West Texas lawmakers push bills to divert some oil and gas taxes to help oil-producing counties with roads, other needs
ODESSA — The fracking boom that resuscitated the Texas oil fields has also beaten up the infrastructure in the Permian Basin, the state's biggest oil and gas drilling region.
More heavy trucks drove through small towns, tearing up roads. Companies built temporary workforce housing, called man camps, which local officials said dramatically increased the population, requiring more public services like garbage pick-up, hospital beds and first responders.
Local leaders say the oil boom has caused strains that their city and county budgets can't keep up with.
Two West Texas lawmakers want to divert 10% of the roughly $8 billion that oil and gas companies pay the state in so-called severance taxes to benefit oil-producing counties. Legislation sponsored by State Reps. Tom Craddick of Midland and Brooks Landgraf of Odessa would redirect a portion of those taxes to 32 eligible counties to be used for infrastructure repairs, emergency services, health care, education and workforce development.
Regulators, industry and environmental policy experts agree that addressing the damage caused by decades of oil and gas production will require significant policy and funding changes.
A report by the House Appropriations Committee on House Bill 2154, which Craddick and Landgraf authored together in 2019 to address the same issues, said that failing to help communities in the oil patch repair their infrastructure could also impede the oil and gas industry.
'In recent years, the regions of Texas responsible for the growth in the state's oil and natural gas production have encountered significant challenges that have limited the potential growth of the energy sector and could pose a significant threat to the sustained future growth of oil and natural gas production in the state,' the report said.
Their 2019 bill died in the Senate. And in 2021 and 2023, they tried and failed again.
This time, they introduced two separate proposals. Craddick authored House Bill 265, which is basically identical to the 2019 bill. Landgraf introduced House Bill 188, which would also devote money to oil field cleanup and emissions reduction programs managed by the Texas Railroad Commission and Texas Commission on Environmental Quality — and give property tax relief to homeowners statewide.
Landgraf could not say whether the changes will be enough to finally win support in the upper chamber.
'It's a high barrier. I've known that since 2018 when I first started looking into this,' Landgraf said. 'But I do think that if it's a policy that we can put in place, it would have great dividends for every corner of Texas, and that's why I think it's a fight that's still worth fighting.'
The two bills would redirect some oil and gas tax money to certain oil and gas-producing counties, as well as coastal counties where a port authority transports oil and gas. Landgraf's bill would set aside $500 million, while Craddick's would collect up to $250 million for all eligible counties.
Under Landgraf's bill, county governments, school districts, colleges and nonprofits in qualifying counties could apply for the money and spend it on things like road repairs, improving schools, workforce development initiatives and emergency services.
The remaining $300 million would go toward the Property Tax Relief Fund, an account managed by the state comptroller used to reduce maintenance repairs in school districts, which are funded by local property taxes.
If one or both of the bills can get through the Legislature and get Gov. Greg Abbott's approval, they would still need to go before Texas voters this fall as a constitutional amendment.
Budget writers in both chambers typically don't like being told how to spend money through constitutional amendments, said Sherri Greenberg, a dean of state and local government engagement at the University of Texas at Austin.
The intense pace of oil production in the Permian Basin, which covers 75,000 square miles between Texas and New Mexico, has also inflicted environmental damage.
The Texas Railroad Commission, the state agency that regulates the state's oil and gas industry, has said it cannot afford to keep up with the increasing cost of plugging thousands of so-called orphan oil and gas wells, which have no clear owner or were drilled by now-bankrupt companies.
Recently, a number of these wells have unexpectedly erupted with toxic wastewater that apparently migrated from oilfield disposal wells.
Under Landgraf's bill, 1% of the diverted money would go to the Railroad Commission to help plug orphan wells. An additional 1% would pay for emissions reduction efforts in trucking, farming and construction overseen by the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality.
Oil companies, trade groups and environmentalist policy experts have testified in favor of both bills.
Cyrus Reed, a legislative and conservation director for the Sierra Club, which advocates for policies that strengthen environmental protections nationally, said he supports Landgraf's bill for its environmental propositions.
'We're going to support any solution that gets more revenue paid by the oil and gas industry to resolve (environmental) issues,' Reed said. 'We don't want to rely on … just general revenue from the people of Texas to pay for a problem that industry created.'
Landgraf hopes that expanding the legislation so it has an impact beyond energy-producing regions of Texas will help it gain more support in the Legislature.
'My position is that what's good for the Permian Basin is good for all of Texas,' he said 'But sometimes that takes a bit more of a holistic or longer view for people not from the Permian Basin to reach that conclusion.'
Disclosure: The University of Texas at Austin has been a financial supporter of The Texas Tribune, a nonprofit, nonpartisan news organization that is funded in part by donations from members, foundations and corporate sponsors. Financial supporters play no role in the Tribune's journalism. Find a complete list of them here.
We can't wait to welcome you to the 15th annual Texas Tribune Festival, Texas' breakout ideas and politics event happening Nov. 13–15 in downtown Austin. Step inside the conversations shaping the future of education, the economy, health care, energy, technology, public safety, culture, the arts and so much more.
Hear from our CEO, Sonal Shah, on TribFest 2025.
