Subchapter A. HARMFUL OR POTENTIALLY HARMFUL EXOTIC FISH, SHELLFISH, AND AQUATIC PLANTS

Subchapter N. MIGRATORY GAME BIRD PROCLAMATION

The Edwards Aquifer Authority ("Authority") proposes the repeal of 31 TAC Chapter 705 in its entirety, §§705.1, 705.11, 705.15, 705.17, 705.19, 705.21, 705.23, 705.25, 705.27, 705.41, 705.51, 705.61, 705.63, 705.65, 705.67, 705.69, 705.71, 705.73, 705.75, 705.77, 705.101, 705.111, 705.113, 705.221, 705.225, 705.227, 705.229, 705.231, 705.233, 705.235, 705.237, 705.239, 705.241, 705.251, 705.253, 705.255, 705.257, 705.259, 705.261, 705.263, 705.265 and 705.267, concerning Substantive Groundwater Withdrawal Permit Rules. The proposed repeals will merely implement the action of the court by formally repealing 31 TAC Chapter 701 and deleting it from the Texas Administrative Code .

On December 17, 1998, the district court in Living Waters Artesian Springs, LTD. v. Edwards Aquifer Authority , No. 98-02644 (353rd Judicial District, Travis County, Texas) invalidated 31 TAC Chapter 705 (relating to Substantive Groundwater Withdrawal Permit Rules). This proposed repeal is in response to this decision.

Gregory M. Ellis, General Manager, Edwards Aquifer Authority, has determined that for each year of the first five years that the proposed repeals are in effect, there will be no: (1) additional costs; (2) reduction in costs; (3) loss in revenues; or (4) increase in revenues, to state or local governments expected as a result of enforcing or administering the proposed repeals. The basis for this determination is that because the district court has already invalidated 31 TAC 705, the proposed repeals can have no independent fiscal effect separate and apart from the pre-existing judicial order.

Mr. Ellis also has determined that for each year of the first five years that the proposed repeals are in effect, the public benefits expected as a result of adoption of the proposed repeals would be the elimination of any confusion that may exist as to the validity and applicability of this chapter which has already been codified in the Texas Administrative Code . Additionally, the Authority would be able to reutilize this chapter number in its future rulemaking. In so doing, the public would benefit from cleaning up the public record and result in improved administrative efficiencies. Mr. Ellis has determined that for each year of the first five years that the proposed repeals are in effect, there are no probable economic costs to persons required to comply with the proposed repeals. The basis for this determination is that because the district court has already invalidated 31 TAC 705, the proposed repeals can have no independent effect on economic costs on persons separate and apart from the pre-existing judicial order. Additionally, the repeals do not require persons to comply with its substance because it is a repeal of existing judicially invalidated rules. Thus, there can be no persons who would be regulated by requiring compliance with some provision of the proposed repeal. Likewise, there can be no economic costs to such persons not being subject to regulation by the proposed repeals.

Mr. Ellis is responsible for approving the Covered Governmental Entity Determination that was prepared for the proposed repeals related to Local Employment Impact Statements. Mr. Ellis has determined that for purpose of the proposed repeals the Authority is a covered governmental entity and generally subject to §2001.022, TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE.

Mr. Ellis is responsible for approving the Finding of No Effect on Local Economies that was prepared for the proposed repeals. Mr. Ellis has determined that for each year of the first five years that the proposed repeals are in effect, there is no effect on local employment on each geographic area affected by the proposed repeals. The basis for this determination is that because the district court has already invalidated 31 TAC 705, the proposed repeals can have no independent effect on local employment separate and apart from the pre-existing judicial order.

Mr. Ellis is responsible for approving the Covered Governmental Entity Determination that was prepared for the proposed repeals related to Regulatory Impact Analysis of Major Environmental Rules. Mr. Ellis has determined that for purpose of the proposed repeals the Authority is a covered governmental entity and generally subject to §2001.0225, TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE.

Mr. Ellis is responsible for approving the Finding of No Major Environmental Rules that was prepared for the proposed repeals. Mr. Ellis has determined that the proposed repeals are not a "major environmental rule" as defined by §2001.0225(g)(3), TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE. The basis for this determination is that the proposed repeals have no specific intent to protect the environment or reduce risks to human health from environmental exposure. The specific intent of the proposed repeals is to implement a pre-existing judicial decision invalidating the chapter in order to remove administrative confusion because the chapter is still codified in the Texas Administrative Code and to free up the chapter numbering for future rulemaking.

Mr. Ellis is responsible for approving the Covered Governmental Entity Determination that was prepared for the proposed repeals related to Small Business Effects Statements. Mr. Ellis has determined that for purpose of the proposed repeals the Authority is not a covered governmental entity generally subject to §2006.002, TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE. This basis for this determination is that the Act does not generally make the Authority subject to Chapter 2006, and the Authority is not a "state agency" as that term is defined in §2006.001(3), TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE.

