According to the Legislative Budget Board (LBB), the fiscal implications of HB 2 remain indeterminate due to several cost variables that are currently unknown. While the bill authorizes revenue generation through licensing and background check fees, and allows for the acceptance of gifts, grants, and donations, the number of participants and the actual amounts that will be collected are presently unquantifiable. Therefore, the overall revenue impact on the state cannot yet be calculated.

The Texas Division of Emergency Management (TDEM) anticipates $808,333 in costs for FY 2026 and $191,667 in FY 2027 to support the establishment of a new statewide volunteer registration system, additional training initiatives for justices of the peace, and initial implementation of the emergency manager licensing framework. These estimates do not include future expenses related to background checks, which the agency would conduct as part of the licensing and volunteer vetting process.

The Department of State Health Services (DSHS) estimates the need for one additional full-time employee to develop a communications plan related to mass fatality events, with related costs totaling $130,718 in FY 2026 and $165,468 in FY 2027. DSHS already oversees the Texas Mass Fatality Operations Response Team (TMORT), which may absorb some responsibilities under the bill. However, the department would need to create a new data system to fulfill provisions requiring real-time updates for family members of mass fatality victims, since the existing Pulsara system is not equipped for this function. The cost of developing this new system is currently unknown.

Finally, while no significant fiscal impact is expected for local governments, the bill's implementation costs for state agencies such as the Texas Commission on Fire Protection and the Department of Public Safety are expected to be absorbed within existing budgets.

HB 2 proposes a significant reorganization of Texas’s disaster preparedness and emergency response infrastructure in light of operational failures observed during the 2025 Central Texas floods. While the bill's overarching intent, to strengthen the state’s capacity to manage mass casualty incidents, train local officials, and coordinate volunteers, is well-grounded in real-world challenges, the mechanisms it employs raise serious and unresolved concerns regarding multiple Liberty Principles. As currently written, HB 2 is incompatible with those principles, though it could become acceptable if substantially amended in targeted ways.

At the heart of HB 2 is the creation of a mandatory, state-administered licensing regime for local emergency management coordinators. This system, administered by the Texas Commission on Fire Protection (TCFP) in partnership with the Texas Division of Emergency Management (TDEM), imposes minimum training requirements, criminal history background checks, continuing education, and annual license renewal. While the bill allows some flexibility through recognition of military or out-of-state experience, the licensing mandate represents a significant shift in how local emergency personnel are selected and trained. It overrides local discretion, imposes a one-size-fits-all credentialing framework, and risks excluding qualified individuals based on centralized criteria. This structure fundamentally limits local control and contradicts the principle of decentralized governance, placing it in direct conflict with Liberty Principles centered on Limited Government and Individual Liberty.

The bill also mandates the creation of a centralized volunteer registration and credentialing system. While some level of screening is justifiable in high-security or sensitive disaster response roles, HB 2 requires that even unaffiliated, spontaneous volunteers register with the state, undergo background checks, and potentially face disqualification under rules yet to be defined. This bureaucratic gatekeeping mechanism introduces a high barrier to participation in community response and recovery efforts and may deter well-meaning individuals from offering assistance in times of crisis. By shifting volunteerism from a rights-based civic contribution to a regulated, permission-based process, the bill undermines traditional mutual aid and local initiative, again infringing on Individual Liberty and Personal Responsibility.

Additionally, HB 2 introduces new compliance mandates for local governments, such as expanded emergency training for sheriffs and mayors, and coordination requirements for justices of the peace, without guaranteeing that funding or administrative resources will accompany them. While TDEM is authorized to collect fees and accept grants, the actual availability of offsetting revenue is unknown. This raises concerns about unfunded mandates, particularly for small jurisdictions with limited administrative capacity, and violates the principle of Limited Government in its fiscal dimension. The bill also imposes licensing fees and training burdens on local public servants without offering meaningful local opt-outs or scalable implementation options.

Although HB 2 upholds Private Property Rights by affirming that property owners retain discretion over whether to accept volunteer assistance, this protection does not extend to broader private sector concerns. For example, while HB 2 does not include the specific private campground mandates seen in Senate Bill 2, it still contributes to the centralization of disaster-related decision-making. It expands state surveillance over private individuals through broad criminal history access and creates administrative systems that may persist indefinitely, as the bill includes no sunset provisions or mechanisms for legislative review of new regulatory programs.

Finally, the bill’s fiscal implications are open-ended. The Legislative Budget Board (LBB) notes that while cost recovery mechanisms are authorized (such as licensing and background check fees), the actual costs of implementing the mass fatality data system, the volunteer registry, and the licensing infrastructure cannot be precisely estimated. Without cost caps, clear appropriation limits, or assurance that these systems will scale efficiently, HB 2 risks creating a long-term administrative and fiscal burden that grows beyond the bill's original scope.

In summary, HB 2 aims to address real and urgent issues in Texas’s disaster management system, but it does so in a manner that is overly centralized, regulatory in nature, and dismissive of local governance autonomy and individual civic freedom. As such, Texas Policy Research recommends that lawmakers vote NO on HB 2 unless amended as described. below. Substantial and specific amendments would be necessary to reconcile the bill with Liberty Principles. Without such changes, the bill should not advance in its current form.

• Limit mandatory licensure to high-risk or urban jurisdictions
• Exempt spontaneous volunteers from registration
• Establish sunset provisions for new state systems
• Ensure local opt-in authority for participation in state-run frameworks

• House Select Committee on Disaster Preparedness & Flooding: 9Y/0N

• SB 2 (Similar To)