LEGISLATIVE BUDGET BOARD Austin, Texas FISCAL NOTE 75th Regular Session April 3, 1997 TO: Honorable J.E. "Buster" Brown, Chair IN RE: Senate Bill No. 1124, Committee Report 1st House, Substituted Committee on Natural Resources By: Brown Senate Austin, Texas FROM: John Keel, Director In response to your request for a Fiscal Note on SB1124 ( Relating to the regulation of aquaculture.) this office has detemined the following: Biennial Net Impact to General Revenue Funds by SB1124-Committee Report 1st House, Substituted Implementing the provisions of the bill would result in a net negative impact of $(328,378) to General Revenue Related Funds through the biennium ending August 31, 1999. The bill would make no appropriation but could provide the legal basis for an appropriation of funds to implement the provisions of the bill. Fiscal Analysis The bill would transfer authority to license aquaculture facilities from the Texas Department of Agriculture (TDA) to the Animal Health Commission (AHC). The bill also would require the AHC, the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department and the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission to enter into a Memorandum of Agreement to coordinate aquaculture regulatory activities. In addition, the three agencies would be required to conduct a study on wastewater discharges from aquaculture facilities. Methodolgy The TDA used historical data to estimate an annual loss of license fee revenue of $13,000 and annual savings in program costs of $6,500. The aquaculture licensing program is relatively small in relation to the TDA's other licensing activity; therefore, the department estimates no reduction in FTEs. The AHC would receive the annual license fee revenue of $13,000. The AHC estimates that the licensing function would require three additional FTEs and attendant equipment and supplies, at a cost of $177,039 in fiscal year 1998 and $164,339 in fiscal year 1999 and beyond. The Memorandum of Agreement would not have a fiscal impact. The study of wastewater discharges from aquaculture facilities would be paid for by the industry. The probable fiscal implications of implementing the provisions of the bill during each of the first five years following passage is estimated as follows: Five Year Impact: Fiscal Year Probable Revenue Probable Revenue Probable Probable Change in Number Gain/(Loss) from Gain/(Loss) from Savings/(Cost) Savings/(Cost) of State General Revenue New - from New - from General Employees from Fund Other Aquaculture Other Aquaculture Revenue Fund FY 1997 Fund Fund 0001 NEW-OTH NEW-OTH 0001 1998 ($13,000) $13,000 ($13,000) ($164,039) 3.0 1998 (13,000) 13,000 (13,000) (151,339) 3.0 2000 (13,000) 13,000 (13,000) (151,339) 3.0 2001 (13,000) 13,000 (13,000) (151,339) 3.0 2002 (13,000) 13,000 (13,000) (151,339) 3.0 Fiscal Year Probable Savings/(Cost) from General Revenue Fund 0001 1998 1999 6,500 2000 6,500 2001 6,500 2002 6,500 Net Impact on General Revenue Related Funds: Fiscal Year Probable Net Postive/(Negative) General Revenue Related Funds Funds 1998 ($170,539) 1999 (157,839) 2000 (157,839) 2001 (157,839) 2002 (157,839) Similar annual fiscal implications would continue as long as the provisions of the bill are in effect. No fiscal implication to units of local government is anticipated. Source: Agencies: 554 Animal Health Commission 551 Department of Agriculture 582 Natural Resources Conservation Commission 802 Parks and Wildlife Department LBB Staff: JK ,BB ,DM