Texas is on the rise, driven by a young, expanding population and an influx of new residents. This demographic boom has spurred increased demand for construction aggregate materials[1] that are essential for infrastructure development and economic growth. But even as the state’s aggregate industry has grown, so too have calls for greater regulatory oversight. Despite Texas’ reputation for having a relatively lenient regulatory environment, lawmakers from both sides of the aisle are pushing for more stringent controls over the industry.

Recent legislative sessions have seen numerous bills related to the aggregate industry, but only a few passed, making only modest changes to existing law. In the 2025 session, aggregate production operations will once again be a major focus, with over a dozen bills already introduced that could reshape the regulatory landscape. Affected companies should monitor these developments and engage in advocacy to ensure their interests are considered.

Proposed Changes to Standard Air Permits

As lawmakers seek to increase regulatory oversight of concrete batch plants and aggregate production operations (APOs), several bills have been introduced seeking to impose new conditions and requirements on standard permits. One of the more ambitious proposals is HB 873 (Wilson), which builds on similar bills the lawmaker has introduced in past sessions. On top of existing permit conditions, the bill requires:

• Compliance with Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) regulations for driveway construction or alteration;
• Installation of equipment to monitor noise levels;
• Adherence to industry standards for outdoor lighting;
• Implementation of technologies to reduce seismic effects from blasting on neighboring properties;
• Stricter regulation of groundwater use; and
• Submission of a reclamation plan with financial assurance to cover the costs of site restoration once operations cease.

Other bills propose to restrict the locations where concrete plants and APOs may be built, or set limits on the density of such facilities in a particular area:

• HB 1823 (Thompson), which would mandate a 440-yard setback distance between rock and concrete crushing facilities and hospitals. This setback requirement currently applies to other types of buildings, such as residences, schools, and houses of worship.
• HB 1513 (Walle), would ban concrete batch plants from operating within 550 feet of a rock or concrete crushing facility, a hot mix asphalt plant, or another concrete batch plant operating under the same standard permit if authorized to begin operations after September 1, 2025.

Addressing Air Quality and Contaminant Concerns

Several proposals specifically focus on air quality, driven by concerns about emissions of particulate matter and other contaminants:

• SB 763 (Alvarado) requires the TCEQ to review every six years whether standard permits for permanent concrete plants (whether performing wet batching, dry batching, or central mixing) adequately protect public health and the environment. This review typically considers factors like air quality and other environmental impacts to determine if the terms of the standard permit remain appropriate or need adjustment. If the TCEQ finds that the permit no longer meets the required standards, it may modify or amend the conditions. Affected facilities would be given a reasonable period to comply with any new requirements while continuing operations.
• SB 273 (Miles) requires the TCEQ to consider cumulative air impacts when approving non-federal preconstruction air quality permits or amendments. The agency would need to evaluate not just the emissions from the proposed facility or modification, but also emissions from other facilities within a three-mile radius.

Increasing Transparency and Public Input

Several bills aim to expand public participation in the permitting process for concrete batch plants under a permit by rule or standard permit. Currently, only persons who “actually reside” within 440 yards of a proposed plant may request a hearing:

• HB 1726 (Collier) expands eligibility for requesting a public hearing by extending the radius from 440 yards to 880 yards. In addition to residents, representatives of schools, places of worship, licensed day-care centers, hospitals, or medical facilities within that radius would be allowed to request a hearing.
• SB 373 (Miles) takes a more modest approach, allowing municipalities or counties where a proposed plant is located to request a hearing, in addition to residents within 440 yards.

Giving Local Governments More Power in Permitting

Several bills would grant local governments greater influence in concrete batch plant permitting decisions, either by allowing municipalities and counties to potentially “veto” permit applications or by requiring the TCEQ to consider civil suits or enforcement actions filed by local governments when deciding whether to renew an existing standard permit:

• HB 852 (Thompson) & SB 276 (Miles, Cook) require concrete batch plants in municipalities with populations over two million that lack zoning regulations (e.g., Houston) or in unincorporated areas of counties with populations over 4.5 million (e.g., Harris County) to obtain local governing body approval before a permit can be issued. The TCEQ must send a copy of the permit application to the relevant governing body. If that body rejects the application within 31 days of receipt, the permit will be denied.
• SB 277 (Miles, Alvarado, Cook) requires the TCEQ to consider any legal actions or enforcement measures taken by local governments against a concrete plant (wet batching, dry batching, or central mixing), before renewing its standard permit. If there are any such actions, they could negatively affect the plant’s compliance history, which influences whether the permit renewal is approved.

Parting Thoughts

As these legislative proposals advance, they have the potential to significantly reshape Texas’ regulatory landscape for the aggregate and concrete industries. Companies impacted by these changes should closely monitor developments and actively engage in advocacy to ensure their voices are heard. Staying informed and participating in the legislative process will be crucial for influencing outcomes that align with business interests and minimize disruptions to operations.

[1] Construction aggregate materials include sand, gravel, and crushed stone, which can be used alone or as components in products such as concrete and asphalt. Aggregate production operations (APOs), as defined in Water Code Ch. 28A, are sites where aggregates are extracted, such as quarries and gravel pits. Aggregate processing operations, often including on-site rock crushing, process these materials for use. The aggregate and concrete industries are closely linked and similarly regulated. Concrete batch plants, which combine aggregates, cement, and other materials to produce concrete, are subject to air and water quality regulations akin to those governing aggregate production and processing operations.