Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Environmental Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Senate rejects amendment to restrict hazardous/solid-waste fee revenues after protracted debate
Summary
Senate considered a substitute to SB25 that would restore an environmental management fund and limit fee revenue to mitigation and clean-up uses; after extended debate the restrictive amendment failed on roll call (8–18), and subsequent technical insertions were made before votes on other housekeeping items.
Substitute Senate Bill 25, covering hazardous and solid-waste amendments, prompted a long floor debate over whether fee revenue should be placed into restricted or expendable trust accounts dedicated to environmental mitigation and cleanup.
Senator Steven Reese proposed restoring language removed by a prior amendment and adding provisions that funds "can only be used for environmental mitigation and cleanup," that the Legislature would prioritize projects through the regular appropriation process, and that funds could not be used to hire additional employees. Reese argued the approach protects the environment and keeps the money focused on remediation rather than general agency expansion.
Opponents, led by Senator McAllister and others, warned that creating restricted accounts and expendable trust funds reduces legislative control and could produce budgetary management problems. They pointed to an existing expendable trust with $2,227,000 and urged that agencies seek appropriations through the regular process. Senator Oakey proposed a sub-amendment to prevent funds from replacing money already used to pay staff salaries.
Senator Reese's amendment was put to a voice vote and, after a request for a recorded roll call, failed 8 ayes to 18 no with 3 absent. After additional technical corrections and a separate motion to reinsert language specifying appropriations for administration, the Senate moved on. Senators argued both fiscal accounting principles and environmental protection priorities during the exchange.
A separate technical motion by Senator McAllister to reinsert language directing the Legislature to appropriate administrative costs was adopted to correct an earlier drafting issue. The floor resolved that some language deletion had gone farther than intended and moved to restore certain appropriation directions.
Result: the restrictive amendment to dedicate and limit the use of fee revenues failed on roll call (8–18–3). Other technical insertions were made to reinstate appropriation language; the bill remained under consideration.
