Bill seeks to bolster firefighting efforts amid a worsening climate
State Sen. Kevin Sparks, R-Midland, filed Senate Bill 34 to address issues discovered in an investigation conducted in the months following the Smokehouse Creek Fire, the most destructive fire in the state's history. In part, investigators found that rural volunteer fire departments were underfunded.
'Despite the heroic efforts of volunteer firefighters, response times were hindered by a lack of timely air support and poor communication between agencies' responders, largely due to incompatible equipment,' Sparks said.
Sparks' bill increases the funding cap for the Texas Rural Volunteer Fire Department (VFD) Assistance Program. Run by the Texas A&M Forest Service, the program provides rural volunteer fire departments with funds to purchase firefighting vehicles, fire and rescue equipment, protective clothing, dry hydrants, computer systems and firefighter training.
Sparks said the bill increases the funding cap for that program from $30 million to $40 million.
'This will ensure volunteer fire departments, which cover more than 85% of the state's land, receive the necessary resources to prepare for and respond to increasingly severe fire seasons,' Sparks said.
The bill would also require more inspections of power lines, which ignited the Smokehouse Creek Fire.
'Wildfires started by power lines have been among the most destructive in the region between 2002 and 2024,' he said.
Austin Firefighter Association President Bob Nicks said he is heartened by the prospect of more funds being pumped into rural volunteer fire departments.
'These folks are your real heroes in the state of Texas when it comes to firefighting,' said Nicks, who was a battalion chief for 37 years. 'Funding is a constant issue.'
'Their job is harder than ever with the advent of increased wildfires,' he continued. 'Any funds that go to volunteer departments in Texas will definitely provide them the support that will help them do their job better.'
Nicks said, every year, conditions worsen, increasing the risk of larger and more intense fires. He said it has never been more important to have competent and committed firefighters.
'They need to be well-trained and have the right equipment,' he said. 'These community heroes really need the support, and I'm glad that legislators are looking after them.'
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
a day ago
- Yahoo
Austin mayor ‘disappointed' with cost of some tax rate election proposals
AUSTIN (KXAN) — After Austin city council members laid out their proposals for a tax rate election Thursday, Mayor Kirk Watson told KXAN he doesn't like the cost to taxpayers in some of those plans and will only vote to send a tax rate election to voters if the money will fund core city services. 'I must admit that right now I'm disappointed that the numbers we're talking about are higher than I would feel comfortable voting for,' Watson said. 'There could be something that I would vote for that's higher than what my proposal is, but it would have to be funding core basic services in a way that I felt comfortable with.' Austin leaders lay out tax rate election proposals — how much could it cost you? Because of a 2019 state law, taxing entities cannot raise the property tax rate more than 3.5% from the year prior without triggering a tax rate election (TRE). That's where the city manager's base budget sits right now — at the 3.5% rate allowed without triggering a TRE — which would still mean a total monthly increase of $18.18 per month or $218.16 annually for the 'average' ratepayer and taxpayer. Some Austin city council members are calling for the overall impact to taxpayers to be much higher than that — at the highest end, $267.20 more annually. That's on top of the base budget and would bring the annual increase for the average homeowner and rate payer to as much as $485.36. Those council members want the city to put money toward homelessness, housing, parks maintenance, wildfire mitigation and other services. You can find a full list of proposals and what they would fund here. 'Absolutely. This is a process and we are looking to see where we can come together, what number that might be,' Austin City Council Member Ryan Alter said when asked if he would be willing to come down on the amount requested from taxpayers. He's one of the council members proposing the most expensive tax rate election. Watson also put forward a proposal that calls for a 3.5-cent tax increase, which would raise the average homeowner's property taxes by $138.54 over the city manager's base proposal. Most of the money in that proposal would go toward fully funding the Homeless Strategy Office's plan. 'What I really want us to prioritize, what I want to see a real emphasis on… is now that we have the plan, let's use that plan, let's fund that plan,' Watson said. All of the proposals on the table, with the exception of one, look to fully fund the Homeless Strategy Office's plan. Wildfire mitigation and parks maintenance also appear to be common themes in those proposals. Austin city council will take up their budget and tax rate starting on Wednesday. 'If I'm going to ask voters to raise their taxes to pay for those services I want to be able to ask them to do it for basic, core services and I'm going to be very stingy about that on their behalf,' Watson said. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. Solve the daily Crossword
The Hill
a day ago
- The Hill
Texas Senate passes bill targeting makers of abortion-inducing drugs
AUSTIN (KXAN) — Senate Bill 6, which aims to 'protect unborn children,' passed the Texas Senate on Tuesday. SB 6 would prohibit the manufacture, distribution, mailing, transporting, delivery and prescribing of abortion-inducing pills, as well as allow private citizens in Texas to file suit against people or companies that manufacture or distribute abortion-inducing pills in the state. Abortion is already almost totally banned in Texas. The bill was filed by Sen. Brian Hughes, R-Tyler. A similar bill passed the Senate during the regular session; however, it died in the House. 'The moms are victims here,' Hughes said. 'What we will go after with SB 6 is the manufacturers and the distributors of these drugs that are making them for the purpose of illegal abortions.' In response to the bill's passage, Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick said protecting life was a priority of his and the Texas Senate. 'We passed SB 6 … to ensure that abortion-inducing drugs are not distributed in Texas for the purpose of obtaining an illegal abortion,' Patrick said. 'The Texas Senate will continue passing this pro-life protection each legislative session.'
