Texas Senate Bill SB1825

Texas 2013 - 83rd Regular

Caption

Relating to the composition of the board of directors of the Fort Bend Subsidence District.

Votes

SB 1825 was brought to a vote on May 10, 2013, where it passed overwhelmingly in the House with 143 yeas and no nays. This strong support underscores a consensus among legislators regarding the importance of effective governance within environmental authorities and reflects an acknowledgment of the pressing need for sound management of groundwater resources in Fort Bend County.

Impact

The amendments to Section 8834.051 of the Special District Local Laws Code will introduce staggered terms for board members and outline the appointment process involving the North Fort Bend Water Authority. This change is anticipated to streamline governance within the district, possibly leading to more effective decision-making and policy implementation regarding water conservation and management practices. The bill is backed by the notion that a well-composed board will be more responsive to the challenges posed by subsidence in the region.

Summary

Senate Bill 1825 aims to modify the governance structure of the Fort Bend Subsidence District by changing the composition of its board of directors. The bill proposes to increase the number of directors from 13 to 15 and stipulates specific appointment processes for these directors. The modifications are intended to enhance the management of water resources in Fort Bend County, ensuring that the district has a diverse and adequately represented leadership to address the area's subsidence issues related to groundwater extraction.

Contention

While there appears to be broad support for strengthening the Fort Bend Subsidence District's governance, concerns may arise around the balance of interests represented on the board. The change in board composition and the process for appointing new members may trigger debates over local versus external influences on water management policies. Opponents of similar measures in the past have raised issues regarding transparency and accountability, questioning whether an expanded board would genuinely reflect local constituents' interests or cater to more expansive political agendas.