Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Municipal Utility Districts topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
TCEQ refers Bullhead Energy petition on Kaufman County MUD to contested hearing; limits other hearing requests
Summary
The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality referred a petition by Bullhead Energy LLC to create Kaufman County Municipal Utility District No. 16 to the State Office of Administrative Hearings after finding one municipality had a justiciable interest and denying other hearing requests. The commission also authorized concurrent ADR and set hearing duration limits.
The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality on July 1 referred a petition by Bullhead Energy LLC to create Kaufman County Municipal Utility District No. 16 to the State Office of Administrative Hearings for a contested‑case hearing, while denying several other parties’ requests to be heard.
Chairwoman Brook Pop opened the item, and staff noted five timely hearing requests. The commission reviewed whether each requester demonstrated a personal, justiciable interest under 30 TAC chapter 55, subchapter G.
Commission discussion found that Texas Senator Bob Hall, Texas Representative Keith Bell and the city of Kaufman did not meet the commission’s standards for a contested‑case hearing. By contrast, commissioners concluded that the city identified in the record as “Crannle” holds a water certificate of convenience and necessity over part of the proposed district and that the petitioner seeks to be the retail water provider for the western portion of that area, a factual showing the commission said established an affected‑person interest.
The motion adopted by the commission directed staff to refer the petition to the State Office of Administrative Hearings, refer the matter to the commission’s alternative dispute resolution program to run concurrently with SOAH scheduling efforts, and set a maximum hearing duration (the record shows an earlier staff reference to 100 days and the adopted motion specified up to 180 days from preliminary hearing to issuance of a proposal for decision). The commission voted to grant the hearing request for the city identified in the record and to deny the remaining hearing requests; commissioners recorded their approval and the motion passed.
No formal roll‑call tally was recorded in the public transcript beyond the commissioners announcing their support; commissioners indicated agreement with the referral and scheduling directions.
Background: Creation of a municipal utility district triggers a statutory test under state rules to determine who qualifies to participate in a contested‑case hearing; the commission cited those rules in explaining its determinations.
Next steps: The petition will proceed to a contested‑case hearing at SOAH unless parties reach an alternative resolution through the commission’s ADR program, which the commission directed be run concurrently with preliminary SOAH scheduling.
