Natural Resources - State Boat Act - Alterations
HB719 makes a broad set of changes to Maryland’s State Boat Act. It updates statutory definitions for “personal watercraft” and “personal flotation device,” removes several outdated references tied to older vessel classifications, and repeals a prior requirement that Department of Natural Resources regulations be publicly advertised and subject to a petition-triggered hearing before taking effect. The bill also authorizes the Department to set or change certain speed zones or restricted areas by public notice in emergencies or where federal agencies have already restricted vessel movement.
The bill revises multiple boating-related fees and funding thresholds. It raises fees for manufacturer and dealer licenses, certificates of number, Maryland use stickers, and title-related transactions; increases the amount the Waterway Improvement Fund may fully finance for certain boating and marina projects; and expands the amount the Department may spend without legislative approval on small projects and boating safety/education. It also creates a new optional nonmotorized vessel decal for vessels without propulsion machinery that are used principally on Maryland waters, with a $12 fee and a two-year validity period.
HB719 also changes boating safety and registration rules. It updates the rental rules for livery vessels under 16 feet, removes the old “Class A vessel” terminology from that section, and modifies the child life jacket requirement for vessels under 21 feet by requiring a U.S. Coast Guard-approved flotation device for a child under 13 who is present in the vessel. The bill also clarifies towing-related flotation device requirements and updates title and registration provisions for numbered vessels and Coast Guard-documented vessels used principally in the state.
The overall sentiment appears favorable, as reflected by strong passage in both chambers: 99-39 in the House and 34-13 in the Senate. The vote margins suggest bipartisan support, though not unanimity. No committee transcript was provided, so there is no recorded floor or committee debate to indicate detailed arguments for or against the bill.
The main points of contention likely involve the higher fees and the expanded administrative authority given to the Department of Natural Resources. Opponents may object to increased costs for boat owners, dealers, and title applicants, as well as the removal of the newspaper notice and public hearing requirement for regulations. Supporters likely view the bill as an update to boating law that modernizes definitions, improves safety enforcement, and gives the Department more flexibility to respond quickly to hazards and fund boating infrastructure.
The bill amends several sections of the Natural Resources Article governing the State Boat Act, affecting vessel definitions, registration and titling fees, livery vessel rentals, boating safety requirements, and Waterway Improvement Fund financing. It creates a new nonmotorized vessel decal program, increases multiple fees and project funding thresholds, and authorizes the Department of Natural Resources to establish or alter certain speed zones or restricted areas by public notice. It also repeals an older public notice and hearing requirement for certain regulations and renumbers a section of the statute, with the changes taking effect October 1, 2025.
The bill appears to have been generally supported, as shown by its passage in both chambers with comfortable margins. The House approved it 99-39 and the Senate 34-13, indicating meaningful but not overwhelming support. Because no committee transcripts were provided, the available record shows the outcome of the votes more clearly than the substance of any debate, but the final enactment suggests the measure was viewed as a broadly acceptable modernization of boating law.
The most likely areas of disagreement are the fee increases and the reduction in procedural safeguards for regulation-making. Boat owners, dealers, and title applicants may object to higher registration, licensing, and titling costs, while some stakeholders may be concerned that removing the newspaper advertising and public hearing requirement reduces public input. There may also be concern about giving the Department authority to change speed zones or restricted areas by public notice, especially in areas where boating access or local notice is important. Supporters, by contrast, would likely emphasize safety, administrative efficiency, and improved funding for boating infrastructure and waterway projects.