The civic record
Read. Follow. Verify.Mississippi Legislature considers $300,000 state appropriation for Town of Derma water tank renovations
Last action · February 25, 2026: 02/25 (H) Died In CommitteeSponsor: Perry Bailey
Track this bill to get notified when it advances a stage. One tap to stop, anytime.
What This Bill Proposed
House Bill 1959 proposes a $300,000 state from the to the Town of Derma to help cover water tank renovation costs for 2027.
The measure determines whether state funds are allocated for local municipal utility infrastructure upgrades in Derma, Mississippi.
Who It Would Have Affected
Groups the bill's text would have affected, as described in the record. Being affected is not a position for or against it.
Town of Derma
Receives $300,000.00 in state funds to help pay for water tank renovation costs.
Key Facts
You don't have to trust us. Each fact below is taken straight from the official document - click any one to see the exact passage, highlighted in the original.
Frequently Asked Questions
How much money does House Bill 1959 allocate?
What is the funding supposed to be used for?
Which fiscal year does this appropriation cover?
What else do you want to know?
News Coverage
Follow the record
Votes, people, money & the original sourceWhere This Stands
This bill did not become law - Died in committee.
Procedural history
2 actions- Feb 25, 2026House02/25 (H) Died In Committee
- Feb 17, 2026HouseCommittee02/17 (H) Referred To Appropriations A
Version history
Only one version on file - nothing to compare yet. As later stages (committee substitute, engrossed, enrolled) are captured, the redline appears here.
View official text →Lobbying Activity
No state lobbying filings in our records match this bill. Federal lobbying reports (LDA) cover Congress, so they are not listed on state bills.
Full breakdown
Who this bill affects and the strongest case for and against it, written only from the bill’s own text.
Sponsors
.jpg){kind=small}
Connected Entities
Sources
billstatus.ls.state.ms.us
Analysis Score
0–100- Significance15Lowered because this bill did not pass (its text scored 15)
- Controversy5Intensity of disagreement among stakeholders
- Entertainment2Compellingness for a non-policy-wonk reader
- Buzz10Current news / social attention level
Publisher tools