| Vote Recommendation | Economic Freedom | Property Rights | Personal Responsibility | Limited Government | Individual Liberty |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Neutral | Neutral | Neutral | Neutral | Neutral | Neutral |
Relating to the transfer
of the Texas Farm and Ranch Lands Conservation Program to the Parks and
Wildlife Department.
Estimated Two-year Net Impact to General Revenue Related
Funds for HB1925, Committee Report 1st House, Substituted: a negative
impact of ($306,234) through the biennium ending August 31, 2017.
The bill would make no appropriation but could provide the
legal basis for an appropriation of funds to implement the provisions of the
bill.
(The second chamber sponsor is Senator Kohlkorst.)
HB 1925, if passed,
would transfer authority of the Texas Farm and Ranch Lands Conservation Program
from the General Land Office to the Parks and Wildlife Department.
This program is
designed to manage agricultural conservation easements with the aims of
conserving water quality or quantity, conserving tracts of open land threatened
with fragmentation, and conserving native, rare, or sensitive wildlife species.
Effectively, all the changes that would be made by HB 1925 relate to the
transfer of authority between the two parties, land office to department,
subchapter to chapter, land office to department, commissioner to director, and
so forth.
The actual aim of HB
1925 is not a problematic one. Given that the Texas Farm and Ranch Lands
Conservation Program already exists, it does not matter to us who administers
the program and oversees its activities. The aims of the program are varied.
Water conservation is certainly a legitimate role for the state to adopt, other
goals set for the program are somewhat problematic. Again though, these goals
would not be affected by HB 1925, only transfer of authority, which is
noncontroversial.
One complication which
would arise, is that from 2005 (when the program was created) to 2015 funding
for the program came from the federal funds, via the Coastal Improvement
Assistance Program. In this period the program spent $2,943,217 total, or
roughly $300,000 per year. These improvements were, appropriately, limited to
coastal areas. Fiscal note projections state that spending over the next few
years would amount to roughly $150,000 per year. Additional state funding is
problematic but the mission of the Program is beneficial. It is not clear
whether this increase in spending can be tied to the transfer of authority from
the General Land Office to the Parks and Wildlife Department.
The committee substitute (CS) for this bill made a few
changes to the as filed version. The Texas Farm and Ranch Lands Conservation
Council (TFRC) would be required to award grants based off giving priority to
applications that protect highly productive agricultural lands that are susceptible
to development. Another change would
increase the TFRC membership from 11 to 12 members. Finally the CS changes would
allow the presiding officer of the TFRC to appoint the executive director of the
Texas Parks and Wildlife Department as the interim presiding officer.
Given all of these
components in the original version and CS version, we are ultimately neutral on
HB 1925.