89th Legislature, Second Called Session, 2025
The Texas Legislature's second special session of 2025 convened August 15 and ended in early September 2025. The session included measures addressing flood warnings: disaster preparedness, property-tax calculations, water conservation, groundwater production, floodplain development, eminent domain, real-property transactions, and disaster recovery. Some measures became law, some were vetoed, and others did not complete the legislative process. The status of each bill matters: a proposal that did not pass did not change Texas law. This page organizes the session's measures by practical subject and legislative outcome to help Texans understand how the proposals connect to land, homes, taxes, water, and property ownership.
Legislative proposals are not the same as current law. A bill may be filed, referred to committee, amended, passed, vetoed, or allowed to expire without becoming law. Texas Homestead Law separates enacted legislation from proposals that did not pass. Nothing in Sections 3 through 9 of this archive changed Texas law.
How to read the status labels
- Became Law Passed both chambers and was signed or allowed to become law.
- Effective A provision of an enacted bill is in effect (the date shown in each entry).
- Vetoed Passed the Legislature but rejected by the Governor, not law.
- Did Not Pass Expired when the session ended, not law.
- Did Not Pass, Filed Only Introduced but never advanced, not law.
- Referred to Committee Sent to a committee but never passed, not law.
- Advanced but Did Not Pass Moved through part of the process but never became law.
- Companion Bill A matching bill carried in the other chamber.
- Duplicate Bill An identical proposal; another bill became the vehicle.
Labels are based on the official Texas Legislature Online record. A bill that merely advanced from committee never receives a green "success" label on this site.
On this page
- Bills that became law
- Passed but vetoed
- Homestead property-tax proposals that did not pass
- Agricultural valuation and rural land proposals
- Deeds, recording, title and property transactions
- Flooding, drainage and disaster recovery
- Water, groundwater and land acquisition
- Agricultural health, PFAS, biosolids and contamination
- Broader property-tax reform proposals
- How these measures fit together
Plain-English terms used on this page
Companion bill: a matching bill filed in the other chamber so the idea can move on two tracks. Duplicate bill: an identical proposal; only one usually becomes the "vehicle" that passes. Joint resolution (HJR/SJR): a proposed constitutional amendment; even if passed, it only takes effect if Texas voters approve it. Referred: assigned to a committee for study. Engrossed: the version passed by the first chamber. Enrolled: the final version passed by both chambers. Conference report: a negotiated compromise version when the two chambers pass different texts; both must adopt it. Effective date: the date an enacted law actually starts to apply, which can differ from the signing date.
Section 1, Bills that became law
Only measures verified as enacted through the official record appear here. Five measures from this session directly relevant to this site's scope became law: SB 3, SB 5, SB 16, HB 23, and SB 14. The enacted flood-warning legislation of this session was SB 3: not SB 2, a number that belongs to a separate Regular Session measure and to a broad disaster package of this session that did not pass (see Section 6).
SB 3 Became Law Effective Outdoor warning sirens in flash-flood-prone areas
SB 3 directs the Texas Water Development Board to identify certain areas within the region covered by the July 2025 Hill Country flood disaster declaration that have experienced consistent or severe flooding and warrant outdoor warning sirens. Municipalities and counties responsible for identified areas must install, maintain, operate, and test qualifying warning systems, subject to the law's requirements and exceptions. The law also provides for state guidance and a grant program to assist eligible governmental entities with certain installation costs.
What SB 3 is not: it does not require every Texas county to install sirens: and it does not automatically place a siren at every camp, RV park, rural community, or unincorporated area, coverage depends on the areas the Texas Water Development Board identifies and on the law's requirements and exceptions. Statements made while the bill was being developed are not requirements of the final law; the enrolled text controls.
Funding connection: SB 3 created the warning-siren requirements and the grant structure; SB 5 (next entry) provided the disaster-related appropriations, including grant funding for flood-warning infrastructure. Together, the two enacted measures show how a legal requirement and the money to implement it moved through the session side by side.
Official record: SB 3 on Texas Legislature Online (89th Legislature, 2nd Called Session) · Texas Water Development Board SB 3 implementation page
SB 5 Became Law Effective Supplemental disaster-relief and preparedness funding
SB 5 provided supplemental state appropriations from the Economic Stabilization Fund (the "rainy day fund") for disaster relief and preparedness. The enacted measure's subjects include disaster response and recovery funding, local flood-warning infrastructure, forecasting and weather intelligence, and other disaster-preparedness needs. Under the Texas Water Development Board's official implementation materials, the Act's local-grant funding includes $50 million to help entities within the counties covered by the July 2025 flood disaster declaration establish flood-warning sirens and gauges and purchase related equipment, the money side of the siren requirements created by SB 3. The enrolled text controls the exact appropriation amounts and conditions; readers comparing news coverage of earlier drafts should rely on the final enrolled version.
