Committee on Natural Resources hears split testimony on SB 17 57 standard permit for aggregate operations

The Committee on Natural Resources and Economic Development opened public testimony on Senate Bill 17 57 and its committee substitute, a proposal to create a standalone standard permit option for aggregate production operations (APOs). Witnesses from industry, trade associations and community groups testified for and against the substitute, and the committee left the bill pending.

The bill’s committee substitute would authorize a new standard permitting pathway for quarries and rock-crushing operations while preserving existing authorizations, according to industry witnesses. Cal Kinkade of Texas Materials, speaking as environmental chair for the Associated General Contractors of Texas, said the substitute “would present another option for regulated entities to consider and that it would be voluntary, not mandatory.” Rich Saatchi of the Texas Aggregate and Concrete Association said the industry sought “practical regulation that’s protective of both the industry and the communities that we serve.”

Opponents said the substitute does not give sufficient safeguards to nearby residents. Mark Friesenhan, who identified himself as a local resident, said, “We oppose SB 17 57 as filed,” and urged the committee to strengthen the bill with three to five specific revisions. Cliff Kaplan, secretary of Texas for Responsible Aggregate Mining (TRAM), said his group opposes the bill because it leaves the content of required “best management practices” (BMPs) to TCEQ rulemaking rather than placing those controls in statute or negotiated rulemaking. “TCEQ recently issued a draft of recommended best practices, and unfortunately, it’s pretty weak,” Kaplan told the committee.

Witnesses pressed several specific concerns and suggested fixes:

- Best management practices and rulemaking: Several opponents argued BMPs should be set through negotiated rulemaking or placed directly into statute. Mark Friesenhan and Cliff Kaplan said they have little confidence that TCEQ will write sufficiently protective BMPs if left to agency rulemaking. Adrianne Shelley of Public Citizen likewise said the bill should “put control strategies in statute” rather than leave key controls to agency rulemaking.

- Monitoring duration and continuation: Critics said the substitute’s 12-month monitoring period may be insufficient. Kaplan urged that monitoring continue until operations demonstrate compliance, and Friesenhan recommended two to three years of monitoring rather than one year.

- Reclamation and bonding: Opponents asked that site reclamation be required with bonding or insurance, and asked the committee to delete language that would allow TCEQ to grant exceptions “for good cause,” which they called a loophole.

- Scope of an air permit: Job Materials’ environmental coordinator Kevin Ellis cautioned against folding non-air requirements (stormwater, pit water, reclamation) into an air permit and said the air-monitoring obligations are not clearly defined and could be expensive for larger crushers.

- Size threshold and traffic: Public Citizen and others noted the substitute’s throughput threshold (described in testimony as about 1,400–1,500 tons per hour) would permit substantially larger operations than some existing permits. Shelley quantified the scale by noting that at 20 tons per truck, a 1,500-ton-per-hour operation would represent about 75 trucks per hour.

- Public notice and participation: Public-interest witnesses asked for stronger public-notice measures: a sign at the facility, electronic notice options (URL or email), and a public-comment period that remains open for a short window after the public meeting (witnesses referenced a 36-hour post-meeting period used in other statutes). Shelley also said the public meeting should be run by TCEQ rather than the applicant and that agencies should respond to comments before or at the time of permit issuance.

Committee chair remarks indicated an ongoing negotiation among stakeholders. Senator Birdwell told witnesses he was attempting to “get to a place where [he is] not making everybody unhappy,” and warned that if both sides dislike a bill, it may indicate the sponsor is “over the target.” Committee discussion also noted legal limits on what the Legislature may ask TCEQ to do, given the agency’s federal responsibilities.

The committee closed public testimony and left the bill and its committee substitute pending for further work and negotiation among industry representatives, community groups and agency staff.