2025 · Regular session · House bill
HB1318
HB1318 revises compensation and property-transfer rules in a specific process for giving a municipal or city-franchised utility the sole water or sewer service certificate in an incorporated or annexed area.
Official caption: Relating to a certificate of public convenience and necessity to provide water or sewer service in an area incorporated or annexed by a municipality.
Official report lists House author(s): Guillen. This does not identify sponsors or amendment drafters.
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.
- HB1318 revises compensation and property-transfer rules in a specific process for giving a municipal or city-franchised utility the sole water or sewer service certificate in an incorporated or annexed area.
- The law removes language requiring compensation and transfer for property deemed “useless or valueless” because of the new sole certification.
- A Public Utility Commission order alone does not transfer property: a court judgment is required.
- For damage to retained property on appeal, the court or jury may consider only the factors in Water Code 13.255(g).
What does it do?
HB1318 revises compensation and property-transfer rules in a specific process for giving a municipal or city-franchised utility the sole water or sewer service certificate in an incorporated or annexed area. It applies to proceedings begun on or after September 1, 2025; earlier proceedings remain under prior law. A service certificate authorizes service in a territory—it is not itself ownership of another utility’s pipes or land. Final law
The law removes language requiring compensation and transfer for property deemed “useless or valueless” because of the new sole certification. It instead describes compensation for property actually transferred and damage or adverse effects on property the existing utility retains. When a municipality applies on behalf of a franchised utility, that utility must make the court-ordered payments for both categories. This is not a declaration that utilities lose all compensation rights.
A Public Utility Commission order alone does not transfer property: a court judgment is required. The existing 30-day court-appeal route and new trial of the issues remain. Sole certification generally becomes effective upon the required compensation payment or deposit; if the final judgment awards no compensation, it becomes effective when that judgment is final. Possession pending appeal remains subject to the judgment’s payment/deposit requirement and additional security for a larger award.
For damage to retained property on appeal, the court or jury may consider only the factors in Water Code 13.255(g). Those include debt and ability to repay it, facility value, allocable expenditures and contracts, effects on remaining customers, lost revenue from existing customers, reasonable legal/professional expenses and financial integrity. The provision itself also includes “other relevant factors”; the new restriction should not be described as a closed checklist of only the named items. Real-property valuation remains tied to eminent-domain standards. The overall process has existing limits: it covers specified nonprofit water/sewer corporations and districts, plus a separate category of utilities wholly within a city of at least 1.7 million people, with additional conditions for that category. Water Code 13.255, including (g), (j) and (k)
What changed along the way?
The introduced, House committee, engrossed and Senate committee texts have identical operative provisions. Senator Juan “Chuy” Hinojosa’s sole indexed amendment, adopted May 19, added the express rule limiting the retained-property damage determination to subsection (g)’s factors. That addition survives in the enrolled law. Introduced · House committee · Engrossed · Senate committee · Amendment · Amendment index · Version index
Governor Abbott signed the bill June 20, 2025. The Senate passed it 31–0; the House’s final concurrence vote was 110–27, with one present but not voting, after an initial 112–19 passage. History
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?
Cities and franchised utilities may benefit from a more specifically framed transfer-and-compensation process. Existing providers and their remaining customers have a direct interest in how retained assets, debt, revenue and service costs are evaluated. Actual awards remain fact-specific; the act does not set a dollar ceiling, order a particular takeover or establish that customer rates will fall.
All four indexed Legislative Budget Board fiscal postings anticipate no significant state or local-government fiscal impact, with implementation costs absorbed using existing resources. They do not estimate individual acquisition awards, customer-rate changes or quantified two-year/five-year costs. Introduced note · Engrossed note · Second-house note · Enrolled-stage note
Official sources
- Bill history and latest recorded action
- Bill versions, analyses and fiscal notes
- Action history and votes
- Amendment index
Catalog report retrieved 2026-10-25. Check the official record for corrections or later changes.