Puerto Rico hearing examines proposed law to require propeller guards on recreational boats

The House Commission on Natural Resources on May 14, 2025, heard testimony and questions about Proyecto de la Cámara 434, a measure to amend Law 430 of 2000 (the Navigation and Aquatic Safety Act) to require propeller guards on covered vessels, set exemptions and establish administrative fines. Testimony came from the Department of Natural and Environmental Resources (DRNA) and representatives of the Department of Public Safety, including maritime enforcement units.

Committee members said the bill aims to reduce human injuries and harm to marine wildlife by requiring devices that surround a vessel’s propeller. DRNA officials told the commission that propeller guards can prevent injuries to bathers and protect species such as manatees and sea turtles; they also noted technical and operational trade-offs, including reduced speed and potential impacts on engine efficiency.

Luis Antonio Márquez Ruiz, Commissioner of Navigation at the DRNA, said the agency has recorded propeller-impact incidents but does not currently maintain a consolidated dataset on annual counts. The committee asked DRNA to provide whatever accident statistics it can to the record within five days. DRNA staff also recommended a phased implementation period — roughly six months to one year — to allow owners to obtain and install devices and for agencies to assess supplier availability and installation quality.

Officials from the Department of Public Safety, including Lieutenant Wilberto Pérez de la Torre, maritime coordinator for the eastern zone and a member of FURA (the Negociado de las Fuerzas Conjuntas de Acción Rápida), warned that most government vessels use high-powered outboard engines (commonly 300–350 horsepower) and that guards for those motors frequently must be custom-made. Lieutenant Pérez said internet searches showed retail prices of about $400–$500 for guards designed for engines up to 200 horsepower, with higher costs for larger engines. He said adding guards could reduce top speed and increase fuel consumption, potentially hampering law-enforcement operations.

Yandaly Rodríguez Morales and Glenda Rodríguez Morales, representing the Department of Public Safety’s legislative affairs office, echoed concerns about cost and operational impacts for rescue and enforcement vessels and suggested exempting certain government boats used for public-safety missions. DRNA and public-safety witnesses recommended that the committee invite manufacturers and suppliers to demonstrate products and explain installation and performance for different engine classes before finalizing any mandate.

Panelists also discussed where the requirement would have the greatest benefit. DRNA and FURA members said vulnerable areas include bays and shallow coastal zones where manatees and swimmers are common; speakers named Salinas, La Parguera (referred to in testimony), Naguabo and the island of Palomino as local examples. DRNA noted it has roughly 18 enforcement vessels, while the police maritime service reported about 21 vessels and 18 personal-watercraft units in its inventory. Committee staff reported that the vessel registry (system “Neptuno”) lists about 90,000 registered boats in Puerto Rico, a figure committee members cited as part of the measure’s potential scale.

Several lawmakers urged a cautious approach. One representative requested that the commission send the bill to the legislative budget office to estimate public-sector implementation costs. Multiple members proposed a pilot program limited to protected bays and recreational areas to evaluate effectiveness, compliance and the effect on vessel operations. The commission agreed to seek supplier testimony and to solicit additional technical information from DRNA biologists and from manufacturers before preparing its report.

No formal votes or final actions on the bill were recorded at the hearing. Committee members repeatedly separated three types of outcomes discussed at the hearing: (1) factual information and agency recommendations; (2) potential directions to staff (for example, to request cost estimates and supplier demonstrations); and (3) formal legislative steps that the committee could take later, including a possible recommendation to exempt certain public-safety vessels.

The commission closed the public hearing after about 47 minutes of testimony and questioning and said it will continue evaluating the measure.