HB 305 would create a new Flood Recovery Loan Program within the Texas Division of Emergency Management to provide low-interest loans to people and entities damaged by flood-related disasters. The program is designed to help eligible property owners repair or replace damaged property, rebuild or relocate structures, and make flood-resilience upgrades. It also allows loans for debris removal and for essential equipment or vehicles tied to the operation of eligible property, including farm machinery, utility vehicles, watercraft, and other work-related transportation.
The bill sets detailed eligibility, underwriting, and oversight rules. Applicants must own the damaged property, prove flood damage, and not be in default on a state or federally backed mortgage or disaster loan. Loans generally may run up to 30 years, with interest rates as low as 2 percent for primary residences and businesses, and interest would not begin accruing until the first anniversary of issuance. The bill also creates an expedited loan option for emergency stabilization repairs, a limited loan-forgiveness program for lower-income borrowers and critical infrastructure, a dedicated flood recovery loan fund, public reporting requirements, and a sunset-style limited review of the program every biennium.
The bill would amend Chapter 418 of the Government Code by adding a new subchapter governing administration of the program, funding, audits, appeals, public dashboards, annual reports, and rulemaking. It also caps total loans and forgiveness from the fund at $500 million for the biennium ending August 31, 2027, limits administrative costs, and requires the division to allocate a portion of repayments to reserves. The measure is structured to be implemented by the Texas Division of Emergency Management, which would have to adopt rules and launch the program by March 1, 2026.
Because there are no committee transcripts or recorded votes in the provided materials, the available context does not show formal debate or amendments. The bill’s design suggests a generally supportive policy goal of helping flood victims recover quickly while also encouraging resilience improvements and targeting aid toward primary residences, critical infrastructure, low-income housing, small businesses, and agricultural operations. The inclusion of transparency measures, audits, and fraud penalties indicates an emphasis on accountability alongside disaster relief.
No specific points of contention are documented in the provided record, but the bill’s detailed eligibility rules, funding cap, and prioritization scheme could be areas of future debate. Potential issues include whether the state should create a loan program rather than grants, how to balance aid among homeowners, businesses, farms, and infrastructure, and whether the forgiveness provisions and administrative limits are sufficient to protect the fund’s long-term sustainability.
HB 305 would add a new subchapter to Chapter 418 of the Government Code and create a state-administered flood recovery loan fund outside the general revenue fund. It would give the Texas Division of Emergency Management authority to issue, service, audit, and collect low-interest disaster-recovery loans, establish loan-forgiveness rules, publish public data, and adopt implementing regulations. The bill would also impose new reporting and oversight requirements and would affect owners of flood-damaged residential, agricultural, commercial, and critical infrastructure property, as well as small businesses and certain low-income housing providers.
The bill appears to be framed positively as a disaster-recovery and resilience measure, with a policy focus on helping flood victims rebuild and harden property against future events. The statutory design emphasizes affordability, transparency, and targeted assistance, suggesting an intent to attract broad support. However, no committee discussion or vote record is available here, so there is no documented opposition or endorsement beyond the bill’s text and caption.
No specific contention is documented in the provided materials because there are no transcripts or votes. Based on the bill’s structure, likely areas of debate would include whether the program should use loans instead of grants, how much state money should be committed, whether the 2 percent interest rate and forgiveness provisions are too generous, and whether prioritizing primary residences, critical infrastructure, low-income housing, small businesses, and agriculture is the right allocation of limited funds. Oversight, fraud prevention, and eligibility restrictions may also be points of discussion.