Texas wildfires: FEMA approves federal assistance grants for fires in Gray, Gillespie counties
The Brief
FEMA has approved Texas's request for Fire Management Assistance Grants for two wildfires in the Hill Country and the Panhandle.
The Rest Area fire and the Crabapple fire have burned a collective 17,431 acres so far as of Sunday afternoon.
FEMA's approval means that Texas is eligible for 75% reimbursement for costs associated with fighting the two wildfires.
AUSTIN, Texas - FEMA has approved Texas's request for federal funding to fight two large wildfires burning thousands of acres in the Hill Country and the Panhandle.
Gov. Greg Abbott announced the approval in a release, saying that FEMA has approved the state's request for Fire Management Assistance Grants for the Rest Area Fire in Gray County and the Crabapple Fire in Gillespie County.
What we know
FEMA's approval means that Texas is eligible for 75% reimbursement from the federal government for costs associated with fighting these wildfires.
The grants are available to states and local jurisdictions for the mitigation, management, and control of fires on publicly or privately owned forests or grasslands, which threaten such destruction and would constitute a major disaster.
Dig deeper
Abbott has directed the following state emergency response resources to support local wildfire response efforts:
Texas A&M Forest Service (Texas Intrastate Fire Mutual Aid System): Local, state, and out-of-state firefighters and support personnel, fire engines, bulldozers, and motor graders; federally contracted firefighting aircraft, including large air tankers, single-engine air tankers for retardant drops, air attack platforms for surveillance and spotting, super scoopers for water drops, helicopters with firefighting capability, fire bosses and an aerial supervision module for aerial guidance
Texas Division of Emergency Management: The State of Texas Incident Management Team to support deployed emergency response resources across the state
Texas National Guard: Chinook and Blackhawk helicopters with firefighting capability
Texas Department of State Health Services (Texas Emergency Medical Task Force): Wildland Fire Support Packages consisting of medics, ambulances, and all-terrain vehicles
Texas Department of Public Safety: Texas Highway Patrol Troopers to patrol roadways and assist stranded motorists
Texas Parks and Wildlife Department: Game Wardens, State Park Police
Texas A&M Engineering Extension Service (Texas A&M Task Force 1 and Texas Task Force 2): Type 3 Urban Search and Rescue Teams
Texas A&M AgriLife Extension Service: Disaster Assessment and Recovery Agents as well as AgriLife Extension Agents to support agricultural and livestock needs
Texas Animal Health Commission: Coordinating animal resource needs
Texas Department of Agriculture: Coordinating agricultural resource needs
Texas Department of Transportation: Personnel monitoring road conditions
Public Utility Commission of Texas: Power outage monitoring and coordination with utility providers
Railroad Commission of Texas: Monitoring of the state's natural gas supply and communication with the oil and gas industry
Texas Commission on Environmental Quality: Air/water/wastewater monitoring
Texas Health and Human Services Commission: Personnel to provide information on available services through the 2-1-1 Texas Information Referral Network
Texas Department of Information Resources: Monitoring technology infrastructure
By the numbers
The Rest Area fire in Gray County, located east of Amarillo, has burned about 7,900 acres and is 95% contained as of 4:03 p.m. March 16, according to the Texas A&M Forest Service incident map.
The Crabapple fire in Gillespie County, located between Fredericksburg and Crabapple, has burned about 9,500 acres and is 55% contained as of 6:30 p.m. March 16.
What you can do
Texans whose homes or businesses sustained wildfire damage are also encouraged to report it using TDEM's Individual State of Texas Assessment Tool (iSTAT) damage survey.
The survey can be filled out in multiple languages by selecting "2025 Wildfire Incidents." Collected information in these surveys helps emergency management teams assess the damage and aids officials in connecting impacted Texans with available resources.
However, Abbott's office is reminding Texans that the iSTAT survey is not a substitute for reporting damages to insurance providers and does not guarantee disaster relief assistance.
