According to the Legislative Budget Board (LBB), SB 3 is projected to have a General Revenue-related cost of approximately $2.7 million over the 2026–2027 biennium, with continued annual costs beyond that. The bill does not include an appropriation but would serve as enabling legislation for future appropriations to implement the statewide outdoor warning siren program. The costs primarily stem from responsibilities assigned to the Texas Water Development Board (TWDB), which must identify high-risk flood areas, oversee compliance, and potentially manage the grant program.

TWDB would require six additional full-time employees to fulfill these duties, including data analysts, engineers, program specialists, and a project manager. In fiscal year 2026, the first year of implementation, TWDB would incur costs of approximately $1.8 million, which includes salaries, benefits, professional consulting services for siren standards, and capital outlays. Annual costs would decline to around $900,000 in subsequent years, with a slight increase projected for FY 2030.

The Office of the Governor (OOG), which is directed to establish and administer the grant program, does not anticipate a significant fiscal impact on its own operations. However, if TWDB is delegated the authority to manage the grant program, it may require further staffing and funding depending on the program’s scale and legislative appropriations.

At the local level, the fiscal impact is currently indeterminate. Municipalities and counties may apply for state grants to offset the costs of installing and maintaining sirens, but the amount and timing of such grants are not yet defined. Local governments may still incur unfunded costs, particularly for long-term maintenance or if grant funds are insufficient to meet state-mandated requirements.

SB 3’s objective, to improve flood safety in designated high-risk areas by requiring the installation of outdoor warning sirens, addresses a valid public safety concern. This is especially relevant in rural regions with poor cellular coverage, where traditional sirens can provide life-saving early warnings. The bill limits its scope to areas included in the Governor’s July 2025 disaster declaration following the Hill Country floods and places the grant program under the Office of the Governor (OOG), with optional delegation to another agency. This approach focuses the mandate more narrowly than earlier legislative versions and slightly reduces long-term state administrative expansion.

However, SB 3 still imposes a binding state mandate on municipalities and counties without guaranteeing full funding to implement it. The Texas Water Development Board (TWDB) is given broad rulemaking authority and final decision-making power over siren requirements, yet the bill lacks provisions for feasibility, terrain-based coverage analysis, or cost-effectiveness studies. As a result, local governments could be forced to install sirens that are ineffective due to environmental or acoustic limitations, creating the risk of spending scarce resources without real benefit. The fiscal note projects a $2.7 million impact on General Revenue over the next biennium, and the cost burden to local governments remains unknown, particularly if state grant funding proves inadequate.

For these reasons, Texas Policy Research recommends that lawmakers vote NO on SB 3 unless amended to address the following concerns:

• Require feasibility, acoustic coverage, and cost-effectiveness studies before sirens are mandated.
• Explicitly prohibit unfunded mandates on local governments.
• Allow the use of alternative emergency alert technologies in areas where sirens are impractical or ineffective.

If amended accordingly, SB 3 could better balance its public safety objectives with responsible fiscal policy and the principles of local control. Without these changes, it risks government overreach, ineffective implementation, and unnecessary taxpayer burden.

• Individual Liberty: The bill aims to enhance personal safety by enabling residents to receive earlier flood warnings, which can help protect lives and property. However, the extent to which liberty is meaningfully advanced depends on whether sirens are actually audible and effective in the areas they’re mandated. Without feasibility studies, this benefit is not assured.
• Personal Responsibility: The bill supports individuals' ability to respond to emergencies, but does so through a centralized mandate. By replacing local judgment with state-imposed requirements, it could disincentivize innovation or investment in other, potentially more effective, local warning systems.
• Free Enterprise: The bill does not restrict private business activity and may, in fact, create opportunities for private contractors in siren manufacturing, installation, and maintenance. Its economic impact on enterprise is generally neutral or modestly positive.
• Private Property Rights: Although the bill does not explicitly invoke eminent domain, siren placement may create pressure to use private land or easements. Without clear protections or consent requirements, there is a risk of encroaching on property rights in practice.
• Limited Government: The bill grants the TWDB final, binding authority over emergency infrastructure decisions traditionally left to local governments. It also establishes a new state-administered grant program and expands state-level involvement in local disaster response planning. Without amendments to ensure local flexibility and fiscal protection, the bill remains at odds with the principle of limited government.