Why it matters to property owners: state disaster funding shapes how quickly counties and municipalities can install warning infrastructure, match federal recovery dollars after a declared disaster, and improve the forecasting that protects homes, land, and rural communities. An appropriations act does not, by itself, place a siren on any particular property, installation follows the SB 3 identification and grant process.
Official record: SB 5 on Texas Legislature Online (89th Legislature, 2nd Called Session) · Enrolled bill text · Texas Water Development Board implementation page
SB 16 Became Law Effective Real property theft and real property fraud, deed-fraud offenses, recording requirements, restitution
SB 16 is the most important measure of the session for Texas homeowners and heirs. It creates two new criminal offenses in the Texas Penal Code real property theft (Section 31.23) and real property fraud (Section 32.60), aimed at schemes that use forged deeds: fraudulent transfers, fraudulent liens or encumbrances, and false recorded documents to take or cloud ownership of Texas land.
The bill also: places both offenses under a ten-year felony statute of limitations; creates procedures for recording judgments involving fraudulent property documents with the county clerk where the property sits; requires restitution that may include the value of the property, related losses (including structures, equipment, or agricultural products), and title-related litigation expenses; and, beginning January 1, 2026, requires photo identification for certain in-person real-property filings, with county clerks notifying law enforcement of suspected fraudulent filings.
The homestead connection is direct: punishment is enhanced when the owner is elderly or disabled or when the property receives a residence-homestead property-tax exemption, and the definition of "owner" expressly reaches the estate and known successors of a deceased owner, which matters for heirs and family land.
Because SB 16 is a criminal statute, it works alongside, not instead of, the civil tools owners already use. A criminal real-property fraud case is not the same as an ordinary title dispute; a prosecution is not a civil quiet-title lawsuit; recording a document is not the same as establishing legal ownership; a homestead tax status is not proof of title; restitution is not the same as restoring marketable title; and an heir’s ownership interest exists whether or not the heir holds a recorded deed. The dedicated article below walks through each of these distinctions.
Official record: SB 16 on Texas Legislature Online (89th Legislature, 2nd Called Session)
HB 23 Became Law Effective Property-tax exemption for certain agricultural / youth / educational nonprofit property in a populous county
HB 23 created a narrow property-tax exemption for qualifying real and personal property owned by certain charitable, educational and scientific nonprofit corporations that promote agriculture, support youth, and provide educational support in the community, and only in a qualifying populous county. All statutory requirements must be met for the exemption to apply.
What HB 23 is not: it is not a general residence-homestead exemption; it does not create an exemption for ordinary homeowners; it does not create an agricultural-use appraisal for individual landowners; it does not exempt all agricultural nonprofit property statewide; and it does not benefit a taxable interest held by a for-profit lessee. It applies only when every statutory requirement is met.
Companion note: SB 40 contained the same proposal but was filed only, its official history shows only that it was filed, with no further recorded action. The enacted measure was HB 23. Readers looking up SB 40 should look to HB 23 for the law that actually took effect.
Official record: HB 23 on Texas Legislature Online (89th Legislature, 2nd Called Session) · Enrolled bill text · SB 40 (filed-only Senate companion) · Legislative Reference Library effective-dates list
SB 14 Became Law Effective Credits against development impact fees for certain water conservation and reuse projects
SB 14 requires political subdivisions assessing certain water and wastewater impact fees to provide qualifying credits to builders or developers for eligible facilities: systems, or products that conserve water, reuse water, reduce infrastructure demand, or exceed standard water-efficiency requirements. Impact fees are one-time charges on new development that help pay for the water and wastewater infrastructure growth requires; under the enacted law, a development that builds qualifying conservation or reuse features can earn a credit against those fees.
Why it matters to Texans: the law connects development costs to water conservation. In fast-growing and water-stressed communities, it can influence how new construction approaches water and wastewater infrastructure, and it is part of the broader policy conversation about high-water-use development. To be clear: SB 14 concerns impact-fee credits for qualifying development projects. It is not a general residential property-tax credit, and it does not change any homeowner's property-tax bill.
Official record: SB 14 on Texas Legislature Online (89th Legislature, 2nd Called Session) · Enrolled bill text · Legislative Reference Library effective-dates list
Section 2, Passed but vetoed
A vetoed bill passed the Legislature but was rejected by the Governor. Vetoed bills are never listed under "became law." One bill within this site's scope was vetoed this session.
SB 18 Vetoed Permitting exemption for certain small erosion-, floodwater-, and sediment-control dams or reservoirs
SB 18 would have exempted certain small dams or reservoirs: structures controlling erosion, floodwater, and sediment, with a normal storage capacity of no more than 200 acre-feet and managed by qualified local sponsors: from needing a Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) permit, and would have allowed sponsors to construct, maintain, and divert water from those sites without a permit if specific criteria were met.
The Legislature passed the measure, but it was vetoed: the bill passed both chambers, was sent to the Governor, and was vetoed on September 17, 2025. A veto is a final legislative outcome, the bill did not become law, and the proposed permit exemption should not be described as current Texas law. A plain-language summary of the Governor's stated reasons, drawn from the official veto proclamation, may be added later as an editorial expansion; this archive does not paraphrase veto reasoning from secondary reporting.
