SB 1967 proposes to expand the definition of “flood project” within the Texas Water Code to include multi-purpose infrastructure projects that not only mitigate flooding but also capture and repurpose water—such as stormwater, agricultural runoff, or treated wastewater—for use as an additional water supply. While the bill is well-intentioned and seeks to address real challenges faced by communities like Hidalgo County, the proposed expansion represents a fundamental shift in the mission of the Flood Infrastructure Fund (FIF) and raises valid concerns about long-term government growth.
From a limited government perspective, the bill blurs the line between flood mitigation and broader water resource management. By redefining what qualifies for FIF support, SB 1967 risks turning a focused public safety initiative into a generalized infrastructure fund. This could lead to a gradual expansion of government responsibilities, broader administrative discretion at the state level, and increased competition for limited funds—potentially crowding out smaller communities or traditional flood control projects.
The bill’s fiscal note indicates no significant cost to the state, but the real issue lies in the precedent it sets and the shift in policy scope it enables. Without statutory guardrails or constraints, this expansion could open the door to mission creep and further policy dilution over time. Therefore, while the goals of SB 1967 are commendable, the current language lacks the necessary safeguards to preserve the fund’s original purpose and maintain responsible fiscal discipline.
For these reasons, Texas Policy Research recommends that lawmakers vote NO on SB 1967 unless amended to more narrowly define eligible projects, cap funding for non-flood elements, or limit the expansion to a pilot program. Such changes would allow the bill to meet regional infrastructure needs without compromising core principles of limited and focused governance.
- Individual Liberty: The bill does not directly restrict or infringe upon individual rights. In fact, by enabling projects that reduce flooding and potentially increase access to water resources it may enhance community safety and resilience, indirectly supporting individual liberty through improved quality of life and public health infrastructure. However, since the expanded scope operates at the government and infrastructure level, the effect on personal freedoms is tangential rather than direct.
- Personal Responsibility: By allowing communities to develop innovative, locally driven solutions for flood mitigation and water supply, the bill could be seen as empowering local political subdivisions to take more responsibility for their own infrastructure planning and long-term sustainability. This aligns with the value of local self-determination and proactive problem-solving, particularly in regions with unique environmental challenges.
- Free Enterprise: The bill may create new market opportunities for engineering firms, water technology providers, and contractors that develop multi-purpose water infrastructure. This expanded eligibility could promote competition and innovation in the private sector. However, critics may be concerned that increased reliance on state funding (even in the form of loans or grants) may distort natural market forces or give advantages to larger entities with more experience navigating state funding mechanisms.
- Private Property Rights: While the bill itself does not alter eminent domain laws or grant new authority to seize private property, expanded infrastructure development—especially when involving detention ponds or water diversion—may increase the risk of future encroachment on private land if not carefully constrained. This is not a direct result of the bill but rather a practical consideration as broader project types are pursued.
- Limited Government: This is the bill’s most concerning area in terms of liberty principles. By expanding the statutory mission of the Flood Infrastructure Fund (FIF), SB 1967 broadens the role of the state government in financing and managing infrastructure. What was originally a narrowly tailored fund to address flood control is now positioned to support broader water resource projects—functionally moving the state closer to managing multi-use water utility systems. This sets a precedent for mission creep and future legislative expansions, which conflicts with the principle that government should remain small, focused, and limited in scope.
