Texas House Bill HB1825

Texas 2011 - 82nd Regular

• Out of House Committee: 3/30/11
• Introduced: 2/24/11
• Refer: 3/3/11
• Report Pass: 3/22/11

Caption

Relating to permit application and amendment hearings conducted by groundwater conservation districts and the State Office of Administrative Hearings.

Impact

The implications of HB 1825 are significant for stakeholders involved in groundwater management and regulation in Texas. By codifying the ability of districts to contract with the State Office of Administrative Hearings, the bill facilitates a more formal and structured approach to conducting hearings related to water permits. This not only improves transparency but also ensures adherence to procedural standards set forth in the Government Code. Furthermore, it empowers boards to make final decisions based on proposals issued by administrative law judges, which could expedite decision-making processes in permit applications.

Summary

House Bill 1825 focuses on the procedural aspects of permit application and amendment hearings, which are conducted by groundwater conservation districts and the State Office of Administrative Hearings in Texas. The bill aims to streamline the processes for contested case hearings. Key provisions include allowing groundwater conservation districts to contract with the State Office of Administrative Hearings to conduct hearings, which could enhance the efficiency and consistency of these proceedings. The bill specifies the conditions under which this contract can be made, emphasizing the role of the State Office as a neutral party in such hearings.

Contention

However, there may be points of contention regarding how these hearings are conducted and the potential costs involved for applicants. The bill mandates that parties requesting a hearing must bear the associated costs, which could raise concerns about accessibility for smaller entities or individuals seeking permits. Critics could argue that this financial responsibility could create barriers for some applicants while promoting a more bureaucratic process. Additionally, there may be debates over the extent to which these amendments ensure a fair hearing process that adequately considers local impacts versus the need for statewide consistency.