According to the Legislative Budget Board (LBB), HB 517 would have no fiscal implications for the State of Texas. This means that the enforcement or implementation of the bill’s provisions would not require any new expenditures or lead to a loss in state revenue. The measure simply limits private property owners' associations from levying fines under certain drought-related circumstances, without involving state enforcement mechanisms or financial resources.

Furthermore, the fiscal note affirms that no fiscal impact is anticipated for units of local government either. This is consistent with the nature of the legislation, which affects only the conduct of private property owners’ associations and not the operations or finances of municipalities, counties, or special districts. The bill neither mandates nor restricts any activity or service provided by local government entities.

Because the bill imposes a regulatory limitation on POAs rather than creating a new regulatory body or funding mechanism, it avoids triggering any significant administrative or compliance costs. Overall, HB 517 is a cost-neutral measure with policy implications for property governance but no measurable budgetary consequences for state or local government operations.

Texas Policy Research recommends that lawmakers vote YES on HB 517 for its defense of homeowners’ rights against unreasonable interference by property owners’ associations (POAs). This bill addresses a recurring source of frustration for Texans—being fined by their POA for failing to maintain green grass during city-mandated watering restrictions. It corrects this unfairness by prohibiting POAs from issuing such fines while the restrictions are in effect and for 30 days afterward, giving homeowners time to recover their lawns without facing punitive action.

This legislation is a meaningful step toward limiting the unchecked authority of POAs, which frequently act as quasi-governments with little oversight and disproportionate enforcement power. Many Texans have grown tired of these associations penalizing them for normal life circumstances or compliance with broader public policies, especially in matters of environmental conservation, like drought response.

Importantly, HB 517 does not grow government, does not cost taxpayers a dime, and does not create new regulations for individuals or businesses. It imposes a boundary on private associations that have long operated with too much latitude and too little accountability. Instead of expanding the state’s role, it affirms the rights of homeowners to be free from double-jeopardy-style enforcement: forced to either break public law or HOA rules, but punished either way.

By protecting homeowners, upholding property rights, and limiting private overreach—all without expanding government—this bill embodies key liberty principles and provides long-overdue relief from one of the most irritating fixtures of modern Texas suburbia: the overzealous POA.

• Individual Liberty: This bill enhances personal freedom by protecting homeowners from coercive or punitive actions by private associations during drought conditions. It affirms that individuals should not be punished for complying with lawful water conservation measures. By doing so, it defends the right of people to live without undue interference in their day-to-day decisions about their property, especially when those decisions are driven by compliance with state or local environmental rules.
• Personal Responsibility: The bill maintains personal responsibility by not absolving homeowners of their obligations entirely—it simply ensures they are not penalized when compliance with drought-related watering restrictions makes it impossible to meet a POA’s aesthetic demands. The 30-day grace period after restrictions are lifted reflects a reasonable expectation that homeowners will restore their lawns once they are legally allowed to.
• Free Enterprise: While the bill doesn’t directly touch commerce or business regulation, it indirectly supports market fairness by reducing unnecessary costs and administrative headaches for homeowners. It could also help stabilize property values in communities where excessive POA enforcement creates tension or discourages residency.
• Private Property Rights: This is perhaps the most affected principle. The bill reasserts that private ownership comes with autonomy, especially over natural elements like landscaping that are clearly influenced by outside conditions. It draws a line around what POAs can and cannot control, reinforcing that a homeowner’s right to comply with public conservation laws outweighs the aesthetic preferences of a neighborhood association.
• Limited Government: Importantly, the bill does not increase government power—it restrains the authority of POAs, which, while private, often operate with government-like enforcement powers. It imposes no new taxes, programs, or agencies, and requires no government intervention to enforce. This is a textbook example of limited, targeted legislative action that defends individual rights without growing the state.

• HB 359 (Same As)
• SB 542 (Same As)