Mr. Ellis is responsible for approving the Covered Governmental Entity Determination that was prepared for the proposed repeals related to the Texas Private Real Property Rights Preservation Act (TPRPRA). TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE ANNOTATED chapter 2007 (Vernon Supp. 2000). Mr. Ellis has determined that for purpose of the proposed repeals the Authority is a covered governmental entity generally subject to chapter 2007, TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE.

Mr. Ellis is responsible for approving the Covered Governmental Action Determination that was prepared for this proposed repeal. Mr. Ellis has determined that the proposed repeals are not a covered governmental action for which the Authority is required to comply with TPRPRA. The basis for this determination is that the proposed repeals are an action "reasonably taken to fulfill an obligation mandated by state law," see TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE ANNOTATED §2007.003(b)(4), and is an action taken "under the (Authority's) statutory authority to prevent waste or protect right of owners of interest in groundwater." Id §2007.003(b)(11)(C).

Interested persons may submit written comments on the proposed repeal. Comments must be submitted in writing to Brenda Davis, Docket Clerk, Edwards Aquifer Authority, P. O. Box 15830,1615 North Saint Mary's Street, San Antonio, Texas 78212-9030, within 30 days of the publication of this notice in the Texas Register . The written comments should be filed on 8 1/2 x 11 inch paper and be typed or legibly written. Written comments must indicate whether the comments are generally directed at all of the proposed rules, or whether they are directed at specific proposed rules. If directed at specific proposed rules, the number of the proposed rule must be identified and followed by the comments thereon.

The Authority has not scheduled public hearings on the proposed repeals. A request for a hearing must be submitted to Brenda Davis, Docket Clerk, Edwards Aquifer Authority, P. O. Box 15830,1615 North Saint Mary's Street, San Antonio, Texas 78212-9030, within 30 days of the publication of this notice in the Texas Register . The request for a public hearing must contain: (1) the name, address, and telephone number of the requestor; (2) if the requestor is an association, a duly executed resolution certifying that the association has at least 25 members; and (3) a description of the proposed rules.

Subchapter A. PURPOSE OF PERMIT PROGRAM

The Edwards Aquifer Authority ("Authority") proposes the repeal of 31 TAC Chapter 707 in its entirety, §§707.1, 707.3, 707.21, 707.23, 707.25, 707.27, 707.29, 707.31, 707.41, 707.43, 707.45, 707.47, 707.49, 707.51, 707.53, 707.57, 707.59, 707.61, 707.63, 707.65, 707.67, 707.81, 707.83, 707.85, 707.87, 707.89, 707.91, 707.93, 707.121, 707.131, 707.133, 707.151, 707.153, 707.161, 707.201, 707.205, 707.207, 707.209, 707.221, 707.223, 707.225, 707.227, 707.229, 707.231, 707.233, 707.235, 707.237, 707.251, 707.257, 707.259, 707.261, 707.263, 707.281, 707.283, 707.285, 707.287, 707.289, 707.291, 707.293, 707.295, 707.297, 707.299, 707.301, 707.311, 707.313, 707.315, 707.317, 707.319, 707.401, 707.403, 707.405, 707.417, 707.425, 707.429, 707.431, 707.501, 707.509, 707.525, 707.703, 707.705, 707.709, 707.711, 707.713, 707.715, 707.717, 707.719, 707.721 and 707.723, concerning Procedural Groundwater Withdrawal Permit Rules. The proposed repeals will merely implement the action of the court by formally repealing 31 TAC Chapter 707 and deleting it from the Texas Administrative Code .

On December 17, 1998, the district court in Living Waters Artesian Springs, LTD. v. Edwards Aquifer Authority , No. 98-02644 (353rd Judicial District, Travis County, Texas) invalidated 31 TAC Chapter 707 (relating to Procedural Groundwater Withdrawal Permit Rules). This proposed repeal is in response to this decision.

Gregory M. Ellis, General Manager, Edwards Aquifer Authority, has determined that for each year of the first five years that the proposed repeals are in effect, there will be no: (1) additional costs; (2) reduction in costs; (3) loss in revenues; or (4) increase in revenues, to state or local governments expected as a result of enforcing or administering the proposed repeals. The basis for this determination is that because the district court has already invalidated 31 TAC 707, the proposed repeals can have no independent fiscal effect separate and apart from the pre-existing judicial order.