Why it mattered for landowners: small flood- and erosion-control structures are common on Texas rural land, and permitting requirements affect what a landowner or local sponsor can build or maintain. Because SB 18 did not become law, TCEQ permitting requirements were not changed by this bill.
Official record: SB 18 on Texas Legislature Online (89th Legislature, 2nd Called Session)
Section 3, Homestead property-tax proposals that did not pass
This session produced a large slate of residence-homestead appraisal limits, tax ceilings, refunds, and exemption proposals. None of them became law. None of the benefits described below is currently available, and none appears in this site's current-law pages, calculators, or eligibility explanations. Related bills and joint resolutions are grouped to avoid repeating substantially identical explanations. A House Joint Resolution (HJR) is a proposed constitutional amendment, even when paired with a bill, it would also have required voter approval.
Residence-homestead appraisal limits
Lower or restructured appraisal caps for homesteads
HB 219 (with HJR 20) proposed a lower residence-homestead appraisal-growth limit than the current 10% cap. HB 299 (with HJR 39) proposed valuing a homestead at its purchase price in the first year of ownership with limits on later appraisal growth. HJR 9 proposed lower appraisal caps for homesteads and other real property, while HB 184, HB 249, HJR 18, and HJR 24 proposed appraisal limits reaching broader categories of real property.
Who they would have affected: homeowners in fast-appreciating markets: recent buyers, and, in the broader-category versions, owners of rental, commercial, and other real property. What readers should not assume: Texas homestead appraisal growth is still governed by existing law; no purchase-price valuation rule and no lower cap took effect.
Elderly, disabled and surviving-spouse exemptions
Expanded exemptions and tax ceilings for seniors, disabled owners, and surviving spouses
HB 155 (with HJR 15) proposed a total residence-homestead exemption for certain elderly owners and their surviving spouses; HB 183 (with HJR 16) was a substantially similar proposal. HB 273 (with HJR 30) proposed an optional tax ceiling for qualifying low-income elderly or disabled owners and surviving spouses. HJR 6 proposed a tax ceiling for elderly or disabled homeowners and surviving spouses.
Who they would have affected: Texans 65 and older, disabled homeowners, and surviving spouses. What readers should not assume: the existing over-65/disabled exemptions and school-tax ceiling remain as current law provides; no total exemption for elderly owners was created.
Disabled-veteran and surviving-spouse exemptions
Veteran exemption proposals
HB 201, HB 202, and HJR 19 concerned an exemption based on a partially disabled veteran’s disability rating. HB 210 concerned the definition of "residence homestead" for totally disabled veterans and surviving spouses. HB 250 (with HJR 25) proposed a percentage-based disabled-veteran exemption with survivor and child provisions.
Who they would have affected: partially and totally disabled veterans, their surviving spouses, and in some versions their children. What readers should not assume: the disabled-veteran exemptions available today are the ones in existing law; no rating-percentage restructuring took effect.
Other homestead and residential tax proposals
Refunds and other residential proposals
HB 100 proposed property-tax refunds to Texas homestead owners using certain federal funds. HB 294 (with HJR 38) was a homestead/residential property-tax proposal whose full caption is being catalogued on the Source Notes page.
What readers should not assume: no refund program was created; no money is owed to homeowners under these proposals.
Section 4, Agricultural valuation and rural land proposals
These proposals concerned agricultural productivity appraisal (often called "ag exemption," though it is a special appraisal, not an exemption), farm-product exemptions, quarantined land, and groundwater-area land. None became law: agricultural appraisal requirements, prior-use rules, and rollback (additional) taxes were not repealed or changed by this session.
HB 239 Referred to Committee Appraisal treatment of agricultural land under a Texas Animal Health Commission quarantine (ticks, screwworms, or another covered pest or disease)
HB 239 concerned the appraisal treatment of agricultural land placed under a Texas Animal Health Commission quarantine involving ticks, screwworms, or another covered pest or disease. The concern behind the bill: a quarantine can interrupt normal agricultural use through no fault of the landowner, which can threaten the land’s productivity appraisal.
Official record: HB 239 on Texas Legislature Online (89th Legislature, 2nd Called Session)
HB 240 Referred to Committee Definitions used for the property-tax exemption for farm products in the hands of the producer
HB 240, with the paired constitutional amendment HJR 21, concerned the definitions used for the property-tax exemption for farm products in the hands of the producer, who counts as a producer, and what counts as a farm product, for purposes of the existing constitutional exemption. It would not have created a new exemption.
Official record: HB 240 on Texas Legislature Online (89th Legislature, 2nd Called Session)
HJR 21 Filed, Did Not Pass Constitutional amendment, legislative authority to define terms for the farm-products-in-the-hands-of-the-producer exemption
HJR 21 reintroduced a proposal concerning the definitions used for the constitutional property-tax exemption for farm products in the hands of the producer. Texas Legislature Online lists the resolution's last action as filed on August 18, 2025. It did not advance through the Legislature, was not submitted to voters, and did not amend the Texas Constitution. As a joint resolution, it would also have required approval by Texas voters.
