Texas Senate Bill SB1643

Texas 2021 - 87th Regular

Caption

Relating to special purpose territory of the Port of Beaumont Navigation District of Jefferson County, Texas.

Impact

The impact of SB1643 on state laws is significant, particularly as it relates to the powers of the Port of Beaumont Navigation District. By defining a special purpose area, the bill streamlines operations concerning cargo and vessel reporting. Notably, it emphasizes that the inclusion of this special purpose area will not interfere with the existing powers of nearby navigation districts, such as the Sabine-Neches Navigation District. This framework ensures that while the Port of Beaumont enhances its operational capacity, the rights and responsibilities of adjacent districts remain intact.

Summary

SB1643 is a legislative act that modifies the operations and jurisdiction of the Port of Beaumont Navigation District in Jefferson County, Texas. The bill specifically establishes a special purpose area within the district and outlines the regulations regarding the movement of waterborne commercial cargo and vessels. This modification allows for better reporting of such movements to federal authorities, thereby enhancing the district's operational efficiency and compliance with federal law.

Sentiment

The general sentiment surrounding SB1643 appears to be neutral to positive, as it aims to clarify regulations and enhance the functionality of the navigation district. The bill was passed unanimously in the Senate with a vote of 31-0 and received broad support in the House with only nine dissenting votes. This bipartisan support suggests that legislators recognize the operational benefits the bill will provide to the Port of Beaumont and the surrounding communities.

Contention

One notable point of contention in the discussions around SB1643 is the aspect of taxation within the special purpose area. The bill explicitly prohibits the Port of Beaumont from imposing any taxes in this region, which may raise concerns among local economic stakeholders about the potential loss of revenue. However, proponents argue that this prohibition is necessary to attract business and investment to the area without the burden of additional taxation.