SB2078

The restriction applies when both conditions hold: the food waste was collected for composting inside a municipality with a qualifying food-waste ordinance and is subject to that ordinance; and the destination composting facility is in a county containing no municipality with such an ordinance. A qualifying ordinance requires multifamily residential property, a food-permitted business or another business owner to divert food waste from landfills. Waste merely originating somewhere in a county with such a city is not enough. Final law, 364.020(a)–(b).

The defined facility can compost yard trimmings, clean wood, vegetative material, paper, manure, meat, fish, animal carcasses, dairy materials, or meat and vegetable oils and greases from municipal, commercial or institutional sources. That broad facility definition does not make every material on the list a prohibited shipment: the deposit restriction concerns the specified ordinance-covered food waste. Final law, 364.020(a)(2)–(b).

Three exceptions: The section does not apply to an agricultural operation as defined in Agriculture Code 251.002; to a facility in the otherwise covered destination county if its commissioners court authorizes the covered deposits there by resolution or order; or to a facility meeting both existing-operation tests below. The agricultural definition includes activities such as crop growing, horticulture, livestock or poultry raising and aquaculture—not simply any business calling itself agricultural. Final law, 364.020(e); Agricultural-operation definition at the effective date.

For the existing-facility exception, the facility must be authorized to operate under a valid notification issued by the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality on or before January 1, 2025, and must have accepted the specified food waste before January 1, 2025. The different date wording matters. Age alone, a pending application or only one of these conditions is not the stated exemption. The act does not identify which particular facilities qualify or establish that a county has adopted an authorizing order. Final law, 364.020(e)(3).

A person violating the deposit restriction is liable for $1,000 for each violation. The attorney general may sue in a court with jurisdiction to recover it. This is a civil penalty, not a new criminal offense; the act does not specify “per ton” or create a separate daily-penalty formula. Final law, 364.020(c)–(d).

Changes during passage: The introduced bill would have let certain counties prohibit a composting facility within 3,281 feet of specified water-supply-related features. That setback proposal did not become law. The Senate substitute replaced it with the food-waste deposit restriction, civil penalty and agricultural exception. Adopted Senate amendment F1 deleted “a county that contains,” narrowing the collection location to the municipality itself. The House substitute added county authorization and the two-part existing-facility exception. The House text matches the enrolled law; the Senate concurred May 26. Introduced setback proposal; Senate substitute; Adopted Senate F1; Senate-passed; House substitute; Final law; Version index; Amendment index.

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

Covered destination counties gain control through the authorization exception, while qualifying existing facilities and agricultural operations are protected from this particular restriction. Businesses and waste haulers may need to check collection boundaries, ordinance coverage and destination eligibility, and may face longer routes or different processing arrangements. The bill does not quantify those private costs or prove a reduction in odor, pollution or landfill use. It does not itself repeal city food-waste diversion requirements. Final law.

The May 5 House-substitute fiscal note anticipates no significant state or local fiscal impact, assumes state costs can be absorbed, and says civil-penalty revenue cannot be estimated but is not expected to be significant. The Senate-substitute and Senate-passed notes agree. The earlier introduced note concerned the different setback proposal and anticipated no state impact. These estimates do not show that compliance is cost-free for haulers or facilities; the act appropriates no money. House fiscal note; Senate-passed fiscal note; Senate-substitute fiscal note; Introduced fiscal note.