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

HB5655

Read bill highlights ↓

Official caption: Relating to the creation of the Fort Bend County Water Control and Improvement District No. 13; granting a limited power of eminent domain; providing authority to issue bonds; providing authority to impose assessments, fees, and taxes.

Became law without signatureSource-checked explanation published

Official report lists House author(s): Gates. 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.

HB5655 creates Fort Bend County Water Control and Improvement District No. 13 for a specifically described 911.580-acre area in the William Andrews and Samuel Isaacs surveys, with authority for water-control and improvement functions, waste handling, stormwater control, roads and recreation.
District voters must confirm creation and elect five permanent directors.
Property taxes and property-tax-backed bonds require voter approval.
The district may not exercise eminent domain: The bill's alternative allowing limited eminent-domain authority required two-thirds of all elected members of each legislative chamber.

Read the full explanation ↓

What does it do?

HB5655 creates Fort Bend County Water Control and Improvement District No. 13 for a specifically described 911.580-acre area in the William Andrews and Samuel Isaacs surveys, with authority for water-control and improvement functions, waste handling, stormwater control, roads and recreation. The boundary description starts with 956.942 gross acres and excludes a specified 45.362-acre tract to reach that net area. The legal description governs; this is not a district covering all Fort Bend County.

District voters must confirm creation and elect five permanent directors. Required municipal consent must come before that election. The act names Amanda Flynt, Jason Scholtz, Carlos Bujosa, Regina Landreneau and Stephen Pheigaru as temporary directors. They serve until permanent directors are elected or the fourth anniversary of the effective date, whichever comes first; successor appointments are provided if needed. Permanent directors have staggered four-year terms. Road projects remain subject to applicable city/county requirements and state approval if the state will operate and maintain them. Recreational facilities and bonds are allowed even where another authorized district overlaps, without taking away that other district’s authority.

Property taxes and property-tax-backed bonds require voter approval. Tax-backed road bonds need approval by two-thirds of participating district voters and are capped at issuance at one-fourth of assessed real-property value. Certain revenue- or contract-backed obligations do not need a separate bond election; contract taxes still require approval of the contract by voters. Operating taxes have the voter-approved rate ceiling, while the continuing tax supporting outstanding tax-backed bonds has no rate or amount limit specified here.

The district may not exercise eminent domain. The bill’s alternative allowing limited eminent-domain authority required two-thirds of all elected members of each legislative chamber. The House vote was 93–48, below that threshold; the Senate vote was 27–4. Consequently the no-eminent-domain alternative controls, and the act took effect September 1, 2025—not immediately. It became law without the governor’s signature June 20. Sources: final text and vote certificates and official history, including effective-date remarks.

What changed along the way?

The introduced, House committee, House-passed, Senate committee and enrolled operative texts match, including the boundaries and conditional eminent-domain sections. Both committees reported without amendments; the amendment index lists none. The voting condition, not a later amendment, determined which eminent-domain provision became operative. The caption’s reference to a limited power does not override that condition.

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?

Landowners, developers and future residents could gain infrastructure financed through the district. District taxpayers and customers could bear taxes, fees, assessments and borrowing costs. This act does not establish a particular project, water supplier, tax rate or completed confirmation election.

The latest fiscal note, consistent with the introduced note, anticipates no significant state impact and no impact on other local governments, but says district costs cannot be determined because future financial actions are unknown. Its discussion of potential eminent domain predates the final vote outcome and is not authority to condemn property. The water-development impact statement places the general area north of Rosenberg and west of Sugar Land but cannot determine precise population, overlapping service providers or the district’s future water source.

Official sources

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