The Hill
07-08-2025
- The Hill
Law scholars say Gov. Abbott's bid to oust Rep. Wu is unprecedented, lacks legal basis
AUSTIN (KXAN) — Legal scholars called Gov. Greg Abbott's petition to the Texas Supreme Court, which seeks to remove Rep. Gene Wu, 'unprecedented and said it lacks a legal basis.' One of the experts said he's doubtful it will succeed, but could envision the court siding with the Governor. Quorum breaking has a long history in Texas; however, Gov. Greg Abbott's Tuesday petition to the state's Supreme Court is unprecedented and lacks evidence, legal experts tell KXAN. Abbott's counsel filed a 'petition for writ of quo warranto' on Tuesday, which is a request for the Texas Supreme Court (SCOTX) to remove a public officer of the state from their position. Specifically, the petition accuses State Rep. Gene Wu, D-Houston, of allegedly taking or soliciting a bribe to break quorum, and that Wu abandoned his office by leaving the state for an 'indefinite period.' Other Democrats who broke quorum were not named in the petition. However, it may serve as a pilot for future petitions. Quinn Yeargain, a Michigan State University law professor specializing in states' constitutional law, said the petition lacks sufficient evidence and asks SCOTX to take the governor's argument as 'common sense.' 'Abbott's basic argument is that by purposely leaving the state to prevent the House from having a quorum and being able to conduct business, Rep. Wu … abandoned his office, and therefore it is vacant, and he should be entitled to call a special election to fill the vacancy,' Yeargain said. Does Texas Governor Greg Abbott have the power to vacate Texas House seats? Seth Barrett Tillman, a U.S. Constitutional law professor, also talked with KXAN about the filing. President Donald Trump's legal team cited Tillman's work in their case before the U.S. Supreme Court over Colorado's decision to remove Trump from the ballot in 2024. 'The filing is professional. It's put together well,' Tillman said. 'The governor has some arguments, but ultimately, I'm not convinced.' Are legislators public officials? Experts say SCOTX rulings say no Yeargain explained to KXAN that elected state legislators aren't public officers in the way Abbott's filing imagines they are. Abbott's counsel cites a 1893 case, which Yeargain said was irrelevant to the petition. 'The argument that Abbott makes in his filing, is that a state legislator is 'clearly, obviously a public official or a public officer,'' he said. 'It's actually not clear, and they're just trying to bluff their way through it.' The Texas Government Code has been used for more than 100 years, and as recently as 1999, to argue the opposite of what Abbott's filing argues, Yeargain added. '[Abbott] is not able to cite any relevant case that involved anything similar in the past … and there's a mountain of case law that suggests that that is not an appropriate use of this kind of legal threat,' Yeargain said. 'We're talking about executive branch officials in this kind of situation.' Tillman also said he's not sure quorum breaking is an example of what state law defines as 'official influence.' 'Official influence is the governor calling up a commissioner and saying, 'Get this guy the relief he wants.' I don't know that [quorum breaking] is official influence,' he said. The petition argues that Wu and other quorum breakers have left Texas for an indefinite amount of time, and thus vacated their seats. This doesn't hold up with what the quorum breakers have said, which is that they do intend to return to their primary residences in their districts. Texas Democrats leave the state to block vote on redrawn House map backed by Trump 'Usually, when we talk about abandoning office, we want them to have an intent of not coming back; not having an intent for a specific date to come back, isn't really the same thing,' Tillman explained. 'I don't see any evidence that [Wu] doesn't plan to return. He just wants to return in his own good time under conditions that he's satisfied with. What the governor says is, 'I want you to return and debate whether you like those conditions or not.'' What could happen? Speculating in 'unprecedented times' The filing's bribery allegation, which Tillman called 'a fairly weak claim,' cites article 16, section 41 of the Texas Constitution. 