Texas Drone Operations Near Critical Infrastructure

Published October 18, 2026

Law checked through October 18, 2026.

Texas Government Code § 423.0045 regulates specified drone conduct involving defined critical infrastructure facilities, with important exceptions. An operator must examine facility qualification, location, conduct, intent or knowledge, altitude where relevant, and the actual exception claimed. FAA permission and Texas compliance are separate inquiries. Facility ownership does not give a private party general authority to shoot, jam, or seize a drone. [1; 2; 3]

Determine whether the facility qualifies

Section 423.0045 defines critical infrastructure facility through listed categories and conditions. The definition includes specified industrial, utility, pipeline, and other facilities and addresses enclosure or posting, as well as particular fenced oil and gas assets. A business should apply the complete definition to the actual site rather than assume that any commercially important building qualifies. [1, § 423.0045(a)(1-a)]

The assessment should record the relevant facility boundaries and the facts supporting the category. A broad map label such as energy site may omit whether the statutory enclosure, posting, or category conditions are met. The definition is a legal element, not simply the facility owner's preferred designation.

Identify the prohibited conduct

The statute addresses intentional or knowing operation over a covered facility within the stated altitude, contact with the facility, and operation sufficiently close to interfere with operations or cause a disturbance under its terms. Those are distinct routes to the offense. The exact language should be applied to the actual flight rather than reduced to an unconditional ban on every drone seen near infrastructure. [1, § 423.0045(b)]

Altitude alone does not answer every contact or interference question. Conversely, the presence of a drone in the area does not establish the operator's mental state, facility qualification, or absence of an exception. The incident record should distinguish observed facts from conclusions.

Exceptions matter

Subsection (c) contains exceptions addressing specified government, owner or consent, law-enforcement, commercial, and other operations within their conditions. In particular, the qualified commercial-operation exception requires reading the FAA-related conditions in its actual text. An article stating that every commercial flight over a refinery is prohibited would omit a material part of the statute. [1, § 423.0045(c)]

An operator relying on an exception should retain the relevant approval, consent, mission purpose, and compliance information. A permission document should identify the parties, area, activity, and duration accurately. Consent from a property owner does not automatically satisfy FAA airspace rules, and federal flight authority does not automatically supply permission to enter the ground site.

Imagery and other Texas provisions

The same flight may raise image-capture, possession, disclosure, or civil-remedy questions under other Chapter 423 provisions. Section 423.003's surveillance-intent element and § 423.002's lawful-capture purposes require separate analysis. A flight exception under § 423.0045 should not be treated as a complete answer to every information use. [1, §§ 423.002 through 423.006]

Sports venues have their own provision in § 423.0046. Local regulation is addressed by § 423.009 and its preserved powers. The operator should identify the actual provision rather than combine every protected place into a single fictional no-fly category. [1]

Federal authority and proposed site restrictions

FAA rules govern the relevant aircraft operation and airspace permissions. The FAA's state and local fact sheet explains the relationship between federal aviation authority and preserved state or local interests. A Texas infrastructure analysis should identify any actual federal restriction and authorization in effect for the site. [2]

The May 2026 Section 2209 proposal would establish a federal process for certain site restrictions under proposed Part 74. A proposal is not itself a granted restriction for every facility. The current effective rule and any actual site designation must be identified before describing a federal prohibition as operative. [4]

Case history and response

The substituted Fifth Circuit opinion in National Press Photographers Association v. McCraw rejected the specified facial constitutional challenges and affirmed dismissal of preemption claims; Supreme Court review was denied. That history should not be enlarged into a holding resolving every future flight or as-applied dispute. [5; 6]

A facility response should prioritize observation, safety, preservation of relevant facts, and contact with appropriate authorities. Counter-UAS detection and mitigation technologies require separate legal analysis. The conditional public-agency authority created by the 2026 framework is not general private mitigation authority. A property dispute should not be treated as permission to interfere with an aircraft or radio communications. [3]