Note on bill numbering: HJR 21 of this Second Called Session and HJR 31 of the 89th Regular Session addressed similar concepts but were separate measures filed in separate sessions. HJR 31 passed the Texas House and was referred to the Senate Committee on Local Government but did not complete the legislative process: it was never referred to voters, despite the November 4, 2025 election date printed in its introduced and engrossed text.
Official record: HJR 21 on Texas Legislature Online (89th Legislature, 2nd Called Session)
HB 282 Did Not Pass, Filed Only Partial property-tax exemption for qualifying non-irrigated land in a priority groundwater management area
HB 282, with HJR 32, proposed a partial property-tax exemption for qualifying non-irrigated land located in a priority groundwater management area, connecting property-tax treatment to groundwater conservation. It is also listed in Section 7 (water and groundwater).
Official record: HB 282 on Texas Legislature Online (89th Legislature, 2nd Called Session)
HJR 32 Did Not Pass, Filed Only Constitutional amendment paired with HB 282 (non-irrigated land in a priority groundwater management area)
HJR 32 was the proposed constitutional amendment paired with HB 282. It would also have required voter approval.
Official record: HJR 32 on Texas Legislature Online (89th Legislature, 2nd Called Session)
HB 289 Did Not Pass, Filed Only Agricultural productivity appraisal, eligibility, prior-use requirements, change-of-use consequences, additional (rollback) taxes, treatment of land after sale
HB 289, with HJR 37, proposed changes to agricultural productivity appraisal: eligibility, prior-use requirements, change-of-use consequences, additional or rollback taxes, and the treatment of land after a sale. Had it passed, it would have substantially changed how land enters and leaves productivity appraisal, which is why this subject deserves close attention if refiled in a future session.
Official record: HB 289 on Texas Legislature Online (89th Legislature, 2nd Called Session)
HJR 37 Did Not Pass, Filed Only Constitutional amendment paired with HB 289 (agricultural productivity appraisal)
HJR 37 was the proposed constitutional amendment paired with HB 289. It would also have required voter approval.
Official record: HJR 37 on Texas Legislature Online (89th Legislature, 2nd Called Session)
Section 5, Deeds, recording, title and property transactions
The enacted centerpiece of this subject area is SB 16 (Section 1), the real-property theft and deed-fraud law. The remaining measures here are historical proposals. Two distinctions worth keeping in mind throughout: recording a document at the county clerk's office is not the same as owning property (recording gives notice; ownership is a legal question), and a residence-homestead tax status at the appraisal district is not proof of title.
HB 258 Duplicate Bill Did Not Pass Identical House companion to SB 16 (real property theft and real property fraud)
HB 258 was an identical House version of SB 16. It is recorded here only as the duplicate; SB 16 became the enacted vehicle, so HB 258’s substance is covered in Section 1 and in the dedicated SB 16 article. (An additional identical companion, HB 19, appears in the official record.)
Official record: HB 258 on Texas Legislature Online (89th Legislature, 2nd Called Session)
SB 52 Did Not Pass, Filed Only Additional disclosures proposed for recording instruments conveying real property
SB 52 proposed requiring a separate notice, containing specified grantor, grantee, property, transaction, and identification information, to accompany certain instruments conveying real property when they are presented for recording at the county clerk's office. It was a transparency proposal aimed at the recording process itself, with implications for deeds: county-clerk recording, property transfers, and the responsibilities of grantors and grantees.
Because the proposed notice would have requested sensitive identifying information, one point deserves emphasis: Texans are not currently required to submit any such notice or form. The bill did not pass, and no one should provide personal identifying information in response to a request that cites this proposal as authority. The enacted recording protections from this session came instead through SB 16, which addresses fraudulent filings.
Official record: SB 52 on Texas Legislature Online (89th Legislature, 2nd Called Session) · Introduced bill text
SB 26 Did Not Pass, Filed Only Spanish translation of certain residential purchase contracts in colonias, on a purchaser's request
SB 26 proposed requiring a Spanish translation of certain executory contracts for residential real property in a colonia when requested by a purchaser or potential purchaser. Executory contracts, often called "contracts for deed", are common in some border-area communities and can leave buyers making payments for years without holding recorded title, which is why language access and buyer protections in these transactions draw legislative attention. Because the bill did not pass, no translation requirement was created by this bill.
Official record: SB 26 on Texas Legislature Online (89th Legislature, 2nd Called Session) · Introduced bill text
HB 242 Referred to Committee Collection of delinquent property taxes
HB 242 concerned the collection of delinquent property taxes. Delinquent-tax procedures matter to owners at risk of tax sale and to heirs sorting out taxes on inherited property. Also listed in Section 9.