TribFest 2025 is presented by JPMorganChase.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
13 minutes ago
- Yahoo
House to vote on repealing DC local laws on noncitizen voting, policing, immigration enforcement
The Brief House Republicans are voting on three bills that would override D.C. laws on noncitizen voting rights, limiting police powers, and restricting immigration enforcement cooperation. One bill, HR 884, repeals D.C.'s 2022 law allowing noncitizens to vote in local elections. HR 2056 would dismantle D.C.'s sanctuary city protections by mandating cooperation with federal immigration authorities. WASHINGTON - The House of Representatives are voting Tuesday on three Republican-backed bills that would override several local D.C. laws. The bills would roll back D.C. efforts expand voting rights for non-citizens, restrict police and force the District to work with immigration enforcement efforts on a federal level. D.C. passed the Local Resident Voting Rights Amendment Act in 2022, granting noncitizens in D.C. the right to vote in local elections. That includes mayoral races, D.C. Council positions, attorney general, ANC members, attorney general and D.C. ballot measures. Noncitizens can also run for elected office in the D.C. government. HR 884 would repeal the act, removing voting powers from noncitizens. Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton released a statement, pushing back at Congress' power of local D.C. matters. "Last Congress, Republicans introduced 14 bills or amendments to prohibit noncitizens from voting in D.C. or to repeal, nullify or prohibit the carrying out of D.C.'s law that permits noncitizens to vote," said Norton. "Yet, Republicans refuse to make the only election law change D.C. residents have asked Congress to make, which is the right to hold elections for voting members of the House and Senate." The Protecting Our Nation's Capital Emergency Act, would dismantle parts of D.C.'s Comprehensive Policing and Justice Reform Amendment Act of 2022. HR 2096 would allow D.C. police officers to negotiate disciplinary matters through collective bargaining. It would also restore a statute of limitation for claims against the Metropolitan Police Department. "This bill was introduced three days after House Republicans passed a continuing resolution that cut D.C.'s local budget by one billion dollars. That act of fiscal sabotage, which did not save the federal government any money, has led to a freeze on overtime, hiring and pay raises, and furloughs or layoffs may be next," said Norton. "Nine weeks ago today, the Senate passed the D.C. Local Funds Act to reverse the cut. The D.C. Local Funds Act is just sitting in the House. Like President Trump and the National Fraternal Order of Police, I call on the House to pass immediately the D.C. Local Funds Act." READ MORE: Congress' spending bill error leaves DC scrambling to cut $400M from budget HR 2056 would strike down D.C. policies that limit cooperation with federal immigration enforcement. It would prohibit DC officials from "sending, receiving, maintaining, or exchanging with any Federal, State, or local government entity information regarding the citizenship or immigration status (lawful or unlawful) of any individual." The bill would effectively dismantle D.C.'s sanctuary city policies. D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser made moves to quietly overturn a law that prevents local police from cooperating with ICE, including it in a provision of her 2026 budget proposal. Big picture view The D.C. Home Rule Act of 1973 allows the city to elect its own mayor and council. It's also allowed for D.C. to choose Advisory Neighborhood Commissioners to handle community concerns. Congress still maintains control over D.C., including the ability to review all local legislation and appoint the city's judges. D.C. has no voting member in Congress, though it has a nonvoting Delegate. In February, legislators from Utah and Tennessee introduced a bill to strip D.C. of its ability to govern itself. The bill is named after D.C.'s Mayor Muriel Bowser – the "Bringing Oversight to Washington and Safety to Every Resident (BOWSER) Act." The bill would eliminate D.C. Home Rule Act of 1973 and would place D.C. under the full control of Congress. The Source This story includes information from the US House of Representatives, Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton, and previous FOX 5 DC reporting.


CNBC
19 minutes ago
- CNBC
Trump's CFTC pick calls for comprehensive crypto rules in nomination hearing: CNBC Crypto World
On today's episode of CNBC Crypto World, major cryptocurrencies climb as investors wait for more insight on trade discussions between the U.S. and China. Plus, Brian Quintenz, President Trump's pick to lead the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission, prepares to testify before the Senate. And, Matt Hougan, Bitwise Asset Management CIO, discusses the launch of the asset manager's new GameStop-focused covered call ETF.
Yahoo
27 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Thune not sure what authority Trump using to deploy Marines to Los Angeles
Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) supports President Trump's deployment of federal resources to quell the riots in Los Angeles, but he's not sure what authorities Trump is relying on to deploy 700 active-duty Marines to a U.S. city. 'I don't know the particulars on what authorities exist there but my assumption is that the administration has been looking carefully at what he can and can't do under the law. Obviously, the 1798 Act is available to them if they choose to exercise it,' Thune said, citing the Alien Enemies Act of 1798, which authorizes the president during a declared war, invasion or predatory incursion to detain and deport citizens of an enemy nation. Thune argued that a federal response was warranted because local authorities failed to contain property destruction and the threat of violence. 'In this case at least there were clear just failures on the part of state and local officials, which is why I think it required the president to take a federal response,' he told reporters. 'There was a security situation out there that needed to be addressed and I think ultimately the president's objective is to keep people safe.' The Pentagon on Monday ratcheted up the federal response to immigration enforcement protests by mobilizing 700 active-duty Marines. Trump has also deployed 4,000 National Guard soldiers to the area — doubling the 2,000 he initially mobilized. California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) and Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass (D) insist the situation was under control before the Trump administration escalated tensions by making a provocative show of force. Newsom accused Trump of 'intentionally causing chaos, terrorizing communities and endangering the principles of our great democracy.' He said Sunday that Trump had taken over the California National Guard because 'they want a spectacle.' Bass said over the weekend that deploying the National Guard was 'completely unnecessary' and would escalate tensions. She argued that the Los Angeles Police Department was 'well equipped' to handle protests of actions by the Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.