Texas House Bill HB189

Texas 2025 - 89th 2nd C.S.

• Filed: 8/18/25
• Filed: 8/20/25

Summary

HB 189 would require both the state division responsible for emergency management and local or interjurisdictional emergency management agencies to provide the public a reasonable opportunity to comment before adopting or revising emergency management plans. The bill specifically requires that interested persons, including people with disabilities, be allowed to submit data, views, or arguments orally or in writing, and that the agency fully consider those submissions. The same public-comment requirement would apply to revisions of the state emergency management plan and to local or interjurisdictional plans. The bill includes an exception for plans or revisions that contain sensitive information relating to critical infrastructure or other sensitive information described in existing law. In those cases, the public-comment requirement would not apply. The bill would take effect on the 91st day after the end of the legislative session.

Impact

HB 189 would amend Sections 418.042 and 418.106 of the Texas Government Code, expanding procedural requirements for emergency management planning at both the state and local levels. It would create an affirmative duty for agencies to solicit and consider public input before adopting or revising emergency management plans, while preserving existing protections for sensitive critical infrastructure information. The practical effect would be to increase transparency and public participation in emergency preparedness planning, and to impose a new administrative step on state and local emergency management entities.

Sentiment

No committee transcript or vote record is available for HB 189, so there is no direct evidence of support or opposition from the legislative record provided. Based on the bill text alone, the measure appears to be framed as a transparency and accessibility bill, with an emphasis on public participation and inclusion of persons with disabilities. The absence of recorded debate or votes means the overall sentiment cannot be assessed beyond the bill’s apparent policy intent.

Contention

The main point of potential contention is the balance between public participation and confidentiality. Supporters would likely favor the bill’s requirement that emergency management plans be open to comment and that agencies consider public submissions, especially for accessibility and local input. Opponents or cautious stakeholders may focus on the exception for sensitive information, worrying about whether public comment could complicate or delay planning, or whether the bill sufficiently protects critical infrastructure and other sensitive emergency-response details. Because no discussion or vote history is provided, no specific legislator or stakeholder positions can be identified.