HB103 creates a new chapter in Title 30 of the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes to address at-risk, derelict, and abandoned boats. It defines those categories of boats, including vessels that are sunk, partially sunk, grounded, inoperable, taking on water, unsecured during extreme weather, or left unattended without valid registration. The bill establishes a process for municipalities and law enforcement agencies, working with the Fish and Boat Commission, to identify such boats, notify the commission, and attempt to notify the owner by certified mail, in person, direct electronic means, or public electronic notice if the owner cannot be identified.
After notice, the owner generally has 14 days to remove, repair, salvage, securely store, or junk the boat, or to make alternate arrangements. If the owner does not act, the boat may be removed, stored, or junked at the owner’s expense. The bill also authorizes municipalities, law enforcement agencies, or the commission to recover costs associated with removal, storage, or disposal, and it provides immunity from property-damage claims for persons involved in the identification, notice, recovery, or storage process. The Fish and Boat Commission is directed to create and post notice forms and may adopt regulations, including rules on transfer of ownership or interest in these boats.
The bill amends state law by adding Chapter 57 to Title 30 and by creating new enforcement and penalty provisions. It sets escalating penalties for violations of the chapter, starting with summary offenses and fines of $500 for a first offense and $1,000 for a second offense, and rising to a third-degree misdemeanor for a third or subsequent offense. It also clarifies that the chapter does not supersede existing nuisance laws or local nuisance enforcement tools, meaning municipalities retain other remedies. The act takes effect 180 days after enactment.
The overall sentiment around the bill appears strongly favorable and largely noncontroversial. Committee and floor votes were overwhelmingly in favor at each stage, including unanimous or near-unanimous committee action and broad bipartisan support on final passage in both chambers. The House final concurrence vote was 201-2, indicating only minimal opposition.
The main points of contention appear to have been limited to the details of implementation rather than the policy itself. The amendments and substitute language suggest lawmakers refined notice procedures, timelines, definitions, and penalty thresholds, including how owners are contacted and when criminal penalties apply. Any concerns likely centered on due process, enforcement burden on municipalities, and the balance between public safety, environmental cleanup, and property-owner rights, but the voting record shows those concerns did not generate substantial opposition.
HB103 adds a new statutory framework in Title 30 governing the identification, notice, removal, storage, disposal, and penalty enforcement for at-risk, derelict, and abandoned boats. It gives municipalities, law enforcement agencies, and the Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission explicit authority to act on these vessels, creates owner-notice requirements and deadlines, authorizes cost recovery, and establishes civil and criminal penalties for noncompliance. The bill also preserves existing nuisance enforcement authority and allows the commission to issue implementing regulations and forms.
The bill was received positively throughout the legislative process, with unanimous or near-unanimous committee votes and very strong bipartisan support on the floor. Final passage votes in both chambers were decisive, and the House concurrence vote was especially lopsided, suggesting broad agreement that the bill addresses a practical public-safety and environmental issue. There is no evidence in the available record of organized opposition or significant controversy.
The bill’s only notable contention appears to have involved the mechanics of enforcement: how quickly owners must be notified, what forms of notice are sufficient, how abandoned status is determined, and when a violation rises to a misdemeanor. The amendments also refined definitions and timelines, indicating attention to due process and administrative feasibility. Any concerns likely came from balancing cleanup authority and penalties against owner rights and the burden on local governments, but the recorded votes show these issues were largely resolved in favor of the bill.