Official record: HB 242 on Texas Legislature Online (89th Legislature, 2nd Called Session)
HB 245 Referred to Committee Collection of delinquent property taxes
HB 245 also concerned the collection of delinquent property taxes. Also listed in Section 9.
Official record: HB 245 on Texas Legislature Online (89th Legislature, 2nd Called Session)
HB 251 Referred to Committee Determining the value not in dispute during a property-tax protest or appeal
HB 251 concerned determining the "value not in dispute" during a property-tax protest or appeal, the portion of taxes an owner must pay while a protest is pending.
Official record: HB 251 on Texas Legislature Online (89th Legislature, 2nd Called Session)
Section 6, Flooding, drainage and disaster recovery
The Second Called Session, convened in the shadow of the deadly July 2025 Central Texas floods, included several different approaches to flood safety. Some, the warning-siren requirements of SB 3 and the disaster funding of SB 5 became law and appear in Section 1. The proposals below took other approaches: a broad emergency-management package, expanded state disaster authority, municipal-formation rules for flood-hazard areas: an alert-system study, county drainage and land-use powers, recovery funds, flood-safety signage, and the property-tax treatment of structures rebuilt after disaster damage. None of the measures listed in this section became law: counties did not receive new drainage or land-use powers from these bills, and no proposed requirement below is current Texas law.
SB 2 Advanced but Did Not Pass Broad disaster preparedness, response, and recovery package, died in conference when the session ended
SB 2 was the session's broad disaster-preparedness and recovery proposal. Rather than one narrow change, it gathered many emergency-management subjects into a single package: local emergency-management responsibilities; training and licensing proposals for emergency-management personnel; management of disaster volunteers, including property-owner consent before volunteers enter private property; flood planning and meteorological data; post-disaster reporting; recovery assistance for small businesses; and mass-fatality operations and related emergency-management systems.
How it ended: versions of the bill passed through both chambers, but the chambers did not complete final agreement on one version. A conference committee, the negotiating group appointed when the House and Senate pass different texts, was appointed, and the official history's last recorded action is the appointment of House conferees on August 27, 2025. The history does not show completion of final passage before the session ended, so SB 2 did not become law. None of its proposed requirements should be treated as current law simply because they appeared in the bill text.
Connection to the enacted flood measures: SB 2 proposed a broader emergency-management framework, while SB 3 and SB 5 were among the disaster-related measures that completed the legislative process.
Official record: SB 2 on Texas Legislature Online (89th Legislature, 2nd Called Session)
HB 108 Did Not Pass County drainage utilities, drainage fees, and county land-use regulation for flood management
HB 108, with Senate companion SB 45, would have addressed county drainage utilities, drainage fees, and county land-use regulation for flood management, authority Texas counties largely lack in unincorporated areas today.
Official record: HB 108 on Texas Legislature Online (89th Legislature, 2nd Called Session)
SB 45 Companion Bill Did Not Pass, Filed Only County drainage utilities, drainage fees, and flood-management land-use regulation (Senate companion to HB 108)
SB 45, the Senate companion to HB 108, proposed allowing counties to establish certain drainage utilities, impose drainage charges or impact fees, and adopt land-use regulations rationally related to flood management. For owners of unincorporated county property, the proposal touched drainage fees, floodplain development, impervious cover, setbacks and lot sizes, and the long-running question of county-versus-municipal regulatory authority. Because the bill did not pass, none of that authority was created.
Official record: SB 45 on Texas Legislature Online (89th Legislature, 2nd Called Session)
HB 117 Referred to Committee County regulation of impervious cover in unincorporated areas
HB 117 would have allowed county regulation of impervious cover (roofs, pavement, and other surfaces that increase runoff) in unincorporated areas. It was left pending in committee when the session ended.
Official record: HB 117 on Texas Legislature Online (89th Legislature, 2nd Called Session)
HB 188 Did Not Pass Rural Emergency Preparedness Fund for flood-prone communities
HB 188 proposed a Rural Emergency Preparedness Fund for flood-prone communities.
Official record: HB 188 on Texas Legislature Online (89th Legislature, 2nd Called Session)
HB 194 Did Not Pass Flood-safety signage
HB 194 concerned flood-safety signage.
Official record: HB 194 on Texas Legislature Online (89th Legislature, 2nd Called Session)
HB 215 Did Not Pass Disaster-related proposal (see Source Notes for the official caption)
HB 215 is grouped here from the session’s disaster-related filings. Its official caption and subject classification are an active editorial review item on the Source Notes page; the entry will be expanded once that review is complete.
Official record: HB 215 on Texas Legislature Online (89th Legislature, 2nd Called Session)
HB 217 Did Not Pass Low-interest flood-recovery loans for disaster victims
HB 217 proposed low-interest flood-recovery loans for disaster victims.
Official record: HB 217 on Texas Legislature Online (89th Legislature, 2nd Called Session)
HB 254 Advanced but Did Not Pass Rural Infrastructure Disaster Recovery Program eligibility
HB 254 concerned eligibility for the Rural Infrastructure Disaster Recovery Program. It advanced further than most bills in this section, reaching a Senate committee, but did not pass. Advancing from committee is not passage, and no green "success" label applies.
