← Back to bills and search results
2025 · Regular session · House bill
HB1240
Effective September 1, 2026, HB1240 adds Bee, Karnes, Loving, Mason, McCulloch, Menard, Reagan, Upton, Ward and Wilson counties to the Texas-Mexico border region defined for state-agency strategic planning.
Official caption: Relating to certain governmental operations affecting the border region.
Official report lists House author(s): Guillen. This does not identify sponsors or amendment drafters.
Bill explanation published · Version and amendment review scope is stated below · Individual amendment records may not be separately annotated.
Bill highlights
Selected points from the published explanation. Follow each point to its source-linked context; conditions and limits may matter.
- Effective September 1, 2026, HB1240 adds Bee, Karnes, Loving, Mason, McCulloch, Menard, Reagan, Upton, Ward and Wilson counties to the Texas-Mexico border region defined for state-agency strategic planning.
- The affected provisions cover environmental-research priorities, family-practice residency pilot locations, the interagency border-issues work group, the Task Force of Border Health Officials, transportation private-investment efforts and the Texas Water Development Board's border-projects website.
What does it do?
Effective September 1, 2026, HB1240 adds Bee, Karnes, Loving, Mason, McCulloch, Menard, Reagan, Upton, Ward and Wilson counties to the Texas-Mexico border region defined for state-agency strategic planning. It also makes six specified provisions use that shared county list, replacing separate county lists, a 100-kilometer boundary or a definition limited to counties immediately adjoining Mexico. It does not redraw the international border or redefine “border region” for every Texas law. Final law
The affected provisions cover environmental-research priorities, family-practice residency pilot locations, the interagency border-issues work group, the Task Force of Border Health Officials, transportation private-investment efforts and the Texas Water Development Board’s border-projects website. Existing program conditions remain: inclusion on the county list is not an automatic grant, appropriation or entitlement to a project. State planning · Education Code 61.0821 and 61.506 · Border work group · Health task force · Border-projects website
What changed along the way?
The introduced and House committee texts also proposed changing definitions for border-crime prosecution grants and the border prosecution unit. Representative Ryan Guillen’s adopted House amendment removed those two changes. The engrossed, Senate committee and enrolled texts match in their operative provisions. Introduced · House committee · Engrossed · Senate committee · House amendment
Senator Adam Hinojosa’s amendment would have authorized certain Type C municipalities or delegated mayors to temporarily close roads, bridges, venues or other specified areas for public safety. Although initially adopted May 23, the Senate reconsidered that adoption and the senator withdrew the amendment May 28. It is absent from the final law. The amendment index’s earlier “adopted” label must therefore be read with the later journal. Governor Abbott signed the bill June 20, 2025; final passage was 128–7 in the House, with two present but not voting, and 23–8 in the Senate. Senate amendment · May 28 Senate journal · History · Amendment index · All versions
For the full amendment record, open the official amendment index.
Official bill versions
Compare the published text versions in the official text index. A change is not attributed to a specific amendment here without a verified record.
Who could benefit—and who could bear the costs?
Newly included counties may receive more attention in the specified planning, research and coordination activities. Agencies gain a common definition for those activities but must apply it over a broader area. Actual funding or service changes depend on existing program rules and decisions; the act does not quantify county-by-county gains or losses.
All four indexed Legislative Budget Board notes anticipate no significant state or local fiscal impact, assuming implementation can use existing resources. They give no quantified two-year or five-year cost. The enrolled-stage link carries the May 24 “As Passed 2nd House” note, preceding withdrawal of the Senate amendment, rather than a separately recalculated final-text estimate. Introduced note · Engrossed note · Second-house note · Enrolled-stage note
Official sources
- Bill history and latest recorded action
- Bill versions, analyses and fiscal notes
- Action history and votes
- Amendment index
Catalog report retrieved 2026-10-25. Check the official record for corrections or later changes.