According to the Legislative Budget Board (LBB), HB 1970 would have no fiscal implications for the State of Texas. The LBB determined that implementing the bill's requirement for daily cemetery access between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. would not result in additional state expenditures or affect state revenues. As a result, no state appropriations or ongoing funding would be necessary to implement the legislation.

The LBB also concluded that no significant fiscal implication to units of local government is anticipated. Counties, municipalities, and other local governmental entities are not expected to incur meaningful costs or realize savings as a result of the bill. Because the legislation primarily modifies the legal rights and responsibilities of private landowners regarding access to cemeteries, it is not expected to require new local administrative programs, personnel, or enforcement activities.

Overall, the fiscal analysis indicates that the bill's policy changes can be implemented within existing governmental resources. The legislation is therefore expected to have a neutral fiscal impact on both state and local governments.

HB 1970 seeks to ensure consistent public access to cemeteries and private burial grounds located on private property by requiring surrounding landowners to allow access between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. each day. The committee bill analysis explains that the legislation is intended to preserve access to historically significant cemeteries, including those located on the former Fairfield Lake State Park property. While this objective is understandable, the bill accomplishes it by replacing the discretion currently afforded to private landowners with a uniform statewide mandate.

The bill does not increase the size of government, create a new agency, expand bureaucracy, grant additional rulemaking authority, or establish a new taxpayer-funded program. Likewise, according to the Legislative Budget Board (LBB), the bill has no fiscal implication to the state and no significant fiscal implication to local governments, meaning it does not increase the burden on taxpayers.

However, the bill does expand the scope of government authority over private property by replacing an existing statutory standard that allows landowners to determine reasonable visitation hours with a legislatively prescribed access schedule. Although the regulatory burden is limited to a narrow class of property owners and landowners retain the authority to designate the route of ingress and egress, the legislation nevertheless substitutes state judgment for private decision-making. From a conservative or libertarian perspective that places a high value on private property rights, this represents an unnecessary expansion of governmental control over the use of private property.

Texas Policy Research recommends that lawmakers vote NO on HB 1970 unless amended as described below. Rather than imposing a rigid statewide access schedule, the bill should preserve greater flexibility for landowners while ensuring meaningful cemetery access. Amendments could require landowners to provide reasonable daily access subject to objective statutory standards, allow reasonable exceptions for legitimate safety or operational concerns, or establish a minimum access requirement without eliminating all owner discretion. These changes would better balance the important interest in cemetery visitation with the fundamental protection of private property rights while avoiding unnecessary expansion of state authority.

• Individual Liberty: The bill neither significantly expands nor restricts individual freedoms. It guarantees predictable access for individuals wishing to visit cemeteries, but it does so by imposing a mandate on private landowners rather than by expanding personal autonomy generally. The competing liberty interests largely offset one another.
• Personal Responsibility: The bill does not materially affect personal responsibility or individual decision-making. It neither creates government dependency nor shifts personal obligations to the state.
• Free Enterprise: The bill has little effect on markets or commerce. While it imposes a narrow operational requirement on certain private landowners, it does not create barriers to entry, distort markets, regulate business activity broadly, or affect competition.
• Private Property Rights: The bill replaces the discretion currently afforded to private landowners to establish reasonable visitation hours with a mandatory statewide access schedule. Although owners retain authority over the route of ingress and egress, the legislation reduces their ability to control access to their own property, representing a meaningful limitation on private property rights.
• Limited Government: The bill does not create new agencies, spending, or bureaucracy, but it expands the scope of governmental authority by prescribing how private property owners must manage access to their land. From a limited-government perspective, substituting legislative judgment for owner discretion constitutes an incremental expansion of state regulatory authority, even in the absence of fiscal or administrative growth.