Texas Senate Bill SB2285

Texas 2017 - 85th Regular

Caption

Relating to the boundaries of the Harris County Fresh Water Supply District No. 58.

Impact

The passage of SB2285 is designed to streamline the governance of the Harris County Fresh Water Supply District by clarifying the properties that fall under its jurisdiction. This exclusion may have implications for future development plans within the area as it delineates responsibilities and resource management pertaining to water supply. By restructuring the district's boundaries, the bill aims to enhance operational efficiency and ensure that water resources are managed effectively within the defined geographical contours of the district.

Summary

Senate Bill 2285 concerns the boundaries of the Harris County Fresh Water Supply District No. 58. The bill specifically adjusts the district's boundaries to exclude a parcel of land that measures 138.03 acres situated in Harris County, Texas. The exclusion process is outlined clearly in the bill, which includes a detailed description of the land in question, and serves to officially amend the jurisdiction of the district in relation to water supply management for the excluded area. The main purpose of this bill is to address the needs and administrative issues related to land management within the area that pertains to freshwater supply distribution.

Sentiment

The sentiment surrounding SB2285 appears largely neutral to positive, with general agreement on the necessity for clear boundaries and jurisdictional definitions for the district. Legislative discussions suggest support from various stakeholders, recognizing the need to exclude specific properties to facilitate better water management. As this bill primarily deals with administrative adjustments, it did not seem to generate significant controversy or opposition, indicating a consensus on the importance of effective governance in resource management.

Contention

While SB2285 has moved through the legislative process with strong support -- passing the Senate with 30 votes in favor and just 1 against, followed by 146 votes in favor and none against in the House -- there may still be underlying concerns about how such exclusions could affect local land use and development policies. Local governance advocates might express concerns that the changes could impede planning initiatives or influence property rights, although the bill does not appear to have sparked overt contention in its current form.