The Source
Information in this report comes from the Texas A&M Forest Service and Gov. Greg Abbott's office.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Hemp industry advocates respond to Texas THC ban, plea with Gov. Abbott to veto SB 3
The clock is ticking louder as the deadline is fast approaching for Texas' proposed hemp-derived THC ban bill. The bill - Senate Bill 3 — was authored by Lubbock Republican State Sen. Charles Perry to help close a loophole Lt. Governor Dan Patrick said was "exploited" to grow the THC market in Texas. However, the sweeping ban is set to impact the $8 billion hemp industry. Others are reading: Patrick, Perry defend proposed Texas THC ban after smoke shop exploit hemp loophole The bill has garnered backlash from both sides of the aisle, with hemp advocates calling on Texas Gov. Greg Abbott to veto the bill, including the Texas Hemp Coalition. "The Texas Hemp Coalition is calling on Governor Greg Abbott to veto Senate Bill 3 before his midnight deadline on June 22nd. This is a deeply flawed measure that would devastate Texas' legal hemp industry and harm farmers, entrepreneurs, and consumers across the state," reads a statement from the coalition. According to the organization, SB 3 would have the following impact on Texas: Eliminates Jobs — Over 50,000 jobs are at risk across farming, processing, retail, and manufacturing. Hurts Small Business — Hundreds of independently owned stores and operations could be forced to shut down. Contradicts Federal Law — SB 3 restricts hemp products legal under the 2018 Farm Bill. Endangers Public Safety — Driving the industry underground removes consumer protections like testing, labeling, and age restrictions. Undermines Texas Agriculture — Many Texas farmers have invested heavily in hemp as a rotational crop and income stabilizer. Benefits Other States — Neighboring states with legal hemp markets will absorb displaced Texas customers and businesses. Pushes business to the illicit market with no checks and balances which doesn't protect our consumers and citizens. The coalition's executive director, Illissa Nolan, said in a statement that the hemp industry doesn't want a free pass but rather fair rules, and "supports strong, science-based regulation including age limits, robust testing, and clear labeling." "This bill overreaches, penalizes responsible businesses, and guts a legal industry that has grown under aclear federal and state regulatory framework," said Nolan. "Governor Abbott has a history of supporting small business and rural economies. We respectfully ask him to stand with us again and protect one of the most promising sectors of Texas agriculture and entrepreneurship.' Others are reading: Lt. Gov. Patrick, Sen. Perry tout legislative victories in Lubbock stop During the 89th Texas Legislature's regular session, the bill cleared the Senate 26-5, with it being amended in the House and passing 87-54. With the Senate agreeing to the House's amendment, the bill was sent to Abbott's desk on May 27, starting the clock. The governor has until June 22 to do one of the following: Sign it — it becomes law and is effective starting Sept. 1. Veto it — with the House having the chance to overturn the veto. Not sign it — still becomes law effective starting Sept. 1. Abbott has not tipped his hand as to which of the three options he is leaning towards as the deadline approaches. Mateo Rosiles is the Government & Public Policy reporter for the Lubbock Avalanche-Journal. Got a news tip for him? Email him: mrosiles@ This article originally appeared on Lubbock Avalanche-Journal: Hemp industry advocates urge Texas Gov. Greg Abbott to veto THC ban
Yahoo
8 hours ago
- Yahoo
Texas Legislators Say They Are Protecting Free Speech on Campus by Banning 'Expressive Activities' at Night
Five years ago, Brandon Creighton, a Republican who represents parts of five southeastern Texas counties in the state Senate, co-sponsored a law, Senate Bill 18, aimed at protecting freedom of expression at public universities. This year, Creighton introduced a bill, S.B. 2972, that would dial back those protections. Civil libertarians are urging Gov. Greg Abbott to veto the new bill, warning that it contradicts the state's avowed commitment to vigorous debate representing a wide range of viewpoints. In a recent Houston Chronicle op-ed piece, First Amendment lawyer Caitlin Vogus and journalist Jimena Pinzon call S.B. 2972 "one of the most ridiculous anti-speech laws in the country." Among other things, they note, the bill includes an "unfathomably broad" provision that "would ban speech at night—from study groups to newspaper reporting—at public universities in the state." If Abbott signs the bill, they say, "it will inevitably face a First Amendment challenge that Texas simply can't win." Why have Texas legislators retreated from their support for free speech on campus? In 2019, Republicans were worried about university speech restrictions that discriminated against or disproportionately affected conservatives. Nowadays, they are worried about potentially disruptive anti-Israel activity by left-leaning protesters. But that sort of contingent support for freedom of speech undermines the principle that legislators defended in 2019, which protects speakers regardless of their opinions, ideology, or political affiliation. S.B. 18, which Abbott proudly signed after it passed the state legislature with broad, bipartisan support, declared that "freedom of expression is of critical importance and requires each public institution of higher education to ensure free, robust, and uninhibited debate and deliberations." To promote that "uninhibited debate," the law recognized that "all persons may assemble peaceably on the campuses of institutions of higher education for expressive activities, including to listen to