Texas Senate Bill SJR65

Texas 2013 - 83rd Regular

Caption

Proposing a constitutional amendment establishing a transportation infrastructure fund to assist counties in this state in the construction, reconstruction, or maintenance of transportation infrastructure that is intended to alleviate degradation caused by the exploration, development, or production of oil or gas.

Impact

If enacted, SJR65 would have a significant effect on state laws by introducing a dedicated funding mechanism for local transportation infrastructure. This amendment will allow counties to have better resources for maintaining essential transport systems that have been affected by industrial activities. It ensures that infrastructure development aligns with the growing demands of communities impacted by oil and gas extraction, thereby promoting safer and more reliable transportation networks.

Summary

SJR65 proposes a constitutional amendment aimed at establishing a transportation infrastructure fund specifically designed to assist counties in Texas. This fund will facilitate the construction, reconstruction, or maintenance of transportation infrastructure that addresses the environmental degradation attributed to the exploration, development, or production of oil or gas. By earmarking a portion of the state's economic stabilization fund, the bill seeks to create a sustainable source of revenue for projects aimed at mitigating such degradation.

Sentiment

The overall sentiment surrounding SJR65 appears to be positive, particularly among local government officials and advocates for environmental sustainability. Supporters contend that the initiative not only maintains but enhances public infrastructure while addressing environmental concerns. Conversely, there might be a faction that raises concerns about the potential for dependency on oil and gas revenues, questioning the sustainability of such funding in the long term.

Contention

Notable points of contention might revolve around the implications of prioritizing oil and gas infrastructure funding over other avenues of public transportation investment. Critics could argue that this approach might skew funding towards fossil fuel interests at the expense of innovative or renewable transportation solutions. Additionally, there may be debates regarding the effectiveness of current economic stabilization measures and whether these resources would be better allocated elsewhere within the state's budget.