| Vote Recommendation | Economic Freedom | Property Rights | Personal Responsibility | Limited Government | Individual Liberty |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yes | Neutral | Positive | Neutral | Neutral | Neutral |
HB 908, if passed, would modify the Natural Resources Code
(Section 12.056) which affects the Red River Boundary Commission. This
Commission acts jointly with the state of Oklahoma to determine the proper
boundary between Oklahoma and Texas in the Red River Area. The exact boundary
is in question, due to the construction of Lake Texoma by the Army Corps of
Engineers.
As the code currently reads, the Red River Boundary
Commission is to redraw the boundary between Oklahoma and Texas in the Texoma
area in order to negate any effects of the boundary in accordance with the Lake
Texoma preconstruction survey, and any other and any other relevant historical
documentation.
HB 908 would amend the code by stating that in addition to
these requirements, the new boundary must take into consideration a number of
new requirements. HB 908 lays out three new requirements. The first is that the
new boundary must be on real property for which the Army Corps of Engineers was
granted an easement, per Article XVI of the Texas Constitution. The second is
that the new boundary must not affect any property rights associated with
easements. The third is that there must be no net loss of property to either
Oklahoma or Texas.
The bill also pushes the due date for the final report and
the expiration of the section of code regarding the Commission back from 2015
to 2017.
The purpose and existence of the Red River Boundary Commission is a legitimate function of the state. We are also pleased that this section of code has a set expiration date (which would be extended by the bill). HB 908 adds a number of additional requirements that the Commission must consider, all of which are also legitimate government purview. Most notable though, is the proposed requirement that easements be taken into consideration. Though HB 908 is mostly procedural, we support the bill on the grounds that it sustains property rights.