Official record: HB 254 on Texas Legislature Online (89th Legislature, 2nd Called Session)
SB 47 Did Not Pass Flood Infrastructure Fund projects
SB 47 concerned Flood Infrastructure Fund projects administered through the Texas Water Development Board framework.
Official record: SB 47 on Texas Legislature Online (89th Legislature, 2nd Called Session)
SB 32 Did Not Pass, Filed Only State authority to declare and manage certain local disasters when local officials are unavailable
SB 32 proposed additional authority for the Texas Division of Emergency Management to declare and manage a local state of disaster under limited circumstances when the appropriate local or state officials were unavailable. The proposal touched who can declare a local disaster, evacuation authority, access to disaster areas, and the division of emergency responsibilities between local and state government. Because the bill did not pass, no new state authority was created.
Official record: SB 32 on Texas Legislature Online (89th Legislature, 2nd Called Session) · Introduced bill text
SB 38 Did Not Pass, Filed Only Incorporation of certain unincorporated areas in or near special flood hazard areas as Type C municipalities
SB 38 proposed a process for certain unincorporated areas in or near special flood hazard areas: the areas shown on FEMA flood maps as facing the highest flood risk, to incorporate as Type C general-law municipalities, subject to flood-planning, building, warning-siren, roadway-barrier, and mitigation requirements. The idea connected municipal incorporation to flood preparedness: a newly formed town in a flood-hazard area would have carried flood-safety obligations from the start. Because the bill did not pass, no such incorporation process was created, and floodplain development rules were not changed by this bill.
Official record: SB 38 on Texas Legislature Online (89th Legislature, 2nd Called Session) · Introduced bill text
SB 44 Did Not Pass, Filed Only Proposed Department of Public Safety study of emergency-alert notification systems
SB 44 proposed a Department of Public Safety study examining the effectiveness: delivery, geographic reach, public use, and outcomes of emergency-alert notification systems, the phone alerts, roadside messaging, and other channels Texans rely on during floods and other emergencies, including questions such as warning fatigue and geographic targeting. Because the bill did not pass, no study was required by this bill. (The enacted SB 3 addressed outdoor warning sirens through a separate, completed measure.)
Official record: SB 44 on Texas Legislature Online (89th Legislature, 2nd Called Session) · Introduced bill text
SB 58 Did Not Pass, Filed Only Property-tax appraisal treatment of replacement structures rebuilt after disaster or casualty damage
SB 58 proposed changing how certain replacement structures would be treated for property-tax appraisal purposes when an earlier structure became uninhabitable or unusable because of casualty, a declared natural disaster, wind, or water damage. The subject matters to anyone rebuilding after a disaster: whether a rebuilt structure counts as a "new improvement" affects the homestead appraisal cap, and details such as replacement materials, increased square footage, and construction quality can determine how quickly a rebuilt home's appraised value rises.
SB 58 did not pass. Its proposed treatment of replacement structures did not become law through this bill. Homeowners rebuilding after a disaster should rely on the appraisal rules in existing law and on their appraisal district, not on this proposal.
Official record: SB 58 on Texas Legislature Online (89th Legislature, 2nd Called Session) · Introduced bill text
Section 7, Water, groundwater and land acquisition
Some distinctions matter in this section. Voluntary acquisition (a negotiated purchase or easement) is different from condemnation through eminent domain. Water rights (the right to use water) are different from groundwater regulation (district rules on pumping) and from subdivision approval (plat requirements). And a proposal about acquiring land for water infrastructure is not, by itself, a change to property-tax treatment. This archive uses neutral language: describing a proposal is not describing a threat.
HB 145 Did Not Pass, Filed Only Evidence of groundwater availability for certain subdivision plats
HB 145 concerned evidence of groundwater availability for certain subdivision plats, what a developer would have to show about water supply before a rural subdivision could be approved.
Official record: HB 145 on Texas Legislature Online (89th Legislature, 2nd Called Session)
HB 287 Did Not Pass, Filed Only Authority of a political subdivision to acquire real property for taking or transporting water
HB 287 concerned the authority of a political subdivision to acquire real property for taking or transporting water. Acquisition authority can include voluntary purchases: easements, and negotiation, and, separately, condemnation through eminent domain, which carries its own constitutional and statutory protections for landowners. Because HB 287 did not pass, no acquisition authority was changed by it.
Official record: HB 287 on Texas Legislature Online (89th Legislature, 2nd Called Session)
SB 27 Did Not Pass, Filed Only Proposed prohibition on a political subdivision using eminent domain outside its own boundaries
SB 27 proposed prohibiting a political subdivision, such as a city, county, or special district, from using eminent domain to take private property located outside the subdivision's own boundaries, subject to the bill's prospective-application language. The subject matters most to owners of rural property near expanding cities and districts: where condemnation for water lines, utilities, or other projects can reach beyond municipal or district limits. Because the bill did not pass, the rules governing when a political subdivision may condemn property outside its boundaries were not changed by this bill.
