SB 503 is projected to have a negative fiscal impact on the state’s General Revenue Fund, with an estimated two-year cost of approximately $3.89 million through the biennium ending August 31, 2027. The bill mandates the Texas Animal Health Commission (TAHC) to develop and maintain a searchable electronic registry of livestock marks and brands, which will be accessible to the public and law enforcement agencies. To implement this system, TAHC would need to adopt new rules and processes, hire additional staff, and invest in significant technology infrastructure.

The fiscal analysis anticipates the hiring of five full-time employees at TAHC, including IT and project management roles, with annual personnel costs (salaries and benefits) estimated at over $600,000 starting in the fiscal year 2026. In addition, substantial one-time and ongoing technology expenditures are projected. These include a $1.5 million initial investment in 2026 for system development through external vendors, followed by ongoing software maintenance and licensing costs averaging $435,000 annually. These licenses are required to support internal TAHC users, 254 county clerks, and up to 1,500 law enforcement users.

The fiscal note also highlights uncertain but potentially significant costs for local governments, especially county clerks' offices. They would be required to upgrade their systems to comply with electronic data transmission standards set by TAHC and retroactively process previously recorded identification data. However, due to variations in current infrastructure and procedures among counties, the Legislative Budget Board was unable to provide a quantified estimate of this local burden.

Initially, SB 503 (the duplicate version of HB 147) was viewed favorably before its passage in the Senate. At the time, the bill appeared to provide a commonsense modernization of the livestock brand registration system, offering administrative efficiencies for producers, clerks, and law enforcement without substantially expanding government authority or regulation. The concept of transitioning to an electronic registry managed by the Texas Animal Health Commission (TAHC) was understood as a functional update to an outdated paper-based system. Based on this interpretation, the bill seemed to align with liberty principles by enhancing property protection and reducing paperwork.

However, upon further review of the bill’s implications and its House companion, HB 147, new concerns have emerged that compel a change in position to that of No; Amend. Specifically, a detailed analysis of the fiscal note and additional stakeholder input revealed that SB 503/HB 147 may impose significant unfunded mandates on county governments. County clerks would be required to digitize and transmit not only future brand registrations but also historical records without guaranteed state funding, technical support, or a phased implementation strategy. This places an undue burden on local governments, particularly rural counties, and raises red flags for fiscal conservatives and advocates of limited government.

Moreover, the bill lacks clear statutory limits on data sharing, allowing for potential downstream transmission of rancher information to federal agencies such as the USDA and Surveillance Collaboration Services (SCS). This has rightly drawn concerns about government overreach and data centralization. While SB 503/HB 147 contains a clause protecting personal information from public disclosure, it does not restrict inter-agency data use or require informed consent from livestock owners. This lack of privacy safeguards could unintentionally erode individual liberty and invite future misuse of sensitive agricultural data.

Additionally, the bill references the use of “electronic devices” as identification methods, which—absent clarifying language—has alarmed ranchers and grassroots groups who fear it could lead to mandatory electronic identification (EID) or RFID tagging. While the current language does not require such technology, its inclusion without a prohibition leaves room for future regulatory expansion. These fears are not speculative; they are grounded in developments at the federal level and actions taken by other states, such as Wyoming, which passed legislation explicitly rejecting mandatory EID for livestock.

In light of these concerns, Texas Policy Research has revised its recommendation for lawmakers to instead vote NO on HB 147, unless amended as described below. We continue to support the general goal of improving livestock identification processes but believe it is essential to incorporate amendments that:

• Prohibit Mandatory RFID/EID Requirements: Add a provision explicitly stating that "Nothing in this Act shall be construed to mandate the use of electronic identification devices, including RFID tags, by livestock owners.
• Limit Data Collection and Access: Clarify that only minimal, necessary data (e.g., brand mark, county of registration) may be stored. Reinforce that personally identifiable information (PII) may only be accessed by law enforcement with the appropriate purpose or subpoena.
• Add a Legislative Sunset Review: Require the electronic registry program to undergo review by the Sunset Advisory Commission after a fixed number of years (e.g., 6–8), to evaluate compliance with privacy and liberty protections.
• Codify Voluntary Participation in Digital Tools: Allow ranchers to opt out of digital tools like user dashboards or mobile apps (if introduced), as long as they maintain compliance via county clerk registration.

This updated position reflects a commitment to responsible governance and liberty. SB 503/HB 147 should not move forward in their current form without the adoption of these vital protections.

• Individual Liberty: The bill allows livestock owners to record brands more efficiently and enables law enforcement to return stolen livestock more swiftly—both enhancements to the exercise of property rights. However, the bill raises serious privacy concerns by lacking statutory limits on how the Texas Animal Health Commission (TAHC) may share the data it receives from counties. While it blocks public disclosure of personal information, it permits broad inter-agency sharing, including with federal agencies such as the USDA. Without additional guardrails, this undermines the individual liberty of ranchers, who may have no control over how their data is used once submitted.
• Personal Responsibility: The bill maintains and reinforces personal responsibility by continuing to require livestock owners to register their marks and brands every 10 years. It also allows owners to authorize agents to file on their behalf, respecting individual autonomy and flexibility in compliance. However, if agency rulemaking evolves to include new technological or procedural burdens (e.g., digital dashboards or compliance audits), the responsibility placed on ranchers could become disproportionate—especially without recourse or opt-out provisions.
• Free Enterprise: At its core, the bill is neutral on market behavior—but the inclusion of “electronic devices” in the brand identification language and the absence of explicit prohibitions on mandatory EID/RFID tracking raise alarms among small and independent producers. The fear is that the bill lays the foundation for a future where only well-capitalized corporate operations can comply with costly tech mandates. Without amendments, this opens the door to future regulations that may burden family ranchers while consolidating market advantages for agribusiness giants.
• Private Property Rights: The bill is intended to improve property protection by providing a more efficient, centralized record of ownership marks, aiding in the recovery and verification of livestock. That said, the risk of unconsented data transfer to federal databases—especially those tied to surveillance or environmental regulation—could compromise property privacy. Ranchers may effectively lose exclusive control over the information associated with their animals if that data becomes integrated into broader regulatory ecosystems.
• Limited Government: The bill imposes significant new responsibilities on county governments without guaranteed state funding, constituting a likely unfunded mandate. Counties must digitize records and transmit them in formats dictated by the TAHC—a centralized agency not subject to direct local control. This represents an upward shift in administrative power that weakens the principle of decentralized governance. Moreover, the open-ended rulemaking authority granted to the TAHC increases the risk of regulatory expansion in the future.

• HB 1417 (Same As)
• HB 147 (Same As)