Tennessee House Bill HB0500

Tennessee 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 1/29/25
• Refer: 2/5/25

Caption

AN ACT to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 68, Chapter 102, Part 6; Title 69 and Title 70, relative to activities on the waters.

Summary

HB0500 amends Tennessee’s water-activity laws to prohibit certain conduct at public access areas, launching areas, docks, boats, and marinas. The bill makes it a violation for a person to engage in an activity, including fishing, that blocks or delays the use of a public access or launching area beyond the time normally needed to launch or retrieve recreational boats. It also prohibits swimming, fishing, or other activities that interfere with the intended use of a dock or that damage a dock, boat, or marina. The bill is framed as an enforcement measure tied to existing penalties under Tennessee Code Annotated § 69-9-219 and is scheduled to take effect July 1, 2025.

Impact

The bill would add a new subsection to Tennessee Code Annotated § 69-9-216, expanding the state’s regulation of conduct on waterways and at boating facilities. It would give authorities a clearer statutory basis to address obstruction of boat ramps and interference with docks, marinas, and vessels, affecting recreational users, anglers, swimmers, marina operators, and boat owners.

Sentiment

No committee transcripts or recorded votes were provided, so there is no direct evidence of debate or partisan sentiment in the available record. Based on the text alone, the bill appears aimed at protecting access and safety at boating facilities, suggesting a generally regulatory and public-welfare-oriented purpose rather than a controversial policy shift.

Contention

The main potential point of contention is the scope of prohibited conduct, especially the inclusion of fishing, swimming, and other activities that may be viewed as ordinary recreational uses of public waters. Supporters would likely emphasize preventing obstruction, protecting docks and marinas, and ensuring safe access for boaters, while critics could argue the language is broad or could be used to limit public access and traditional water recreation. No specific stakeholders or objections are documented in the provided materials.