Official record: SB 27 on Texas Legislature Online (89th Legislature, 2nd Called Session) · Introduced bill text
Groundwater production, transfers, and export proposals
Several proposals addressed how groundwater conservation districts evaluate production, transfers, modeled available groundwater, and the possible effects of large groundwater-export permits. None of the Senate measures below became law during the Second Called Session. "Modeled available groundwater" is a planning and permitting concept, the amount of production that district modeling indicates is consistent with the district's adopted long-term aquifer goals. It does not guarantee the amount of water physically available beneath any particular property.
SB 28 Did Not Pass, Filed Only Proposed limits and district-approval requirements for certain groundwater production and transfers out of district boundaries
SB 28 proposed limits and additional district-approval requirements involving certain groundwater production and transfers outside groundwater-conservation-district boundaries. The subject reaches rural wells: large-volume production permits, groundwater export, and the district planning concepts of modeled available groundwater and desired future conditions. Because the bill did not pass, district permitting authority and export rules were not changed by this bill.
Official record: SB 28 on Texas Legislature Online (89th Legislature, 2nd Called Session) · Introduced bill text
SB 41 Did Not Pass, Filed Only Proposed cap tying certain production-and-transfer permits to a share of a district's modeled available groundwater
SB 41 proposed prohibiting a groundwater conservation district from issuing certain production-and-transfer permits when the applicant's authorized amount would exceed a specified share of the district's modeled available groundwater. Modeled available groundwater is a planning and permitting concept used by districts and the Texas Water Development Board; it does not guarantee how much water is physically available beneath a particular property. Because the bill did not pass, no such cap was created.
Official record: SB 41 on Texas Legislature Online (89th Legislature, 2nd Called Session) · Introduced bill text
SB 55 Did Not Pass, Filed Only Proposed Texas Water Development Board study of aquifers under the Neches and Trinity Valleys Groundwater Conservation District
SB 55 proposed a Texas Water Development Board study of certain aquifers underlying the Neches and Trinity Valleys Groundwater Conservation District in East Texas, including the Carrizo-Wilcox Aquifer, together with a temporary restriction on specified permit actions while the study process was underway. The proposal responded to large-volume groundwater production and export projects proposed in the district and to concerns about aquifer sustainability and the interaction between groundwater and surface water in the Neches and Trinity basins.
Its House counterpart on the same subject, HB 27, advanced much further, passing the House and reaching a conference committee, but also did not complete passage before the session ended. Neither measure became law, so no study requirement or permit restriction was created by these bills.
Official record: SB 55 on Texas Legislature Online (89th Legislature, 2nd Called Session) · Introduced bill text
Also relevant to this subject area: HB 282 and HJR 32 (Section 4) the proposed partial exemption for non-irrigated land in a priority groundwater management area; SB 14 (Section 1) the enacted water-conservation impact-fee credit law, effective January 1, 2026; and SB 18 (Section 2) the vetoed dam-and-reservoir permitting exemption.
Section 8, Agricultural health, PFAS, biosolids and contamination
These proposals concerned interstate animal-health initiatives: Texas Animal Health Commission pest-control authority, animal-health research and emergency response, PFAS ("forever chemicals") in agricultural products, biosolids applied to land, livestock health, and soil and water protection. None became law: no proposed criminal offense, prohibition, or agency authority in this section is current law. For landowners, the practical takeaway is due diligence, knowing what has been applied to land you own or are buying.
HB 237 Did Not Pass Proposed interstate compact for animal health initiatives
HB 237 proposed requiring the governor to develop and execute an interstate compact for animal health initiatives among interested states. The proposed compact could have supported shared research, surveillance, response planning, infrastructure, personnel, and other resources related to animal diseases and parasitic insects. It also could have allowed participating states to transfer money to Texas for qualifying animal-health research and response activities.
Because HB 237 did not pass, it created no compact, the governor holds no authority under this bill, Texas receives no money from other states under this proposal, and it imposes no duties or restrictions on Texas landowners. It also made no change to private-land access, quarantine authority, or eminent-domain rules. Interstate coordination could still affect how Texas prepares for animal-disease threats such as New World screwworm, so this subject remains one to watch for refiling in a future session. The official committee substitute analysis, citing a USDA estimate, referenced a potential inflation-adjusted economic loss of approximately $1.8 billion from a screwworm outbreak comparable to the 1976 event, that figure describes potential outbreak losses, not the total value of the Texas livestock industry.
Official record: HB 237 on Texas Legislature Online (89th Legislature, 2nd Called Session)
HB 238 Advanced but Did Not Pass Texas Animal Health Commission pest-control authority
HB 238 concerned the Texas Animal Health Commission’s pest-control authority. It advanced through the committee-report/Calendars stage but did not pass.
