Future of Port Authority of Puerto Verde Bill Remains Uncertain as 90th Texas Legislature Approaches
By Jose G. Landa, Copyright 2026 Eagle Pass Business Journal, Inc.
As Texas prepares for the 90th Legislative Session, scheduled to begin January 12, 2027, questions remain over whether legislation creating a new Port Authority of Puerto Verde District with broad governmental and financial powers in Maverick County could return to the Texas Legislature in Austin, Texas.
House Bill 74, authored during the 89th Legislature by State Representative Eddie Morales of Eagle Pass along with Representatives Ryan Guillen, Don McLaughlin, John Lujan and Cody Harris, proposed creating the Puerto Verde Port Authority District.
The controversial legislation passed the Texas House but never received final approval from the Texas Senate and overall legislature. Its last action occurred May 12, 2025, when it was referred to the Texas Senate Committee on Transportation, where it died. It did not advance before the 89th Texas Legislative Regular Session ended.
HB 74 therefore cannot simply resume where it stopped. New legislation would have to be introduced and begin the legislative process again.
During a meeting with public advocacy groups in Maverick County, State Representative Eddie Morales was asked whether he would bring HB 74 back during the upcoming 90th legislative session. Morales stated that he would not be bringing the bill he authored back for consideration in the 90th legislative session.
That does not necessarily closes the door on the controversial Puerto Verde Port Authority proposal.
Another Texas legislator, including any of the co-authors, could introduce legislation seeking to create the same or a similar Puerto Verde Port Authority District. Puerto Verde Holdings, L. L. C. President/CEO Ruben Garibay and investors could seek new sponsors for the controversial legislation
Morales is currently seeking reelection to the Texas House of Representatives. HB 74 was and remains a highly unpopular legislative proposal in his home county of Maverick. Morales has drawn criticism from many Maverick County voters for having sponsored HB 74 last legislative session, jeopardizing his bid for re-election.
In the event that Morales should not return to the Legislature, HB 74 would remain part of the official record of the 89th Legislature as a measure that did not become law, and any future effort to establish a similar district would require new legislation.
If Morales is reelected, he has already indicated he does not intend to refile HB 74, leaving any potential revival in the hands of another legislator.
The issue remains significant because HB 74 proposed creating much more than an administrative board overseeing an international bridge.
Under the House-passed version, the district could construct, acquire, improve, maintain, finance and operate rail and bridge facilities, including toll bridges. It could establish economic development programs, make certain loans and grants of public money and create a nonprofit corporation to assist with district projects and services.
HB 74 also authorized the district to borrow money and issue bonds, notes and other financial obligations supported through authorized sources that could include assessments, impact fees, tolls, fares, charges, fees and other district revenues.
Some revenue-backed bonds could be issued without an election, while property-tax-supported bonds and an operation and maintenance property tax would require voter authorization within the district.
The legislation also contemplated eminent domain authority, but that authority would have been available only if the legislation satisfied the constitutional requirement that the provision receive the necessary two-thirds vote of all members elected to each chamber of the Texas Legislature.
Without HB 74 or similar legislation creating such a district, Puerto Verde would not have access to those governmental and financing powers through the Port Authority structure envisioned by HB 74.
Some functions could potentially be pursued through other governmental entities, agreements or legal arrangements depending on applicable state and federal law, but the package of powers proposed under HB 74 would not exist without legislative approval.
Another significant provision involved who would govern the district.
The House-passed HB 74 provided for five elected voting directors serving staggered four-year terms. Those directors would hold the voting authority of the Port Authority District.
Maverick County Commissioners Court could appoint as many as two county officials or employees to the board, but they would serve as nonvoting ex officio directors. They could receive district information and attend board meetings, including meetings closed to the public, but could not vote or count toward establishing a quorum.
In other words, Maverick County could have representation at the table without voting authority through its appointed representatives.
HB 74 therefore raised questions beyond construction of another international crossing. It involved who would control a governmental entity with significant transportation and financial powers and what direct voting role local government would have in its decisions.
For now, HB 74 ended with the 89th Legislature without becoming law.
Morales has stated he will not bring his bill back during the upcoming session.
Whether another legislator attempts to revive the Port Authority proposal through new legislation, and what powers and governance structure that legislation might contain, remains to be seen.
