According to the Legislative Budget Board (LBB), the fiscal implications of SB 1320 indicate a moderate cost to the state’s General Revenue Fund due to the establishment of a new Organized Oilfield Theft Prevention Unit within the Texas Department of Public Safety (DPS). Over the 2026–2027 biennium, the estimated negative impact totals $2,331,866. The costs are primarily associated with the personnel and operating expenses necessary to set up and run the unit.

To implement the bill, DPS projects the need for four full-time positions: two special agents, one lieutenant, and one administrative assistant. These roles are considered essential for conducting investigations, coordinating with local law enforcement, and fulfilling the bill’s public outreach, data tracking, and reporting requirements. The projected cost for the initial year (2026) is approximately $1.54 million, with ongoing annual costs of roughly $788,895 in subsequent years. These expenses include salaries, benefits, and associated operational costs.

Importantly, while the bill does not appropriate funds itself, it provides the legal framework necessary for the legislature to allocate such funding through the budget process. No significant fiscal impact is anticipated for local governments, suggesting the new unit’s responsibilities will remain at the state level without requiring additional local expenditures.

Overall, while the cost to the state is not insignificant, the expenditure is justified within the bill’s framework by the potential deterrence of oilfield theft and the economic protection of Texas’s vital energy infrastructure. The fiscal note confirms that these duties cannot be absorbed within DPS’s current budget, underscoring the need for new funding if the bill is enacted.

SB 1320 responds to a growing and well-documented issue in Texas’s vital oil and gas sector—organized oilfield theft. By creating a specialized enforcement unit within the Department of Public Safety (DPS), the bill aims to target high-value theft rings that threaten both economic stability and public safety. The bill reflects strong support for private property rights, free enterprise, and personal responsibility by helping to deter and dismantle criminal enterprises that undermine lawful energy operators across the state. Its focus on interagency coordination, local law enforcement training, and public outreach further enhances its strategic value.

However, the bill also raises concerns from a limited government perspective. The establishment of a new, specialized law enforcement unit—even within an existing agency—merits careful scrutiny to avoid unnecessary expansion of state power or the risk of “mission creep.” While the unit's purpose is narrowly tailored to oilfield-related theft, the lack of statutory limits on future scope, sunset provisions, or performance-based accountability mechanisms presents an opportunity for improvement. Additionally, the financial commitment—over $2.3 million in the first biennium—warrants greater assurance that the program will be efficient and effective over time.

For these reasons, though Texas Policy Research recommends that lawmakers vote YES on SB 1320, we also recommend that lawmakers consider amendments to include safeguards such as a sunset review, clearer performance metrics, and protections against expansion beyond its intended purpose. With these modifications, SB 1320 would strike a more appropriate balance between effective law enforcement and principled, limited governance.

• Individual Liberty: The bill’s purpose is to protect individuals and businesses from the consequences of organized oilfield theft—a crime that often involves threats to safety and property. By focusing on enforcing existing criminal statutes (Penal Code §§ 31.03 and 31.19), the bill supports the rule of law and reinforces individuals’ right to be secure in their property and operations. Importantly, the bill does not appear to introduce surveillance expansions or criminalize otherwise lawful behavior, maintaining respect for civil liberties.
• Personal Responsibility: The bill emphasizes consequences for bad actors involved in sophisticated criminal enterprises. By investing in investigative capabilities and training local law enforcement, the state is reinforcing a culture of accountability and ensuring that those who violate property laws are prosecuted. This aligns with the liberty principle that individuals are responsible for their actions and should face consequences when they harm others or society.
• Free Enterprise: Organized theft of oilfield equipment and petroleum products imposes significant financial losses, disrupts operations, and raises insurance costs—especially for small and mid-sized producers who may not have extensive private security. By targeting those disruptions, the bill protects the integrity of the free market and ensures that honest businesses can operate without the added burden of unchecked criminal activity. This makes it easier for lawful enterprises to thrive and reduces the need for private actors to assume law enforcement roles.
• Private Property Rights: Theft directly undermines the foundation of private property rights. The bill strengthens the enforcement of those rights by dedicating resources to prevent and respond to the unlawful appropriation of valuable property. The explicit coordination with victims and the Railroad Commission helps ensure that restitution and recovery are part of the enforcement strategy, not just punitive action.
• Limited Government: This is where the bill invites the most scrutiny. While it does not create a new agency, it does establish a new law enforcement function within DPS, including staffing, training programs, and a data tracking system. Though well-targeted, this is still an expansion of state power and spending—projected to cost over $2.3 million in the first biennium. Without clear sunset provisions, performance metrics, or statutory boundaries limiting the unit’s scope, there is a risk of “mission creep” or inefficient bureaucracy. These concerns could be addressed through strategic amendments, such as built-in legislative reviews or automatic expiration clauses.

• HB 3035 (Similar To)
• HB 48 (Similar To)