Texas House Bill HB1580

Texas 2009 - 81st Regular

• Out of House Committee: 3/27/09
• Voted on by House: 4/7/09
• Out of Senate Committee: 5/1/09
• Voted on by Senate: 5/7/09
• Governor Action: 5/27/09
• Enrolled: 5/18/09
• Passed: 5/27/09

Caption

Relating to the continuation and functions of the board of directors of the official cotton growers' boll weevil eradication foundation and the management of certain cotton in pest management zones.

Impact

The passage of HB 1580 is expected to have significant implications for cotton growers in Texas, particularly in how they manage financial contributions towards pest eradication. By enabling the transfer of funds between eradication zones, the bill aims to improve resource allocation and responsiveness to localized outbreaks of boll weevils. This could lead to more targeted efforts in eradicating the pest, ultimately benefitting the agriculture sector and potentially enhancing cotton yield production in affected regions.

Summary

House Bill 1580 focuses on the continuation and functions of the board of directors of the official cotton growers' boll weevil eradication foundation in Texas. The bill proposes amendments to the Agriculture Code, particularly Section 74.113, which details how assessments on cotton growers within pest eradication zones may be utilized. The funds levied from these assessments can only be allocated to eradication efforts, operational costs of the foundation, and other relevant programs approved by the foundation’s board. A notable addition is the provision allowing the transfer of proceeds between different eradication zones, expanding the flexibility in fund allocation to tackle the boll weevil threat effectively.

Contention

While the bill appears to support cotton growers and pest management, it may also spark discussion among stakeholders about the efficacy of assessments and appropriations between zones. Some growers might raise concerns regarding how assessments are determined and the transparency of fund transfers between zones. Furthermore, debates could arise over the decision-making power of the board and the Commissioner in adopting alternative methods for assessments, potentially leading to a call for more accountability and representation in the assessment procedures.