Quarry bill dies amid contentious points of order
Texas Rep. Ellen Troxclair of District 19 (left) proposed an amendment to her jointly authored House Bill 5151 on May 15 that would have added significant protections against aggregate mining activity in Burnet County. The bill was effectively killed after a point of order called for by Rep. Terry Canales of District 40 (right) was upheld in the session. Screencaptured images
A bill that would have protected Burnet County’s natural areas against rock-crushing operations died at midnight May 16, missing a Texas House of Representatives deadline. Its passage was foiled by the adamant objections of a determined South Texas representative.
During its May 15 session, the House upheld a “point of order” called for by Rep. Terry Canales of District 40, who questioned a last-minute amendment to House Bill 5151 that would have clarified the measure’s language. The deadline-busting delay effectively killed the bill despite a 64-57 record vote in the amendment’s favor.
HB 5151, co-authored by Rep. Ellen Troxclair of District 19, which includes Burnet County, and Rep. Terry Wilson of District 20, would have imposed strong restrictions on aggregate material production operations, specifically in Burnet County’s Hoover Valley Road area near Inks Lake State Park, Longhorn Cavern State Park, and Camp Longhorn.
The bill was in direct response to plans by Asphalt Inc., which does business as Lone Star Paving in Central Texas, to build a rock crusher at 3221 FM 3509, or Hoover Valley Road, just southwest of the city of Burnet. The measure was making its way through the Texas House until it hit a wall late May 15.
LEGISLATIVE PROCEEDINGS
During the May 15 session, Troxclair made a terse pitch for the HB 5151 amendment, saying only:“Members, this is a perfecting amendment. I move passage.”
Canales immediately opposed the action, calling for a point of order and admonishing Troxclair for what he called “unstatesmanlike” behavior.
“Can you tell us what the amendment did?” he said. “You ran off really quickly and tried to divert my attention, unstatesmanlike, over here so that I wouldn’t call the point of order. So, at least have the courtesy for the body to tell us what the amendment did. And, by the way, that is extremely unstatesmanlike what you just did.”
Troxclair responded, providing more context for her motion to pass, stating the amendment “ensures that the boundaries that were originally put in the bill are solidified and are clear,” and again moved for adoption.
The House then voted, 64 in favor and 57 against, to accept Troxclair’s amendment.
Canales again countered with a point of order, citing Article 3 Section 56 of the Texas Constitution, which governs state legislative requirements and limitations.
This led to a 45-minute closed discussion on the matter, after which the House emerged and Canales’ point of order was officially withdrawn.
The South Texas legislator immediately raised another point of order, citing Article 3 Section 30 of the Texas Constitution, which governs permissible changes to bill language through amendments.
This led to another closed discussion, 22 minutes in length, but a different result.
The point of order was sustained on grounds that a change in language from “mines, quarries, or rock crushing facilities” (as listed in the original bill) were not the same as “facilities for the crushing of aggregates” as written in the amendment, and that this change “impermissibly” broadened the scope of the bill’s reach and significantly changed the definitions mentioned.
This point of order would normally mean the bill is kicked back to be worked on again, but due to time constraints and the looming midnight deadline, its fate was effectively sealed.
Watch the Texas House’s May 15 session concerning HB 5151 at this link between the marked times of 7:08 and 8:21.
HB 5151 was hyper-specific to the Burnet County area, using language that would have restricted rock-crushing operations within a certain radius of multiple state parks and places where children gather, which pointedly applied to Asphalt Inc.’s proposed site on Hoover Valley Road.
DailyTrib.com reached out to Canales for comment but did not receive an answer by the time of this story’s publication. His District 40 includes a large portion of the Edinburg/McAllen area in South Texas, roughly 326 miles away from Burnet County.
According to Transparency USA, which offers public data on contributions to public officials, Canales has received $340,075 with his largest contributor being Associated General Contractors of Texas PAC at $61,000. The PAC is an advocate for the heavy highway construction industry at the state level and, in its own words, supports “candidates who champion policies favorable to our industry.”
8 thoughts on “Quarry bill dies amid contentious points of order”
Comments are closed.
Just because lobbying is technically legal doesn’t make it morally correct. It is indeed bribery. It should be disallowed. It is a conflict of interest in most cases. While “NIMBYism” can certainly be a dirty word in some scenarios, protections for property owners can and should be considered, even in the county outside of city limits and ETJs. It doesn’t always go their way, but sometimes it should. In this case, Canales should be ashamed of himself. He is directly contributing to the damage to the Hill County – a place very far from his backyard.
Lobbying is not bribery. It is legal, and usually ethical, donations by industry to ensure their interests are reflected in law making discussions. Some of this is spent on campaign donations of industry friendly or targeted districts…some spent on legal and lawmaker engagement. The point is while you may not appreciate how it went down, obviously it had merits to pass before being significantly amended at the last minute. A hail Mary move that was either an effort of miscalculated support OR a calculated dubious plan that failed. Parliamentary procedure was followed and it is what it is. Had the amendment not been submitted OR submitted earlier in Session, the bill in some form looks like it would have passed.
As a side note…all these people screaming not in my back yard, I have property rights…well so do the industrial/commercial owners. When they initially invest and purchase property whether that be 6 months, 6 years, or 60 years before they begin using it, why should their ownership rights be eliminated because you want yours. Can I buy the property adjacent to you then tell you what you can and can’t build on yours? Wouldn’t like that much I am sure.
Not a fan of this planned quarry, but much less a fan of eroding prior rights of legal and entitled ownership because you don’t like it.
NIMBYs halting progress needs to be stopped, no matter where, when or who. Thank you Rep. Canales!
A quarry needs to be put directly in his backyard and see how he reacts to it.
I’m glad DailyTrib included Canales’s conflicts of interest within the article. I assumed he was getting paid by aggregate companies, and sure enough, it was stated at the end of the article. Thank you for including this important detail in your reporting.
So disappointed this bill didn’t pass to save our Hill Country from these quarries. Hope they can try again, but all of these restrictions make that seem unlikely.
And taking bribes for votes is not unstatesmanlike Canales? Someone needs to run against him and get him out of office!
Follow the money.