State waters; persons commercially cutting aquatic plants required to remove cut plants, criminal penalties established
Summary
SB64 regulates commercial cutting, trimming, severing, or uprooting of aquatic plants in Alabama’s public waters. It requires anyone engaged in that business to use “commercially reasonable methods” to remove the resulting plant matter from the water, rather than leaving cut vegetation behind. The bill directs the Department of Conservation and Natural Resources to adopt rules defining and administering those removal methods.
The bill also creates a penalty for violations. A person who fails to comply commits a Class C misdemeanor and must be fined at least $500, with the fine paid to the primary enforcing law enforcement agency. The act is set to take effect on October 1, 2025.
Impact
SB64 amends the state’s regulation of public waters by imposing a new operational duty on commercial aquatic plant removal activities and authorizing criminal enforcement for noncompliance. It affects businesses and contractors that manage aquatic vegetation in lakes, rivers, and other public waters as defined in Section 9-11-80 of the Code of Alabama 1975, and it gives the Department of Conservation and Natural Resources rulemaking authority to establish the applicable removal standards.
Sentiment
The bill appears to have broad support and little visible opposition. It passed the Senate and House overwhelmingly, with 31-0 votes in the Senate chamber and 103-0 votes in the House, and there is no committee transcript indicating debate or controversy. The voting record suggests the measure was viewed as a straightforward environmental or water-management regulation.
Contention
No major points of contention are reflected in the available record. The main policy choice is whether to require commercial operators to remove aquatic plant debris and to enforce that requirement through a misdemeanor and minimum fine. Any potential concerns would likely center on compliance costs for aquatic vegetation contractors, the scope of the Department’s rulemaking, and how “commercially reasonable methods” will be defined, but none of those issues appear to have generated recorded opposition.