HB2692

The text index contains five versions. The amendment index lists no floor amendments. Compared with the introduced bill, the House substitute revised drafting and references and narrowed the repeal list to the old governing act and specified provisions of seven later acts. Its operative text survived through enrollment. The House passed the bill 104–32, with two present but not voting; the Senate passed it 31–0.

Comparison with the authority’s consolidated law through 2023 reveals differences worth distinguishing from simple renumbering. Old section 21-b(a) limited subsidiary pollution-control districts to powers concerning waste treatment; new section 8513.0801 refers to any of the authority’s powers and purposes. Old section 3(j)(1) required two weekly newspaper notices for covered water-supply contracts; section 8513.0317 still requires publication but does not specify that frequency. Old section 3(a)(5) limited franchise suspension or forfeiture to discrimination unless the franchise provided otherwise; section 8513.0325 retains a district-court-order requirement unless otherwise provided, but omits that specified ground.

For covered construction and service contracts, section 8513.0318 retains bidding and two weekly notices, emergency exceptions and access to other lawful procurement methods. Its exemption is worded as a purchase contract, a procurement contract, or a contract described by Water Code 49.278; the earlier text tied the purchase/procurement exception to that Water Code provision. This does not establish that all other procurement laws cease to apply.

Section 8513.0209 states a 60-day annual limit on directors’ daily allowances, compared with 150 days in old section 11. But Water Code 49.060 as it stood before HB2692 already imposed a controlling annual compensation limit for authorities created by special law. It would be misleading to claim a simple 150-to-60-day pay cut. The new chapter also omits the old act’s 6-percent bond-interest wording and 15-percent fee for collecting delinquent taxes through suit, and changes a county tax-collection fee from 2 percent to not more than 2 percent. Those textual changes alone do not establish actual borrowing costs, collection charges or savings under other applicable law.

The law preserves existing water rights and the Guadalupe-Blanco River Authority’s priority where powers overlap. Its eminent-domain section expressly conditions that power on the authority having made the required filing by December 31, 2012; it is not an unconditional new grant. The next Sunset review is scheduled for 2035 and every 12th year thereafter. See sections 8513.0104–.0106, .0319, and subchapters F–H.

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

Residents, water customers, property owners, contractors and the authority can find the governing provisions in one code chapter. That may make the law easier to use, but it does not itself guarantee lower bills, less flooding or faster projects. The subsidiary-district purpose wording and contract-notice changes matter when the authority considers future projects; taxpayers retain the applicable hearing and voting protections. The act does not itself create a subsidiary district or approve a particular project’s borrowing. See the final law, especially subchapters C and H.

The May 9, 2025 fiscal note anticipates no state fiscal implication and no fiscal implication for other local governments. It cannot determine the effect on this river authority because its future use of eminent domain, bonds, assessments, fees and taxes is unknown. The March 31 and April 17 notes reach the same result. This is not a finding of zero local cost or a quantified saving. The act makes no appropriation.