Texas Senate Bill SB292

Texas 2011 - 82nd Regular

• Filed: 12/21/10
• Out of Senate Committee: 3/9/11
• Introduced: 12/21/10
• Voted on by Senate: 3/16/11
• Refer: 2/23/11
• Out of House Committee: 4/5/11
• Engrossed: 3/16/11
• Refer: 3/29/11
• Report Pass: 3/31/11

Caption

Relating to changes in the single-member district boundaries of the Barton Springs-Edwards Aquifer Conservation District.

Impact

The passage of SB292 will lead to significant changes in how the Barton Springs-Edwards Aquifer Conservation District operates in terms of zoning and governance. By institutionalizing these boundaries, the bill enhances the capacity for more focused regulation and oversight of the aquifer, which is a critical water resource in Texas. This reconfiguration is expected to empower local management of the aquifer's resources, promoting environmental sustainability and more effective conservation practices. Furthermore, the bill will eliminate outdated sections within existing statutes, thereby streamlining administrative processes.

Summary

Senate Bill 292 seeks to amend regulations surrounding the single-member district boundaries of the Barton Springs-Edwards Aquifer Conservation District in Texas. This legislative act aims to reflect the demographic shifts indicated by the recent federal decennial census by requiring the board of the district to revise its member districts as deemed appropriate. The bill stipulates specific boundary adjustments to enhance clarity and ensure representation within the district, particularly in areas that encompass portions of Austin and surrounding unincorporated regions. An important detail is that two of the districts would either be entirely within Austin or include nearby municipalities, thereby creating a clearer delineation of governance and resource management pertaining to the aquifer.

Contention

While the bill presents potential benefits in terms of environmental management and representation, it may also generate some contention amongst stakeholders. Opponents of such boundary changes may argue that the revisions could disrupt existing community ties and governance structures, particularly in regions that experience significant population movement. Supporters, however, contend that such measures will enhance regulatory effectiveness by ensuring that aquifer management is responsive to current community needs and ecological realities. Additionally, critics could raise concern regarding the implications of reduced jurisdictional control as state governance becomes more centralized through these defined boundaries.