LEGISLATIVE REVIEW

By Lauren Barth

The contentious last days of the 80th regular session of the Texas Legislature ended with varied results for the environment. Overall, more helpful than harmful legislation passed, but a shocking number of environmentally friendly bills died without even receiving a committee hearing. As a result, the session produced little news for air. It did, however, produce good news for energy efficiency and mixed news for water and state parks.

We examine the good news first.

Efficiency legislation fared remarkably well this session, which saw both SB 12 and HB 3693 sent to the governor for approval. SB12, by Kip Averitt, has been signed by the Governor. It will expand the AirCheck Texas Repair and Replacement Assistance Program so more low-income families can replace older, high-emissions vehicles. It will also increase the geographic area targeted by the Texas Emissions Reduction Plan, create energy efficiency standards for appliances, and require colleges and state agencies to reduce energy consumption.

Joe Straus’ HB3693 could accomplish even more. This omnibus bill is waiting for the Governor’s action. It would require governmental entities to keep track of gas, electricity, and water use and to publicize that consumption on the internet. It would also demand stricter energy conservation provisions in building codes, and allow nonprofits to spend more money on promoting energy efficiency in rural areas. It would require school districts to increase efficiency, and would make individuals aware of their own energy use by instituting a program of household energy reports. If signed, this bill will undoubtedly help Texans to reduce per capita energy consumption, and will rank as one of this session’s greatest environmental victories.

This year has also produced favorable water legislation, though the good policies come with a large grain of salt. If approved by Governor Perry, Averitt’s SB3 would allow the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality to designate sources of fresh water to be protected and allowed to flow into bays and estuaries. These sources could be tapped in the event of a drought. The bill would also require Texas Water Development Board to establish a statewide program of rigorous water conservation education that would hopefully ease stress on the water supply.

The salty portion of the bill allows revision of the limits placed on withdrawal from the Edwards Aquifer and establishes “unique reservoir site designations” that effectively set aside portions of rivers for future use.

Like water, parks received good news with a catch. House Bill 12, which releases the cap on the amount of money the Parks and Wildlife Department can receive from the sporting-goods tax, passed. Appropriations for parks have been less than the (former) $32 million dollar cap since 1995, resulting in the deferment of as much as $400 million dollars in repairs. Now more money is available, but it is not guaranteed. Every two years, the legislature will decide how much money to appropriate to parks – theoretically as little as nothing. This session, the Appropriations Bill was generous, allocating $180 million over the next two years for the Department to spend on much-needed staff, repairs, equipment, and development. Though an enormous relief, this sum only begins to address the needs of the long deprived state park system.

Furthermore, HB 12 also transfers historic sites from the state park system to the Texas Historical Commission. This decision is unprecedented – national historic sites are managed by the national park system, and those of other states are managed by state park systems. Several studies have advised against the transfer, and no economic analysis or public consultation preceded the decision. Many people suspect political favoritism.

Finally, despite enormous efforts, little air quality legislation passed. A school bus bill that will make children’s lives a little cleaner by banning school bus idling did pass during the last hour, and bus advocates secured $7.5 million to spend over the next two years on vehicle improvement, but only one of the seven bills designed to alleviate large- scale pollution even made it out of committee. However, no news is not necessarily bad news. A bill that would have prevented municipalities suing over air pollution blown into their city from outside of their city limits died, like its environmentally friendly brothers, when it reached the House.

Nothing happened to significantly reduce emissions, but we pause to remember the bills that didn’t make it.

HB 2475, SB 1855, and SB 1906, different bills with identical text by Hochberg, Gallegos, and Ellis respectively, addressed toxic hotspots. Hochberg’s bill did not even receive a hearing in the House Environmental Regulations Committee, chaired by Dennis Bonnen. Though Gallegos’ bill was heard in the Senate Natural Resources Committee and obtained three coauthors, it died in committee.

Another cluster of companion bills – HB 2363 by Hernandez, HB 2722 by Thompson, and SB 1924 by Gallegos – attempted to provide public access to information regarding the locations of hotspots. Neither House bill was even addressed in committee, though Gallegos’s bill made it all the way through the senate and house committee, but died in the House Calendars Committee.

One bill by Vo made a final attempt to limit air pollution and to increase public awareness. HB2890 would have required the commission to create an easily accessible “air pollutants watch list” that would include the locations and concentrations of dangerous ambient pollutants. It would also require the commission to take into account the location as well as the emission levels of facilities seeking permits. A facility would not be allowed to produce as much pollution if it was located in a toxic hotspot. This bill also died in the House’s Environmental Regulations Committee.

On the upside, Wayne Smith’s and Mike Jackson’s respective companion bills HB 3592 and SB 1317 failed along with the other legislation. These bills would have prevented cities and towns from objecting to the influx of toxic chemicals produced in facilities outside their limits. This prospective legislation especially threatened Houston, which has a number of polluting facilities just outside of its jurisdiction. Despite Mayor Bill White’s trip to Austin to protest Jackson’s bill, it passed the Senate. Democrats uniformly opposed the bill, and Republicans uniformly supported it. Senator Gallegos was absent the day of voting, allowing Republicans to reach the necessary two thirds vote to bring it to the Senate floor. In the House, the bill went to the Urban Affairs Committee, was amended, and transferred to the Environmental Regulation Committee, where it passed and was sent to calendars, where it died.

This session may be interpreted as a great gain or a great loss for the environment, depending on one’s point of view. Energy efficiency will increase, parks will receive more funding, and attempts at water conservation will intensify. On the other hand, very little will be done to improve the state of the air, and rivers will lose protection. Legislators still have a lot of work to do if they want to bring the state into environmental accord, but they have made progress this session.

To check the fate of any bill you are interested in, see the legislature’s website.