'Given the gravity of what the governor is asking the court to do, which is, in effect, to override an election … against his party and political opponents, I think the [Texas] Supreme Court is going to want a very close adherence to the language in that constitutional provision,' he said. Both scholars said they used narrow and originalist perspectives while analyzing Abbott's petition. They each said that the current SCOTX justices, many of whom were Abbott appointees, lean towards these interpretations in their rulings. 'The Texas Supreme Court is really serious about history. It's very interested in historical practice and consistency with that practice,' Yeargain said. 'The fact that Abbott isn't able to point to … any historical analog in the slightest is jarring. It is stunning, because the scope of what he's asking for is massive.' Yeargain declined to speculate on how SCOTX might rule on the petition in these 'unprecedented times.' Tillman said he could imagine a majority of the justices siding with Abbott, but remains doubtful of that outcome. 'The Constitution of Texas doesn't say that because the governor has the power to convene the legislature, any particular member of the legislature, including Rep. Wu, has a specific duty to show up that day and on time,' Tillman said, 'to the extent that there are provisions that govern punishments, like the $500-a-day provision, that might very well be interpreted as the limit of what could be done against these people.' If SCOTX issues a writ in this case, it would open a 'can of worms' and make the state's highest court into 'ordinary run of the mill partisan politics,' Yeargain added. The petition, according to Yeargain's reading, is Abbott asking the court to engage in judicial activism. '[Abbott's] asking for something that the court doesn't have the power to do. He's asking for something that has never been done before, and he can't point to any example of it having been done before,' Yeargain said. 'He's asking the court to step into a political dispute and to arrive at his desired political outcome. That's entirely inappropriate and something that in almost any other context, he would condemn.' 'What he's saying is, 'if they're going to frustrate my power, they should lose their office.' But that's essentially a political question. That's one that should be left to the voters,' Tillman said. Without consequences, couldn't another quorum break happen? A talking point by some around the current quorum break is that if legal action isn't taken at some point, won't this just happen again? It's a fair point, since our state legislature has seen a few other quorum breaks in its recent past. Tillman argued that super majority quorum rules inherently carry the risk of quorum breaking by the minority party. Texas Legislature: What is a quorum? 'That's the risk you take when you build a provision like that in,' he said. 'Some people might even go further and say it's not just a risk, that's the intent, to make sure that anything that passes has super majority support. Or, at least if it doesn't have super majority support, it doesn't cross the red lines of the dissenting party.' Quorum breaking isn't just a Texas thing, Yeargain noted. In 2019, Oregon Senate Republicans staged a six-week walkout over an environmental bill. In response, Oregonians successfully voted to amend the state's constitution to ban lawmakers with a certain number of absences from running for office again. In 2024, the Oregon Supreme Court upheld that rule, barring a third of those Republicans from reelection runs. Texas lawmakers could send such an amendment to the ballot for voters to approve, if they wanted a constitutional obstacle in the future. Yeargain also had other ideas for the Texas House to consider, such as redefining quorum in its rules or increasing existing penalties for breaking quorum. In fact, the House added fines for quorum breaking to its rules in 2023 to discourage the action. It also has the power to issue warrants for absent representatives. And, as both scholars point out, the Texas Constitution already allows the state's Legislative branch to remove members on a two-thirds vote. The Texas House nearly underwent such a vote in 2023 against former House Republican Rep. Bryan Slayton; he resigned prior to the vote. 'There's no tradition in the United States … that if a member's conduct is egregious enough, any federal court, even of the same state or the same district, could just remove that member, even if he commits a crime, right? That's not how we do it,' Tillman said. 'God forbid we should expand that and allow the courts all over the United States to decide for themselves what sort of conduct constitutes expulsion. The very fact there's already several remedies provided by law in Texas, in my mind, raises serious doubts.'
