SB 2122 proposes to amend the Texas Natural Resources Code to authorize the Railroad Commission of Texas (RRC) to impose a new tiered fee schedule on various oil and gas waste disposal permits. The bill would establish application fees ranging from $500 to $3,000 depending on the type of permit, including those for land application, landfarming, commercial waste separation, and permanent surface disposal facilities. While the stated goal of SB 2122 is to modernize environmental protections and align the Environmental Permitting and Support (EPS) division with other revenue-generating units within the RRC, the mechanism by which it does so increases government administrative scope and regulatory complexity.
The bill's fiscal note shows that it would generate approximately $1.2 million annually in new fee revenue without drawing from the General Revenue Fund, as the funds would instead be allocated to a dedicated account for oil and gas regulation. While this may make the bill appear fiscally responsible, it essentially creates a permanent new revenue stream for state government operations and expands the bureaucratic footprint of the RRC, which is inconsistent with the principle of limited government.
Furthermore, the imposition of higher and more varied fees imposes additional regulatory and financial burdens on industry operators, particularly smaller businesses that may lack the economies of scale to absorb these costs. The bill offers no sliding scale or hardship accommodations and does not tie fee increases to performance outcomes or sunset provisions. While it does not directly impact general taxpayers, it indirectly fosters long-term growth in regulatory authority and administrative infrastructure without sufficient oversight constraints.
For these reasons, Texas Policy Research recommends that lawmakers vote NO on SB 2122. The bill increases the scope and funding of state regulatory functions without corresponding structural reforms, transparency mechanisms, or safeguards to ensure limited government. It represents a step toward regulatory and bureaucratic expansion under the banner of cost recovery.
- Individual Liberty: The bill does not directly interfere with personal freedoms such as speech, movement, or conscience. However, by increasing financial and procedural barriers to permit access, it may indirectly constrain the ability of individuals—especially small operators or rural landowners—to engage freely in lawful oil and gas activities. This could limit individual choices regarding economic livelihood or land use.
- Personal Responsibility: The bill supports the principle that those who generate industrial waste should bear the cost of its regulation, rather than shifting it to taxpayers. By requiring applicants to pay fees to support the environmental permitting process, the bill incentivizes actors to take greater ownership of the consequences of their operations. It aligns with the idea that responsibility and accountability should be internalized by those engaging in risk-bearing activities.
- Free Enterprise: The bill introduces higher and more granular application fees that can act as a barrier to entry, particularly for small or independent operators. While large firms may absorb these costs, the increased financial burden could discourage innovation or market competition, especially in niche or rural operations. This tilts the regulatory environment in favor of more established players, potentially reducing dynamism in the oil and gas waste management sector.
- Private Property Rights: The bill does not directly restrict the use or disposition of private property. However, higher costs for securing disposal permits could disincentivize lawful, regulated waste practices on private land. This may lead to unintended consequences like decreased land utilization for resource development or increased off-grid disposal activity—both of which have implications for property rights and responsible land stewardship.
- Limited Government: The bill expands the Railroad Commission's administrative reach and creates a new, dedicated funding stream from fees. Though framed as a modernization effort, the bill entrenches a larger regulatory apparatus and increases the state’s role in a sector already subject to extensive oversight. It does so without sunset provisions, budget caps, or performance checks. This represents a drift away from the limited government ideal—particularly the principle that regulation should be as lean and restrained as possible.
