or delayed decisions while maintaining the environmental safeguards the bill seeks to strengthen.

Related Legislation

HB 4485 (Same As)

View Bill Text and Status