According to the Legislative Budget Board (LBB), SB 1898 is not expected to have a significant fiscal impact on the state government. Agencies such as the Texas Department of State Health Services and the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality are anticipated to implement the bill using existing resources. Therefore, the legislation should not require additional appropriations or new funding streams at the state level.

However, the potential financial impact on local governments is less certain. Local government entities, particularly those with fire departments that currently use firefighting foams containing PFAS, may face increased costs associated with transitioning to non-fluorinated alternatives for training and testing purposes. Additional expenses may also arise from the requirement to implement containment, treatment, and disposal systems for facilities that continue to use PFAS foams under permitted exceptions. Because these costs will vary depending on the size, equipment, and current practices of each fire department, the exact fiscal impact at the local level cannot be determined at this time.

SB 1898 represents a targeted and practical response to growing concerns about the health and environmental hazards of perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), particularly in firefighter training environments. PFAS, known as “forever chemicals” due to their persistence in the environment and human body, have been linked to increased cancer risks and groundwater contamination. The bill prohibits the use of PFAS-containing firefighting foam for training or equipment testing unless conducted under specific containment and environmental protection conditions. It exempts emergency firefighting use and does not limit manufacturing or sales, offering a narrow and well-defined scope.

Importantly, SB 1898 does not grow the size or scope of government. It does not create new regulatory agencies or grant new rulemaking authority. Oversight responsibilities fall within existing frameworks managed by the Department of State Health Services and the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, both of which can absorb any implementation costs using current resources. As confirmed by the Legislative Budget Board, no significant fiscal impact is anticipated for the state, and thus, the bill does not increase the burden on taxpayers at the state level.

While local fire departments may incur some costs to comply—such as replacing training foams or upgrading testing facilities—these costs are localized and cannot be quantified precisely. Nonetheless, the bill is designed to reduce long-term risks and liability exposure related to environmental contamination and occupational health hazards.

In terms of regulatory impact, SB 1898 imposes a limited, targeted regulatory burden. It does not affect businesses engaged in the manufacture or distribution of PFAS-containing foam, nor does it interfere with emergency response protocols. Instead, it sets clear guardrails for non-emergency use, encouraging the adoption of safer, non-fluorinated alternatives in controlled training scenarios. These constraints are minimal compared to the public health and environmental harms the bill aims to mitigate.

By protecting individual health and private property without expanding government or imposing excessive burdens on industry or taxpayers, SB 1898 aligns with core liberty principles and represents a responsible, narrowly tailored policy solution. Texas Policy Research recommends that lawmakers vote YES on SB 1898.

• Individual Liberty: The bill protects individual liberty by reducing unnecessary exposure to harmful PFAS chemicals—especially for firefighters and surrounding communities. These “forever chemicals” are linked to serious health problems, including cancer. By limiting exposure in training settings, the bill supports a person’s right to bodily autonomy and health, especially for those who work in public safety roles and the general public whose water or land might otherwise be contaminated.
• Personal Responsibility: The bill holds public agencies and training facilities accountable for how they use hazardous materials. It requires them to use safer alternatives for training or, if PFAS foams must be used, to manage them responsibly through containment and disposal systems. This reinforces the principle that institutions should act with care when their actions could harm others or the environment.
• Free Enterprise: The bill does not restrict the manufacture, sale, or emergency use of PFAS-based foams, meaning it avoids heavy-handed interference in the marketplace. Businesses that produce these products can continue to operate, and fire departments can still purchase and use the foam when needed for real fires. It may even encourage innovation by creating demand for safer, non-fluorinated alternatives.
• Private Property Rights: By reducing the risk of groundwater and soil contamination from PFAS chemicals, the bill helps protect landowners from third-party pollution. It upholds property owners’ rights to enjoy their land free from hazardous contamination caused by training exercises conducted nearby.
• Limited Government: The bill is narrowly written and avoids creating new agencies, bureaucracies, or regulatory schemes. It does not give new rulemaking authority to state agencies and is implemented using existing resources. It balances environmental protection with restraint, applying only to non-emergency scenarios and with specific exceptions.