89th Legislature Regular Session

SB 2082

Overall Vote Recommendation
Yes
Principle Criteria
Free Enterprise
Property Rights
Personal Responsibility
Limited Government
Individual Liberty
Digest

SB 2082 amends Section 382.065 of the Texas Health and Safety Code to expand the state’s regulation of concrete crushing facilities located near hospitals. Under existing law, such facilities are already prohibited from operating within 440 yards of sensitive sites like schools, residences, and hospitals. SB 2082 enhances these protections by explicitly defining and targeting large hospital campuses located in dense urban environments for additional safeguarding.

The bill applies the 440-yard prohibition specifically to hospitals that meet three criteria: (1) licensed under Chapter 241 of the Health and Safety Code, (2) have more than 200 beds, and (3) are situated in a municipality with a population of at least 2 million and within four miles of a railroad switching yard containing at least 64 tracks. These criteria aim to address the unique challenges of large urban hospitals located in industrialized or heavily trafficked areas.

In addition to reinforcing the proximity restrictions, SB 2082 introduces exemptions. These include allowances for concrete crushing operations that are temporarily located in or adjacent to public works project rights-of-way, as well as for enclosed facilities that use crushers in the production of recycled materials, under specific geographic and demographic conditions. The bill directs the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) to adopt rules implementing these changes and prohibits operation of covered facilities near hospitals until such rules are in place.

Overall, the legislation balances environmental and public health protections with narrowly defined exemptions for industry, targeting its restrictions to dense urban areas where vulnerable populations, particularly hospital patients, could be most affected by pollution and noise from concrete operations.

The Committee Substitute for SB 2082 significantly builds upon the originally filed version by introducing more precise criteria for which hospitals the restrictions apply to, and by establishing immediate protections pending agency rulemaking. While the original bill simply reinforced the 440-yard setback requirement between concrete crushing facilities and sensitive uses—including hospitals—it did so broadly, applying to any hospital regardless of size, location, or context, and only to permit applications filed after the law’s effective date of September 1, 2025.

In contrast, the Committee Substitute version narrows the hospital definition to target specific high-impact urban areas. It limits the bill's applicability to hospitals that are (1) licensed under Chapter 241 of the Health and Safety Code, (2) have over 200 beds, (3) are located in municipalities with populations of at least 2 million, and (4) are within four miles of a large railroad switching yard (with 64 or more tracks). This tailored approach focuses the bill’s impact on large hospitals in densely populated, industrially active urban environments, particularly in cities like Houston, while exempting rural or smaller hospitals from the expanded protections.

Another major difference is the timing and enforcement mechanism. The original bill defers the application of the new restrictions until after TCEQ adopts rules, applying only to new applications filed after the law takes effect. The Committee Substitute, however, includes an interim provision that prohibits operation of a concrete crushing facility within the specified distance of a qualifying hospital immediately upon the bill's effective date, regardless of TCEQ rulemaking. This ensures protections are in place from the start. Additionally, the substitute includes an exemption for temporary concrete crushers used in public works projects located within or adjacent to a right-of-way, which was not addressed in the original version.

Overall, the Committee Substitute moves from a general approach to a more targeted, enforceable framework, reflecting a stronger public health rationale while accommodating critical infrastructure needs.

Author
Borris Miles
Co-Author
Adam Hinojosa
Fiscal Notes

According to the Legislative Budget Board (LBB), SB 2082 is not expected to have any significant fiscal impact on the state. The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ), which is responsible for implementing the bill’s provisions, including adopting rules and enforcing the expanded setback requirements, indicated that any associated costs could be absorbed within its existing resources and operational budget.

Similarly, the bill is not anticipated to impose significant fiscal burdens on local governments. The expanded restrictions primarily target concrete crushing operations near specific large hospitals in dense urban areas, and the legislation does not require any new local enforcement mandates or infrastructure investments. Therefore, cities or counties where such facilities operate should not face added financial obligations as a result of the bill’s enactment.

