2025 Texas sessionsRegular and both called sessions have ended. This index covers House and Senate bills, not resolutions. Statuses come from official reports.

← Back to bills

2025 · Regular session · House bill

HB43

HB43 expands agricultural financial assistance and changes who runs the Texas Agricultural Finance Authority.

Read bill highlights ↓

Official caption: Relating to the Texas Agricultural Finance Authority and certain programs administered by the authority.

Signed by governorSource-checked explanation published

Official report lists House author(s): Kitzman, Guillen, Lopez, Janie, Bonnen, González, Mary. This does not identify sponsors or amendment drafters.

Report an error ↗

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.

Read the full explanation ↓

What does it do?

HB43 expands agricultural financial assistance and changes who runs the Texas Agricultural Finance Authority. It removes the former age limits from two “young farmer” programs, increases their maximum awards and creates assistance for agricultural pest, disease and damaging-animal control. It was signed and took effect June 20, 2025, after receiving the votes needed for immediate effect. Final law; official history.

The main financing changes are:

  • Farmer Interest Rate Reduction Program: the maximum loan doubles from $500,000 to $1 million. The lender’s maximum interest-rate margin over the state’s linked-deposit rate falls from four percentage points to one. This is not a promise of a 1% total interest rate. The former age restriction—at least 18 but younger than 46—is removed. The board can tailor disbursement timing to recipients’ needs, and Farm Credit System institutions no longer have to be headquartered in Texas.
  • Agriculture Grant Program: grants remain at least $5,000, but the maximum rises from $20,000 to $500,000. Applicants must be agricultural producers or businesses, without the former age restriction. Their required match drops from at least one dollar per grant dollar to at least 10% of the grant amount. For a $100,000 grant, that statutory minimum is $10,000, not 10% of the combined project cost.
  • The board must adopt rules allowing recipients to use part of a loan or grant to apply for other assistance, including matching federal funds, and to combine it with other state or federal assistance. Those other programs’ requirements still matter.

Grants may support maintaining agricultural businesses or agricultural land uses, supply-chain resilience, and business creation or expansion. Existing application, creditworthiness and approval requirements are not abolished; eligibility and a higher ceiling do not guarantee an award. Final law, Sections 5–15; Agriculture Code Chapter 58.

The law also removes Section 58.021(c)’s general $2 million aggregate financing limit and its up-to-$5 million exception requiring a two-thirds board vote. It retains specified board-approved financing powers. That removal is separate from the $1 million ceiling on interest-reduction loans. The “agricultural business” definition adds nonprofits primarily devoted to maintaining agricultural land uses, while deleting the catchall for any rural business and specific recreational and permit-holder language. It is not simply an expansion to every rural enterprise. Final law, Sections 1 and 4.

A new program directs assistance from the Texas Agricultural Fund to the Animal Health Commission, Texas A&M AgriLife Extension Service or Texas A&M AgriLife Research for programs reducing agricultural losses from pests, diseases or animals that damage agriculture. These agencies must apply; this provision does not itself promise a direct pest-control payment to every farmer. The board must adopt operating rules. Final law, Section 16.

The authority’s board changes from 11 members to nine: the agriculture commissioner, two commissioner-appointed agricultural lending experts, and six governor appointees—two agricultural-entity representatives, two young-farmer/rancher representatives and two family-farm/ranch operators. Existing members may finish their terms. The annual report to the Legislative Budget Board must show revenues and spending for each program. Final law, Sections 2–3 and 17–18.

What changed along the way?

The filed bill proposed a seven-member board and annual disease/pest studies ending with a 2028 report. The House substitute instead established the nine-member board and direct assistance program, added agricultural-land nonprofits and land-maintenance purposes, and replaced a proposed biennial application rule with flexible loan disbursement schedules. The House passed that substitute without floor amendments. Filed text; House substitute; House-passed text.

The Senate substitute proposed lower ceilings—$750,000 loans and $100,000 grants—and delayed those changes until September 2027, with a specific-appropriation condition. Sparks’s adopted floor amendment restored $1 million loans and $500,000 grants, removed that delay and condition, and added coordination with other assistance programs. The Senate’s wording “depredating animals” replaced “predators” and remained in the final law. The House accepted the Senate changes; no conference report followed. The study requirement, lower ceilings and 2027 delay were proposals, not enacted requirements. Senate substitute; amendment index; Sparks amendment; adopted Senate packet, pages 12–24.

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?

Older producers, eligible agricultural businesses and land-preservation nonprofits may gain access to assistance. Lower matching requirements could help applicants with limited cash, while larger awards may support bigger projects. Participating lenders face a smaller permitted interest margin. Removing the general financing cap increases the importance of loan screening, collateral and repayment safeguards. Broader eligibility can also mean more competition for available money.

The final fiscal note says the overall financial effect cannot be determined, because award volumes, amounts and resulting fund interest earnings are unknown. It assumes agency administrative costs can be absorbed and anticipates no significant local-government fiscal effect; that is not a finding that the expanded financial assistance costs nothing. HB43 itself makes no appropriation. Separately, SB1 directs a $100 million general-revenue transfer into the Texas Agricultural Fund and appropriates $100 million from that fund for fiscal 2026 implementation, with unused amounts available in fiscal 2027. Those are two steps for the same $100 million, not $200 million. The budget provision was not vetoed. Neither the statute nor that appropriation proves that every dollar has been awarded. Final fiscal note; SB1 Section 18.05, printed IX-109 / PDF page 1003; governor’s veto proclamation.

Official sources

Catalog report retrieved 2026-10-25. Check the official record for corrections or later changes.