2025 Texas sessionsRegular and both called sessions have ended. This index covers House and Senate bills, not resolutions. Statuses come from official reports.

2025 · Regular session · House bill

HB1238

For proposed Class I injection wells, a category of underground disposal well, HB1238 lets the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality's executive director satisfy the well-location inspection requirement by accepting a report …

Read bill highlights ↓

Official caption: Relating to the inspection of the location of a proposed Class I injection well.

Signed by governorSource-checked explanation published

Official report lists House author(s): Guillen. This does not identify sponsors or amendment drafters.

Report an error ↗

Bill explanation published · Version and amendment review scope is stated below · Individual amendment records may not be separately annotated.

Bill highlights

Selected points from the published explanation. Follow each point to its source-linked context; conditions and limits may matter.

For proposed Class I injection wells, a category of underground disposal well, HB1238 lets the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality's executive director satisfy the well-location inspection requirement by accepting a report from a Texas-licensed engineer or geoscientist.
The report must confirm that the professional inspected the site to determine local conditions and the well's probable effects, and must state the professional's determination about required casing—the protective structure installed in the well.
The executive director may require an additional in-person inspection when an issue revealed by the initial inspection merits one.

Read the full explanation ↓

What does it do?

For proposed Class I injection wells, a category of underground disposal well, HB1238 lets the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality’s executive director satisfy the well-location inspection requirement by accepting a report from a Texas-licensed engineer or geoscientist. Acceptance is discretionary, not automatic. The law applies to TCEQ permit applications filed on or after September 1, 2025; earlier applications stay under prior law. Final law

The report must confirm that the professional inspected the site to determine local conditions and the well’s probable effects, and must state the professional’s determination about required casing—the protective structure installed in the well. The inspection may be in person or virtual, using satellite/aerial imagery, mapping software or other appropriate information sources.

The executive director may require an additional in-person inspection when an issue revealed by the initial inspection merits one. This is not a requirement to visit every site after a virtual inspection, but it is an express power to require a follow-up visit. The act changes how this inspection requirement can be met; it does not itself approve a well or repeal the remaining permit and casing requirements. The cited statutes continue to address freshwater protection, casing depth/materials and geological and hydrological conditions. Water Code 27.051, 27.055 and 27.056

What changed along the way?

The introduced and House committee bills already allowed acceptance of professional reports and virtual inspections. Representative Erin Zwiener’s sole indexed floor amendment, adopted April 24, 2025, added the executive director’s authority to require the follow-up in-person inspection. That addition appears in the engrossed, Senate committee and enrolled texts, which match in their operative provisions.

Governor Abbott signed HB1238 May 28, 2025. It passed the House 122–6, with one present but not voting, and the Senate 29–2. History · Text versions · Introduced · House committee · Engrossed · Senate committee · Zwiener amendment · Amendment index

For the full amendment record, open the official amendment index.

Official bill versions

Compare the published text versions in the official text index. A change is not attributed to a specific amendment here without a verified record.

Who could benefit—and who could bear the costs?

Applicants and licensed professionals gain another way to complete the inspection step, potentially reducing travel or scheduling burdens when a virtual report is appropriate and accepted. Nearby communities retain an interest in the accuracy of site information and water protection; the law is not evidence that virtual inspections will always detect the same issues as a visit. No project-specific safety or cost conclusion follows from this act alone.

Both indexed Legislative Budget Board notes anticipate no significant state or local-government fiscal impact, assuming costs can be absorbed within existing resources. They provide no quantified two-year/five-year cost, private cost saving or estimate of permit-processing time. Introduced fiscal note · Engrossed fiscal note

Official sources

Catalog report retrieved 2026-10-25. Check the official record for corrections or later changes.