Official record: HB 238 on Texas Legislature Online (89th Legislature, 2nd Called Session)
HB 253 Advanced but Did Not Pass Proposed Texas A&M institute for animal-health research and emergency response
HB 253 proposed a Texas A&M institute for animal-health research and emergency response. It advanced through the committee-report/Calendars stage but did not pass.
Official record: HB 253 on Texas Legislature Online (89th Legislature, 2nd Called Session)
HB 290 Did Not Pass PFAS in certain agricultural products, county-specific proposal directed at Johnson County
HB 290 concerned PFAS in certain agricultural products and was a county-specific proposal directed at Johnson County, where PFAS contamination of agricultural land had drawn attention.
Official record: HB 290 on Texas Legislature Online (89th Legislature, 2nd Called Session)
HB 292 Did Not Pass Proposed prohibition on applying biosolids to certain land
HB 292 proposed prohibiting the application of biosolids (treated sewage sludge used as fertilizer) to certain land.
Official record: HB 292 on Texas Legislature Online (89th Legislature, 2nd Called Session)
Section 9, Broader property-tax reform proposals
A large share of the session's filings concerned the structure of Texas taxation rather than individual homestead eligibility: proposals to abolish or replace property taxes: school-district tax compression, voter-approval tax rates, bond elections, political-subdivision spending limits, tax refunds, alternative revenue systems, and delinquent-tax collection. This consolidated section preserves the legislative history, because ideas like these are frequently refiled, without letting broad tax policy overwhelm the homestead-focused content on this site. None of these measures became law.
SB 10 Advanced but Did Not Pass Voter-approval property-tax rate calculations, the House refused to adopt the conference committee report
SB 10 proposed changes to the formulas used to calculate voter-approval tax rates for certain taxing units, including a proposed reduction in the multiplier applied to some taxing units. The voter-approval tax rate is the ceiling above which a taxing unit generally must get voter approval to raise more property-tax revenue, a concept from Texas "Truth in Taxation," alongside the no-new-revenue rate. Lowering the multiplier would have required voter approval sooner for some local tax increases.
What SB 10 was not: it was not a homestead exemption, and it would not have changed any individual exemption amount. It concerned how local taxing units calculate their rate ceilings. The bill advanced further than any other measure in this section, it passed both chambers in different forms and went to a conference committee (where the two chambers negotiate a compromise text), but on September 2, 2025 the House refused to adopt the conference committee report, and the bill died when the session ended. The proposed formulas should not be presented as current law.
Official record: SB 10 on Texas Legislature Online (89th Legislature, 2nd Called Session)
Other broad tax-structure proposals (did not pass)
Each bill number links to its official Texas Legislature Online record; individual captions are catalogued on the Source Notes page. HB 242 and HB 245 (delinquent-tax collection) also appear in Section 5.
How these measures fit together
The session's measures make more sense as connected groups than as a bill-number list. The groupings below share a subject, but bills grouped together did not necessarily share an outcome. Within a single group, one measure may have become law while its neighbors were vetoed or never advanced, and only the enacted measures changed Texas law.
Flood warning and funding
SB 3 established the enacted warning-siren framework (Became Law), and SB 5 supplied the enacted disaster-related appropriations (Became Law). SB 2 proposed a broader emergency-management structure but did not pass (Advanced but Did Not Pass), and SB 44 proposed an alert-system study but did not pass (Did Not Pass, Filed Only).
Floodplain development and local authority
SB 38 proposed a special municipal-incorporation process for certain flood-hazard areas, and SB 45 (with House companion HB 108) proposed broader county drainage and flood-management authority. Neither measure passed, both carry Did Not Pass, Filed Only labels, and counties and flood-hazard communities received no new powers from them.
Water conservation and groundwater
SB 14 became law and addresses development-related water-conservation impact-fee credits (Became Law). SB 18 addressed dams and reservoirs but was Vetoed it did not become law. SB 28, SB 41, and SB 55 proposed groundwater-production, transfer, permitting, or study changes but did not pass (Did Not Pass, Filed Only).
Property taxes and disaster recovery
SB 10 proposed changes to voter-approval tax-rate calculations but did not pass (Advanced but Did Not Pass conference report rejected). HB 23 created a narrow nonprofit property-tax exemption (Became Law); SB 40 was its filed-only Senate companion. SB 58 proposed disaster-rebuilding appraisal treatment but did not pass (Did Not Pass, Filed Only).
Property ownership and transactions
SB 26 addressed certain contracts involving colonia residential property, SB 27 addressed eminent domain outside political-subdivision boundaries, and SB 52 addressed information accompanying recorded property conveyances. None of these three bills passed, each is Did Not Pass, Filed Only. The session's enacted transaction-and-recording protection was SB 16 (Became Law).
Last reviewed: July 21, 2026 · Statuses verified against Texas Legislature Online (LegSess 892), the Texas Legislative Reference Library effective-dates list, and the Texas Legislative Council Summary of Enactments, 89th Texas Legislature. See the Source Notes page for the complete reviewed-bill table.