According to the Legislative Budget Board (LBB), SB 1758 is projected to have a negative impact of $1,222,500 on the General Revenue Fund during the fiscal year 2026, with no further fiscal impact expected in subsequent years through 2030. This one-time cost is associated with the mandate for the Bureau of Economic Geology at The University of Texas at Austin to conduct a specialized study on the vibrational effects of aggregate and cement operations near semiconductor wafer manufacturing facilities in Grayson County.

To fulfill the bill’s requirements, the Bureau would need to hire 4 full-time employees and purchase scientific equipment, leading to the projected expenditure in 2026. These resources are essential for the study, which includes analysis of seismological data and potential mitigation strategies, culminating in a detailed report to be submitted to state leadership and relevant legislative committees by August 31, 2026.

While the bill does not make a direct appropriation, it creates the statutory basis for future funding, and the cost would likely need to be authorized in the appropriations bill or other legislative funding mechanisms. Additionally, the permit moratorium for cement and aggregate operations within 10 miles of new semiconductor facilities in Grayson County—contained in the original bill—was flagged by the Comptroller as having possible but indeterminate revenue implications, suggesting a potential slowdown in industrial permitting or associated fees, although no quantifiable loss was projected at the time of analysis.

Lastly, no significant fiscal impact to local governments is expected, and the effects of the bill are isolated to state-level expenditures, primarily affecting higher education and environmental regulatory agencies.

SB 1758 represents a targeted response to industrial land-use conflicts arising between cement kilns and aggregate operations and semiconductor wafer manufacturing facilities in rapidly developing regions like Grayson County. While the bill is well-intentioned in establishing a scientific study to assess the compatibility of these operations, it includes provisions that raise significant liberty concerns—particularly a retroactive liability shield for aggregate and cement operators and a permit moratorium that could hinder market entry for advanced manufacturing facilities.

The proposed liability exemption undermines core principles of personal responsibility and private property rights, shielding one class of businesses from being held accountable for damages they may cause, regardless of harm or negligence. This blanket protection disrupts the balance between neighboring landowners and introduces a legal precedent that favors older industries at the expense of newer, innovation-driven sectors. It also risks discouraging semiconductor investment in areas Texas has otherwise prioritized for economic development and diversification, contradicting the principles of free enterprise.

While the study component led by the Bureau of Economic Geology has merit and could yield valuable data to inform future regulation, the current structure of the bill fails to maintain a level playing field. The permitting freeze through 2031 further distorts the market by selectively constraining one industry’s ability to grow without equivalent scrutiny or due process.

Given these concerns, Texas Policy Research recommends that lawmakers vote NO unless amended to remove or significantly limit the liability exemption, introduce a more balanced permitting mechanism, and preserve scientific inquiry without compromising foundational liberty principles.

• Individual Liberty: The bill undermines individual liberty by limiting the legal recourse available to owners of semiconductor wafer manufacturing facilities. By granting a blanket liability shield to cement kilns and aggregate production operations that were established prior to semiconductor facilities, the bill denies neighboring property owners their right to seek damages—even when actual harm occurs due to vibrational or seismic interference. This encroaches on the freedom to protect one’s business and property through the courts, a core aspect of liberty in a civil society.
• Personal Responsibility: The liability shield removes the expectation that industrial operators be accountable for the consequences of their actions, regardless of potential damage. Rather than encouraging businesses to mitigate harm or operate responsibly in sensitive areas, the bill effectively preemptively absolves a category of actors from responsibility. This fosters a regulatory environment where past presence takes precedence over ongoing stewardship, weakening a key pillar of liberty rooted in moral and civic responsibility.
• Free Enterprise: While the bill may support economic certainty for established industrial operations, it does so at the expense of a level playing field. By giving legal and permitting advantages to existing cement and aggregate producers, the legislation distorts market competition and could discourage high-tech manufacturing firms from investing in affected areas. This creates an uneven business environment where legal protection is based not on conduct but chronology, which undermines the free and fair operation of enterprise.
• Private Property Rights: Property rights include not only the right to own and use property, but also the right to defend it from intrusion or damage. SB 1758 infringes on this by stripping future semiconductor facilities of the ability to hold neighboring industrial operations accountable for measurable harms. This restriction creates a legal imbalance, effectively prioritizing one landowner’s use over another’s ability to protect their investment and operations.
• Limited Government: On one hand, the bill refrains from expanding government regulatory power in traditional ways—it doesn’t create a new agency or regulatory scheme. However, it does involve government in land-use prioritization by picking winners and losers through liability protection and a state-imposed permitting freeze. Additionally, the mandated scientific study, while valuable, requires new state expenditures and staff at the Bureau of Economic Geology. Thus, it expands government involvement in a targeted and arguably arbitrary way, which is at odds with the principle of government restraint.