SB 1353 creates a new, Cameron County-specific pilot licensing and regulatory framework in the Transportation Code. It establishes Chapter 71, the Cameron County Pilots Licensing and Regulatory Act, and limits the chapter’s application to the navigation district, pilot board, pilots, and vessels operating under the jurisdiction of a pilot board located in Cameron County. The bill also carves these entities out of the general pilot provisions in Chapter 62 so that Cameron County is governed by its own specialized rules.
The bill defines the pilot board as the navigation and canal commissioners of the Cameron County navigation district and gives that board exclusive jurisdiction over pilotage between the Gulf of Mexico and ports in the district. It authorizes the board to appoint, suspend, or dismiss branch pilots and deputy branch pilots, set pilotage rates, and adopt rules for pilot qualification and regulation. The bill sets detailed eligibility requirements for branch pilots and deputy branch pilots, including age, citizenship, residency, federal licensing, experience, moral character, and board-approved training, and requires pilots to take an oath and post a $5,000 bond before receiving a state commission.
SB 1353 also regulates pilotage charges and liability. It generally exempts vessels of 20 tons or less and vessels exempt under federal law, but expressly applies pilotage charges to autonomous vessels of any gross tonnage. The bill makes consignees liable for pilotage fees, imposes double-rate liability on vessels that decline available pilot services or use unauthorized pilots, and allows pilots to sue to recover fees and attorney’s fees in certain cases. In addition, it limits a pilot’s liability for errors or omissions to $1,000 in most cases, while preserving liability for willful misconduct, gross negligence, and certain pilot boat-related conduct.
The bill’s impact on state law is to replace the general statewide pilot framework with a tailored statutory regime for Cameron County’s navigation district and pilot board. It changes who may regulate pilots, how pilots are licensed and disciplined, how rates are set and collected, and how liability is allocated among pilots, vessels, and consignees. It also creates new statutory treatment for autonomous vessels in the pilotage context and applies the new liability rules prospectively to future acts and lawsuits.
The overall sentiment appears favorable, as reflected by unanimous Senate passage and substantial House support, though the House vote shows meaningful opposition. The main points of contention likely center on the bill’s local carve-out, the board’s exclusive authority, the double-rate penalties for refusing or bypassing pilot services, and the liability cap for pilots. Those provisions affect maritime operators, consignees, and competing towing or pilot-boat interests, which are specifically barred from serving on the pilot board.
SB 1353 amends the Transportation Code by adding a new Chapter 71 for Cameron County pilot regulation and by excluding those Cameron County entities from Chapter 62’s general pilot provisions. It gives the Cameron County pilot board exclusive regulatory authority over pilotage in its jurisdiction, establishes licensing and certification standards for branch and deputy branch pilots, sets bonding and commission procedures, and creates rules for pilotage rates, collection, enforcement, and liability. The bill affects navigation districts in Cameron County, pilots, consignees, vessel operators, and related maritime businesses, and it expressly addresses autonomous vessels and pilot liability limits.
The bill appears to have broad legislative support overall, passing the Senate 30-0 and the House 100-39 with one present not voting. That said, the House vote indicates a notable minority of opposition, suggesting some concern about the bill’s local regulatory structure or its economic and liability provisions. No committee transcript was provided, so the available record shows support in final votes but not detailed debate.
The likely contentious issues are the bill’s creation of a Cameron County-specific pilot regime, the concentration of authority in the local pilot board, and the financial consequences for maritime users. Provisions allowing double-rate charges when a vessel declines available pilot services or uses an unauthorized pilot may be opposed by vessel operators and consignees, while the $1,000 liability cap for pilots may be viewed skeptically by parties concerned about accountability. The disqualification of towing and pilot-boat interests from board service also suggests potential concern from those industries, though no committee testimony is available to confirm specific objections.