or observe the expressive activities of others." S.B. 18 also stipulated that "common outdoor areas" on public university campuses "are deemed traditional public forums," meaning they are open to lawful expressive activity as long as it "does not materially and substantially disrupt the functioning of the institution." And the law sought to protect invited speakers from ideological discrimination by barring public universities from considering content, viewpoint, or "any anticipated controversy" in setting fees for using campus facilities. "Although the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees free speech in America, some colleges in Texas were banning free speech on campus," Abbott explained in 2020. "No more. I signed Senate Bill 18…into law to protect free speech on Texas college campuses." S.B. 2972 moves in the opposite direction. It qualifies the right of "all persons" to peacefully assemble for expressive activities by limiting it to a university's students and employees. It allows restrictions on the use of "common outdoor areas" that are "reasonable in light of the purpose of the area to which the restrictions apply," giving administrators more discretion than S.B. 18, which allows "time, place, and manner" rules that are "narrowly tailored to serve a significant public purpose." And while current law requires that such restrictions be "content-neutral" as well as "viewpoint-neutral," S.B. 2972 removes the former requirement. The new bill also allows a university to "designate the areas on the institution's campus that are public forums," which sound like the "free speech zones" that have provoked First Amendment challenges. It deletes the current requirement that universities "provide for ample alternative means of expression." S.B. 2972 targets tactics associated with campus protests against the war in Gaza. It prohibits the use of sound amplification, "drums or other percussive instruments," and masks or "other means of concealing a person's identity" when the aim is to "obstruct" enforcement of a university's rules, "interfere" with the work of police or university employees, or "intimidate others." Two other provisions are especially striking. The bill requires universities to prohibit student groups from "inviting speakers to speak on campus" during the last two weeks of a semester and instructs them to ban "expressive activities on campus" between 10 p.m. and 8 a.m.—a vague and potentially sweeping restriction that could affect a wide range of constitutionally protected conduct. "Both laws protect the First Amendment rights of students, faculty and staff," Creighton told the Austin American-Statesman in May. "S.B. 2972 ensures that speech stays free, protest stays peaceful, and chaos never takes hold." But as the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) noted in a June 5 letter urging Abbott to veto the bill, the new restrictions "would significantly undermine Texas' strong statutory protections for student and faculty expression on public college campuses." Tyler Coward, FIRE's lead counsel for government affairs, warned that S.B. 2972 "permits restrictions on expressive activity based only on anticipated disruption, thereby encouraging shout-downs and allowing the use of a 'heckler's veto' that courts have repeatedly held violates the First Amendment." It also "removes the requirement that institutions designate open outdoor areas as public forums, despite longstanding judicial precedent affirming their public forum status." The bill's "blanket ban on expressive activities" between 10 p.m. and 8 a.m. is so broad that it "would prohibit students from wearing expressive apparel like a MAGA shirt or hat during those times," Coward wrote. In May, he noted, a federal judge issued a preliminary injunction against "Indiana University's policy restricting expressive activities between 11 p.m. and 6 a.m." after concluding that it probably violated the First Amendment. Eugene Volokh, a First Amendment specialist who is a senior scholar at Stanford University's Hoover Institution, also was struck by the expansive language of S.B. 2972's ban on "expressive activities" late at night or early in the morning, which probably was inspired by overnight anti-Israel protests but sweeps much more broadly. Under that rule, Volokh suggested in an interview with The New York Times, "talking to friends, wearing message-bearing T-shirts or, for that matter, reading a book or your phone or playing a video game or watching TV in your room" could trigger disciplinary action. "Are universities likely to enforce their statutorily mandated policies banning overnight speech against students engaged in speech like that?" Vogus and Pinzon write. "Probably not. But they could, and that shows just how sloppy and overbroad this law is." They suggest universities could "use such policies selectively to crack down on disfavored speech." If administrators discover that "the student newspaper's editors discussed and wrote an editorial ripping a university policy to shreds while on campus in the wee hours of the morning," for example, "the ban on overnight speech would provide a solid tool for retaliation." In his letter to Abbott, Coward acknowledged Texas legislators' concerns about "campus protests elsewhere that may have crossed existing legal lines." But he noted that "colleges and universities already possess ample authority to address materially and substantially disruptive conduct." The American Civil Liberties Union of Texas shares FIRE's concerns. "S.B. 2972 threatens the free expression of all Texans, regardless of political beliefs," says Caro Achar, the organization's engagement coordinator for free speech. "This bill imposes broad restrictions that allow school officials to restrict how, when, and where Texans can speak on campus—undermining the First Amendment rights of students, faculty, staff, and the general public." The post Texas Legislators Say They Are Protecting Free Speech on Campus by Banning 'Expressive Activities' at Night appeared first on