Overall, SB 2082 is crafted in a way that minimizes budgetary impacts while still achieving its regulatory intent. By relying on existing permitting and enforcement frameworks within TCEQ and not requiring additional staffing or appropriations, the bill maintains a low-cost profile for both the state and local entities.

Vote Recommendation Notes

SB 2082 is a narrowly tailored public health and land-use regulation that addresses a specific deficiency in current law. It amends the Texas Health and Safety Code to prohibit the operation of concrete crushing facilities within 440 yards of certain hospitals, specifically, large hospitals (200+ beds) located in municipalities of two million or more and within four miles of a large railroad switching yard. This change responds to documented concerns about air quality and pollution near densely populated medical centers and is intended to protect vulnerable patients from environmental hazards, such as particulate matter generated by nearby industrial activity.

The bill reflects a restrained and principled approach to regulatory policy. It does not expand the size or structural scope of government. No new agencies, departments, or bureaucracies are created, and rulemaking responsibilities are delegated to the existing Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ), which is already equipped to handle such duties. According to the Legislative Budget Board, any implementation costs can be absorbed within existing resources, meaning the bill imposes no new burden on state or local taxpayers.

Concerns about regulatory burden on private enterprise are appropriately mitigated. The bill targets only specific geographic and demographic contexts, rather than issuing a statewide mandate. Additionally, it includes exemptions for temporary concrete crushing facilities located in or near public works projects, providing flexibility for infrastructure development and ensuring compliance remains feasible. The added requirement for TCEQ to adopt implementing rules offers businesses an opportunity to participate in the regulatory process and adjust operations accordingly.

In total, SB 2082 advances public health protections while honoring the principles of limited government, fiscal responsibility, and regulatory restraint. Its design minimizes unintended economic impacts while ensuring clean air standards near high-risk populations in major urban hospitals. For these reasons, Texas Policy Research recommends that lawmakers vote YES on SB 2082.

  • Individual Liberty: The bill promotes the right of individuals, especially hospital patients, to be free from unnecessary exposure to pollutants and noise generated by concrete crushing operations. These facilities emit dust and particulate matter, which can significantly affect people with respiratory issues and other health vulnerabilities. By protecting patients in large, urban hospitals from adjacent industrial activity, the bill upholds the liberty of individuals to access care in safe, health-promoting environments without the government creating broader limitations on freedom of movement or activity.
  • Personal Responsibility: The bill reinforces the idea that businesses must operate responsibly, particularly when their activities may affect public health. By requiring facility operators to site their businesses away from sensitive health institutions, the bill promotes a reasonable standard of care. It ensures businesses take into account their potential externalities, aligning with the principle that liberty comes with the duty not to harm others.
  • Free Enterprise: The bill imposes a narrow restriction on where certain businesses, specifically concrete crushing operations, may operate. However, it does not ban such businesses or interfere with their core operations outside the narrowly defined proximity to large hospitals in major urban areas. The addition of exemptions for temporary operations related to public works projects and for enclosed, recycling-based operations reflects a balance between public interest and operational flexibility. Thus, while it places some limitations on enterprise, it does so narrowly and justifiably in the context of protecting health and safety. 
  • Private Property Rights: The bill indirectly supports private property rights by protecting the use and enjoyment of hospital properties, where vulnerable patients seek care, from nearby industrial encroachment that could compromise air quality or increase health risks. It does not authorize seizure, restriction, or expropriation of property; rather, it establishes zoning-like parameters for industrial activity. These are common in land-use law and do not violate constitutional protections.
  • Limited Government: The bill adheres to the principle of limited government by delegating authority to an existing agency (TCEQ) rather than creating new bureaucratic structures. It applies only to a narrowly defined subset of hospitals and includes a clear rulemaking path and time-limited provisions. The fiscal note confirms there is no significant cost to implement the bill, further reinforcing that this is not an expansion of government scope or spending.
Related Legislation
View Bill Text and Status