HB3550 amends the Illinois Rivers, Lakes, and Streams Act to change where certain revenues are deposited. Specifically, civil penalty fees collected for violations of the Act and application fees for permits would go into the Water Resources Fund instead of the State Boating Act Fund. The bill does not change the underlying permitting or enforcement authority of the Department of Natural Resources; it only redirects the revenue stream associated with those fees.
The bill also retains the existing framework under which the Department of Natural Resources may issue remedial orders and assess civil penalties for violations of the Act, including violations of rules, permits, conditions, or department orders. The text continues to cap penalties at up to twice the applicable permit fee, not to exceed $5,000 per violation, and preserves the provision that deposited funds are to be used for authorized water-resources-related purposes and are not subject to administrative charges or chargebacks unless otherwise authorized by law.
Impact
HB3550 would amend Sections 26a and 35 of the Rivers, Lakes, and Streams Act to reallocate fee and penalty revenue from the State Boating Act Fund to the Water Resources Fund. This would affect how the Illinois Department of Natural Resources accounts for and uses money collected from permit applications and enforcement actions under the Act, while leaving the substantive regulatory and penalty provisions in place. The practical effect is to direct more of these revenues toward water resources purposes rather than the boating fund.
Sentiment
Based on the available record, the bill appears to be a technical or fiscal reallocation measure rather than a controversial policy change. There are no committee transcripts or recorded votes provided, so there is no documented debate or opposition in the materials supplied. The bill’s caption and text suggest a narrow administrative purpose, which typically indicates limited public controversy.
Contention
No specific points of contention are documented in the provided materials. If any concerns were raised, they would likely center on whether fee and penalty revenues should support the Water Resources Fund instead of the State Boating Act Fund, and whether that shift changes funding priorities for boating-related versus water-resources-related uses. However, no speakers, amendments, or votes are available here to show active disagreement.