Relating to equitable relief from the enforcement of certain governmental requirements that affect agricultural operations.
Summary
HB 1964 would create a new private right of action in Chapter 251 of the Agriculture Code for people harmed when a political subdivision enforces a governmental requirement in violation of that chapter. If a county, city, or other local government enforces a requirement that is prohibited under Chapter 251 as it applies to agricultural operations, an aggrieved person could sue to obtain declaratory relief or an injunction stopping enforcement.
The bill also allows a prevailing plaintiff to recover court costs and reasonable attorney’s fees. In practical terms, the measure is designed to give farmers, ranchers, and other affected parties a direct legal remedy against local government actions that interfere with agricultural operations, rather than relying only on administrative or defensive challenges.
Impact
HB 1964 would expand enforcement options under Texas Agriculture Code Chapter 251 by expressly authorizing lawsuits against political subdivisions for improper enforcement of covered governmental requirements. It would affect local governments by exposing them to injunctive litigation, declaratory judgments, and fee-shifting if they enforce requirements found to violate the chapter. The bill applies only to causes of action accruing on or after its effective date, and it would take effect immediately only if approved by a two-thirds vote in each chamber; otherwise, it would take effect September 1, 2025.
Sentiment
The available context suggests the bill was considered in the Agriculture & Livestock committees and advanced far enough to be laid on the table subject to call in the House, but no committee transcript or recorded vote details are provided. Based on the bill’s purpose and structure, the general sentiment appears supportive of protecting agricultural operations from local regulatory overreach, with the measure framed as a remedy for affected landowners and producers.
Contention
The main point of contention is likely the balance between agricultural protections and local governmental authority. Supporters would favor giving farmers and ranchers a stronger tool to stop enforcement of local requirements that conflict with Chapter 251, while opponents may view the bill as limiting cities and counties’ ability to regulate land use, public health, or other local concerns. The fee-shifting provision could also be controversial because it increases the financial risk to political subdivisions that attempt to enforce challenged requirements.
Relating to a prohibition on certain discriminatory activities by governmental entities and vendors of governmental entities; providing for declaratory and injunctive relief and the withholding of certain funds from political subdivisions.
Relating to clarifying the Right to Farm Act relating to residential agricultural operations and the protection of agriculture through Urban Beekeeping
Relating to the authority of the legislature to determine that certain federal directives are unconstitutional and to prohibit certain government officers and employees from enforcing or assisting in the enforcement of the directive.
Relating to the requirement by certain governmental entities for diversity, equity, and inclusion statements and training from employees, prospective employees, and contractors.