2025 · Regular session · House bill
HB3333
HB3333 bars the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality from issuing certain new permits for direct wastewater discharges into specified Devils River waters in Val Verde County.
Official caption: Relating to a restriction on permits authorizing direct discharges of waste or pollutants into water in certain river segments and drainage areas.
Official report lists House author(s): Morales, Eddie. 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.
- HB3333 bars the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality from issuing certain new permits for direct wastewater discharges into specified Devils River waters in Val Verde County.
- The restriction concerns direct discharges of waste, effluent or pollutants from domestic or industrial wastewater treatment facilities into either a covered river segment or an unclassified water body in Val Verde County that drains into one.
- Two exceptions preserve TCEQ's authority to issue individual or general permits for municipal separate storm-sewer systems, and general permits for stormwater and associated non-stormwater discharges.
- The change applies only to permit applications submitted on or after September 1, 2025.
What does it do?
HB3333 bars the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality from issuing certain new permits for direct wastewater discharges into specified Devils River waters in Val Verde County. It became law without the governor’s signature on June 20, 2025, and took effect September 1, 2025. Final law; history.
The restriction concerns direct discharges of waste, effluent or pollutants from domestic or industrial wastewater treatment facilities into either a covered river segment or an unclassified water body in Val Verde County that drains into one. Covered river segments are the portions of Devils River in that county identified in Appendices A and C of the state water-quality standards as they existed September 1, 2025. The agency’s standards identify Devils River as segment 2309; the bill’s additional county limitation matters because the segment description extends into Sutton County. This is not a statewide ban. TCEQ standards, Appendices A and C.
Two exceptions preserve TCEQ’s authority to issue individual or general permits for municipal separate storm-sewer systems, and general permits for stormwater and associated non-stormwater discharges. These exceptions preserve permitting authority, not permission to discharge without an otherwise-required permit.
The change applies only to permit applications submitted on or after September 1, 2025. Earlier applications remain governed by the law in effect when filed. The act targets issuance of new permits; it does not order cancellation of existing permits or shut down every wastewater facility in the county.
What changed along the way?
The introduced bill used a water-sampling/phosphorus test to select protected waters, applied to domestic wastewater facilities, and preserved a special permit exception for municipalities and river authorities. The House committee substitute removed that sampling test and municipal/river-authority exception, expressly tied the river definition to Val Verde County, added industrial and commercial facilities, and fixed the effective date at September 1, 2025 rather than allowing immediate effect. The House passed that substitute. Text versions.
The Senate substitute simplified the definitions to classified river segments and other water bodies, expressly limited the latter to Val Verde County, and used domestic or industrial facilities rather than separately naming commercial facilities. It also expressly preserved both individual and general municipal storm-sewer permits. These changes appear in the final law; the earlier phosphorus threshold and municipal/river-authority wastewater exception do not.
The floor-amendment index lists no amendments, but the official history records a Senate substitute and House concurrence. The adopted text in the Senate amendment packet matches the final law. Amendment index; Senate amendment packet.
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?
People who use or depend on the protected river waters could benefit from preventing additional permitted wastewater discharges. The bill does not quantify water-quality improvements or eliminate existing pollution sources.
Applicants whose proposed discharges are prohibited may need a different wastewater-management plan, with possible infrastructure, land or operating costs. Local governments may also face consequences; they are not given the introduced bill’s special wastewater exception in the final law. The actual burden depends on a project’s location, discharge type and application date.
The final fiscal note anticipated no significant state fiscal impact, assuming costs could be absorbed with existing resources. It said local-government costs could not be determined. That uncertainty must not be reported as zero local cost, and the note provides no household rate estimate. Fiscal note.
Review boundary: This briefing explains the enacted permit restriction, not whether a specific site, outfall, renewal or proposed activity qualifies under a particular permit. It does not claim that removing the separate word “commercial” exempts a facility otherwise classified as domestic or industrial.
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.
