SB1745

Expanded statutory tools: the act expressly adds Water Code Chapter 49 to the district’s general powers, extends its Chapter 60 navigation-district powers beyond the previously specified Subchapters E and M, and adds Section 62.118 authority to cooperate with the United States on navigable-waterway improvements. Chapter 60 includes navigation construction, contracting and financing tools, each with its own conditions. The district already had port-facility and other powers; this does not mean all its powers were newly created in 2025. Final law, section 4; Prior district powers; Federal cooperation authority; Navigation improvements; Project contracts and funding conditions.

Work outside the district: if authorized by the United States, the district may exercise powers necessary to be a nonfederal sponsor under a federal project partnership agreement, including operating barges, dredging and related maritime operations on water outside its territory. This operates notwithstanding Water Code Section 60.033 or other state law. Section 60.033 normally limits where the covered equipment can be used and financed. The new provision is tied to federal authorization and the partnership role; it is not a blanket permission for any commercial activity anywhere or an exemption from federal law. Final law, section 5; Equipment restriction.

Land and existing safeguards: the act adds Water Code Chapters 49 and 60 as routes for acquiring land interests, alongside Chapter 54. Chapter 49 covers acquiring land, easements and other property for authorized district purposes; the act does not identify a particular parcel for acquisition. It does not rewrite the district’s existing tax-and-bond election provision or its prohibition on impact fees and assessments on specified residential properties. Those points do not amount to an exemption from every possible tax or charge. Final law, section 6; Property acquisition; Existing election provision; Residential fee and assessment protection.

How the proposal changed: the introduced bill would simply have said that Section 60.033 did not apply to the district. The Senate committee substitute replaced that blanket exemption with the new, federally authorized partnership provision. The Senate-passed, House committee and final versions kept the substitute’s substance. The amendment index lists no floor amendments. The final act also records compliance with local-bill notice and Texas Commission on Environmental Quality recommendation procedures; that is not a federal project approval. Introduced; Senate substitute; Senate-passed; House committee; Version index; Amendment index; Final law, sections 5 and 7.

Compare the published text versions in the official text index. A change is not attributed to a specific amendment here without a verified record.

The district and port users could benefit from additional ways to undertake navigation improvements and cooperate on federal projects. The district could also take on construction, financing or operating responsibilities; effects on landowners and nearby communities depend on the projects actually undertaken. The law does not promise jobs, shipping savings, a federal award or a particular project budget. Final law; Potential project-contract obligations.

The March 20 introduced fiscal note anticipated no state fiscal impact and no significant local-government impact. The April 10 substitute note still anticipated no state fiscal impact, but said the district could be affected if authorized by the United States to serve as a nonfederal sponsor. It did not quantify that local effect. The latter note calls the district “Cedar Point,” while the enacted law names it Cedar Port. No appropriation or guaranteed federal funding appears in this act. Introduced fiscal note; Substitute fiscal note; Final law.