2025 · Regular session · House bill
HB2970
HB2970 adds a navigation safeguard to Gulf Coast Protection District projects and transfers selection of the district's presiding officer from its board to the governor.
Official caption: Relating to the management and operation of the Gulf Coast Protection District.
Official report lists House author(s): Paul, Martinez, Perez, Mary Ann, Cain. 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.
- HB2970 adds a navigation safeguard to Gulf Coast Protection District projects and transfers selection of the district's presiding officer from its board to the governor.
- When implementing projects under Section 9502.0301(a), the district may not disrupt navigation safety or two-way traffic in a manner that violates a rule adopted by the Harris County ports' pilot commissioners under Transportation Code Chapter 66.
- Existing requirements to coordinate around environmental remediation and consult affected port, navigation or drainage districts remain.
What does it do?
HB2970 adds a navigation safeguard to Gulf Coast Protection District projects and transfers selection of the district’s presiding officer from its board to the governor. The governor must select an existing director. The chair’s two-year term and limit of two consecutive terms remain unchanged; this provision does not give the governor new authority to appoint every director. Final law.
When implementing projects under Section 9502.0301(a), the district may not disrupt navigation safety or two-way traffic in a manner that violates a rule adopted by the Harris County ports’ pilot commissioners under Transportation Code Chapter 66. This covers the district’s listed coastal-barrier, storm-surge, related restoration and other authorized projects. The referenced statute defines two-way traffic as traffic flow by all vessels being permitted in opposing directions. The new provision is tied to pilot-board rules; it is not an unconditional guarantee of uninterrupted two-way movement in every circumstance. District project powers; traffic definition.
Existing requirements to coordinate around environmental remediation and consult affected port, navigation or drainage districts remain. HB2970 does not itself approve a particular barrier design, appropriate project funds, or determine whether a specific construction plan complies with navigation rules. The law took effect June 20, 2025, when the governor signed it, after receiving the votes required for immediate effect. Official history.
What changed along the way?
The filed bill, House committee printing and House-passed version contained the navigation safeguard but did not change who selects the presiding officer.
The Senate committee substitute added gubernatorial appointment of the presiding officer while retaining the term limits. The House concurred May 20, and both changes became law. The amendment index lists no floor amendments; the Senate change was a committee substitute, documented in the Senate amendment packet. Text-version index.
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?
Port users, pilots and shipping businesses gain an express statutory safeguard linking district project implementation to applicable navigation rules. The district must account for that safeguard in carrying out projects. The governor gains control over selecting the chair from the existing board, while directors lose their former election role for that position. None of these provisions guarantees a project’s flood-protection performance or a particular shipping outcome.
The final fiscal note anticipates no significant state or local-government fiscal impact, assuming costs can be absorbed within existing resources. It is an estimate of this bill’s changes, not an estimate of the full cost of Gulf Coast protection projects or a promise that a specific design will need no adjustment.
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.