Newsweek
14 hours ago
- Newsweek
Texas Homeowners Worry About 'Loopholes' in New Property Tax Cut Law
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Texas homeowners struggling under the growing burden of rising housing costs are supportive of the new package of property tax cuts signed into law by Governor Greg Abbott on Monday. However, some are worried that appraisers may find "loopholes" around them to keep bills high. "The governor is trying to help, but local counties will just find loopholes in the laws and pull the money from our pockets," Jeff, a Parker County Texas homeowner, told Newsweek, revealing a deep frustration with Texas' County Appraisal Districts (CAD) which seems to be shared by several other readers. What's Behind Texas Homeowners' Frustration? Property tax bills have surged over the past five years in Texas due to skyrocketing home values exacerbating locals' affordability struggles. Between 2019 and 2023 alone—years marked by the pandemic homebuying frenzy—property taxes in the Lone Star State jumped by 26 percent, according to Cotality. As of 2025, Texas homeowners pay the seventh-highest property taxes in the country, according to SmartAsset, at an effective rate of 1.63 percent, significantly higher than the national average of 0.90 percent. Photo-illustration by Newsweek/Getty/Canva On average, a Texas homeowner pays $3,872 a year in property taxes, which are levied by local governments and used to fund public services, including schools, roads, police, and firefighting. The rise in property taxes, which has occurred nationwide, has hit senior homeowners the hardest, as they often rely on a fixed income and are less well-equipped to shoulder a suddenly heavier financial burden. What Do the New Laws Promise Homeowners? The new package of property tax cuts, which includes two key bills raising the homestead exemption in the state, is Abbott's latest attempt to offer homeowners relief after signing into law what was the largest property tax cut in the state's history in 2023. One bill contained in the package, signed by the governor on Monday, SB 4, would raise the existing homestead exemption from $100,000 to $140,000 for all homeowners. Another, SB 23, would raise it to $200,000 for those with disabilities or those aged 65 and above. The two bills include constitutional amendments that would need to be approved by voters in November to be enshrined into Texas state law. Why Do Homeowners Remain Skeptical About Relief? Several readers wrote to Newsweek, expressing enthusiasm for the new property tax cuts, but also voicing concerns that they might not result in a significant reduction in their bills. "No homeowner over 70 should pay property taxes. And 65 to 70 only half. Our senior years are fraught with enough worries, medical, food, insurance etc without worrying about losing their home," one Austin-based homeowner said. "I've had to sell all of my investment holdings to afford property tax for my remaining years. But it seems that the CAD just raises our appraised values to counteract Abbott's help." Jeff said that his home has appreciated in market value by 73 percent since 2020, a number that he can hardly believe is accurate. "Local governments blame [price] growth, but in all reality, it's poor management by our local government," he said. "I personally have now protested my taxed appraised market value three times now, each time getting minimal relief. The fact that they are willing to adjust your market value tells you they are playing the numbers to bring in more money," he said. John, another Texas homeowner, said that, on average, his property evaluations have increased from $270,000 to $563,000 over the last eight years. "My annual property tax leapt from $4,300 annually, to just north of $7,000," he said. "This past year, as well as this year, upcoming, will be in the neighborhood of $6,200, largely due to the efforts of the past two legislative periods," he added. The news of the new property tax cuts signed by Abbott was "music to my ears," John said. "You've always heard that mantra, 'I don't want to rent my home after it's paid for from my school district,'" Texas Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick said after the two bills passed the state legislature. "Well, seniors, to the average senior out there, you're never going to have to do that again." John said that Patrick's comment about paying rent to the school district "is no quip." "My breakdown, most recently, is at $15,00 city, $1,250 county, and $3,500 school district distribution," he said. "While it's true that 'it takes a village,' my kids are adults in the workforce themselves. While paying much higher property taxes to schools, I was still on the hook for community pencils, paper, notebooks, and Kleenex, for distribution to children by the teachers," he said. "Along with anything teachers did to create a more engaged environment in their classrooms, that was out of their pockets." While John appreciates how municipal governments spend the money he pays in property taxes, he feels that there is insufficient transparency regarding the way school districts allocate their funding. "Long story short, I will support this legislation to the extent of posting pro-bill signage in my yard, and on my vehicle, if I do think it will come to that," he said. "People are sick to death of the Central Appraisal Districts and their chokehold on property owners." Are you a Texas homeowner? I'd like to hear from you about your experience with property appraisals and rising property tax bills. Email me at