Mr. Ellis also has determined that for each year of the first five years that the proposed repeals are in effect, the public benefits expected as a result of adoption of the proposed repeals would be the elimination of any confusion that may exist as to the validity and applicability of this chapter which has already been codified in the Texas Administrative Code . Additionally, the Authority would be able to reutilize this chapter number in its future rulemaking. In so doing, the public would benefit from cleaning up the public record and result in improved administrative efficiencies. Mr. Ellis has determined that for each year of the first five years that the proposed repeals are in effect, there are no probable economic costs to persons required to comply with the proposed repeals. The basis for this determination is that because the district court has already invalidated 31 TAC 707, the proposed repeals can have no independent effect on economic costs on persons separate and apart from the pre-existing judicial order. Additionally, the repeals do not require persons to comply with its substance because it is a repeal of existing judicially invalidated rules. Thus, there can be no persons who would be regulated by requiring compliance with some provision of the proposed repeal. Likewise, there can be no economic costs to such persons not being subject to regulation by the proposed repeals.

Mr. Ellis is responsible for approving the Covered Governmental Entity Determination that was prepared for the proposed repeals related to Local Employment Impact Statements. Mr. Ellis has determined that for purpose of the proposed repeals the Authority is a covered governmental entity and generally subject to §2001.022, TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE.

Mr. Ellis is responsible for approving the Finding of No Effect on Local Economies that was prepared for the proposed repeals. Mr. Ellis has determined that for each year of the first five years that the proposed repeals are in effect, there is no effect on local employment on each geographic area affected by the proposed repeals. The basis for this determination is that because the district court has already invalidated 31 TAC 707, the proposed repeals can have no independent effect on local employment separate and apart from the pre-existing judicial order.

Mr. Ellis is responsible for approving the Covered Governmental Entity Determination that was prepared for the proposed repeals related to Regulatory Impact Analysis of Major Environmental Rules. Mr. Ellis has determined that for purpose of the proposed repeals the Authority is a covered governmental entity and generally subject to §2001.0225, TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE.

Mr. Ellis is responsible for approving the Finding of No Major Environmental Rules that was prepared for the proposed repeals. Mr. Ellis has determined that the proposed repeals are not a "major environmental rule" as defined by §2001.0225(g)(3), TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE. The basis for this determination is that the proposed repeals have no specific intent to protect the environment or reduce risks to human health from environmental exposure. The specific intent of the proposed repeals is to implement a pre-existing judicial decision invalidating the chapter in order to remove administrative confusion because the chapter is still codified in the Texas Administrative Code and to free up the chapter numbering for future rulemaking.

Mr. Ellis is responsible for approving the Covered Governmental Entity Determination that was prepared for the proposed repeals related to Small Business Effects Statements. Mr. Ellis has determined that for purpose of the proposed repeals the Authority is not a covered governmental entity generally subject to §2006.002, TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE. This basis for this determination is that the Act does not generally make the Authority subject to Chapter 2006, and the Authority is not a "state agency" as that term is defined in §2006.001(3), TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE.

Mr. Ellis is responsible for approving the Covered Governmental Entity Determination that was prepared for the proposed repeals related to the Texas Private Real Property Rights Preservation Act (TPRPRA). TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE ANNOTATED chapter 2007 (Vernon Supp. 2000). Mr. Ellis has determined that for purpose of the proposed repeals the Authority is a covered governmental entity generally subject to chapter 2007, TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE.

Mr. Ellis is responsible for approving the Covered Governmental Action Determination that was prepared for this proposed repeal. Mr. Ellis has determined that the proposed repeals are not a covered governmental action for which the Authority is required to comply with TPRPRA. The basis for this determination is that the proposed repeals are an action "reasonably taken to fulfill an obligation mandated by state law," see TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE ANNOTATED §2007.003(b)(4), and is an action taken "under the (Authority's) statutory authority to prevent waste or protect right of owners of interest in groundwater." Id §2007.003(b)(11)(C).

Interested persons may submit written comments on the proposed repeal. Comments must be submitted in writing to Brenda Davis, Docket Clerk, Edwards Aquifer Authority, P. O. Box 15830,1615 North Saint Mary's Street, San Antonio, Texas 78212-9030, within 30 days of the publication of this notice in the Texas Register . The written comments should be filed on 8 1/2 x 11 inch paper and be typed or legibly written. Written comments must indicate whether the comments are generally directed at all of the proposed rules, or whether they are directed at specific proposed rules. If directed at specific proposed rules, the number of the proposed rule must be identified and followed by the comments thereon.

The Authority has not scheduled public hearings on the proposed repeals. A request for a hearing must be submitted to Brenda Davis, Docket Clerk, Edwards Aquifer Authority, P. O. Box 15830,1615 North Saint Mary's Street, San Antonio, Texas 78212-9030, within 30 days of the publication of this notice in the Texas Register . The request for a public hearing must contain: (1) the name, address, and telephone number of the requestor; (2) if the requestor is an association, a duly executed resolution certifying that the association has at least 25 members; and (3) a description of the proposed rules.

Subchapter A. JURISDICTION OF THE EDWARDS AQUIFER AUTHORITY