Free Spill Response Communication Workshops - For Clubs & Marinas

Featuring new real life spill case studies: lessons learned and best practices

May 2 and June 19

The California Department of Fish and Wildlife Office of Spill Prevention and Response, the California State Parks Division of Boating and Waterways and the California Coastal Commission are inviting all the marinas and yacht clubs to participate in the FREE 2025 workshops. From the team:

Join us in one of these statewide important workshops! All facilities are encouraged to participate because you deal with motorized vessels.

The California Department of Fish and Wildlife Office of Spill Prevention and Response, the California State Parks Division of Boating and Waterways and the California Coastal Commission are inviting all the marinas and yacht clubs to participate in the FREE 2025 workshops. Join us in one of these statewide important workshops! All facilities are encouraged to participate because you deal with motorized vessels.

LEARN ABOUT

• California’s Oil Spill Response Structure
• California’s Marinas and Yacht Clubs Spill Response Communication Packet
• NEW Real Life Spill Case Studies: Lessons Learned and Best Practices
• Oil Spill Response Resources for Boating Facilities

REGISTRATION

Friday, May 2nd, 2025 (9:45 am to 12:45 pm) virtual workshop

Register here to register

Thursday, June 19th, 2025 (9:45 am to 12:45 pm) in-person and online workshop

Attend in-Person: Encinal Yacht Club (1251 Pacific Marina, Alameda, CA 94501)
Free parking available at the facility
To attend in-person you must register at Vivian.Matuk@coastal.ca.gov
To attend virtually register here

What We're Working On - A Brief Update on Key Boating Issues

Here’s a quick update on some of the key issues RBOC’s is working on:

• Engaging with the various state and regional agencies as they take action to prevent the infestation of water bodies by the golden mussel, often imposing restrictions and prohibitions on all on-the-water activities.

• Advocating for legislation establishing an extended producer responsibility program for pyrotechnic marine flares to acknowledge that there is only one manufacturer and so that the take-back requirements are structured to ensure that the costs of implementation do not place an unreasonable burden on boaters.

• Opposing the Delta Conveyance Project that, as revised to one tunnel, would still significantly impede navigation and harm Delta recreation.

• Advocating for updates and efficiencies to state programs financed by boat registration fees to ensure they provide positive benefits to boaters and share costs with other stakeholders where appropriate – prior to an increase in boat registration fees.

• Supporting legislation to review the effectiveness of low-leach-rate paint and elevated copper concentrations in saltwater harbors, bays, and marinas that are primarily a result of the use of copper-based antifouling paint, and to determine the best methods to address elevated copper concentrations in saltwater harbors, bays, and marinas that are primarily a result of the use of this paint in the state.

• Requesting that the Outdoor Recreation for All [30x30] program identify the values of, and prioritize on-the-water opportunities within its initiatives. Clear confirmation should also be provided that the significant areas of water that have been protected over the years, including the marine life protected areas [MLPAs] count towards the 30% preservation goal.

• Raising concerns that the state’s authorization of E15 fuel will raise prices on E10 gasoline, will restrict the availability of that fuel, and will inevitably ruin many boat engines.

California's Golden Mussel Response Framework Recommendations Impact Boating

Framework includes numerous recommendations specific to recreational boating.

RBOC and the recreational boating industry are reaching out together to the Department of Fish and Wildlife as the lead agency to initiate a dialogue on boating-specific recommendations set forth in the Golden Mussel Response Framework that has just been released.

The framework was developed to “provide recommendations to state and local policy makers, managers, and the public on how to respond to the recent detections of golden mussel through a common framework across agencies and jurisdictions. In many instances the recommendations are intended to provide options, with some applying more to a statewide response, while others may be more appropriate on a local scale. Some of the recommendations are already being implemented, while others may need additional effort, legal authority, and resources to fully implement. “

The framework considers partner engagement and coordination as a critical component in the prevention effort.

Specific to recreational boating, the recommendations include:

• Maintaining a list of waterbodies to inform boaters about their watercraft inspection program (Watercraft Inspections in California and Vessel Restrictions)

• Establishing prevention programs at all accessible, private and public, uninfested waters (not just reservoirs open to the public for recreation).

• Promote adoption of the Watercraft Inspection and Decontamination Database by all agencies that control or otherwise manage watercraft access • Set statewide standards on watercraft inspection programs.

• Set statewide standards for watercraft banding programs.

• Work with water managers to build reciprocal inspection/decontamination programs.

• Promote mandatory watercraft inspection and decontamination (if watercraft is not Clean, Drain, Dry).

• Promote mandatory inspection of equipment prior to being put in water (if equipment is not Clean, Drain, Dry).

• Implement education and outreach strategies (Objective 2. Education and Outreach Plan).

• Update existing dreissenid Prevention Plan Guidance Document to include golden mussel.

• Utilize K9 scent detection in inspection programs.

• Encourage fishing contest tournament organizers to institute measures to prevent participants from spreading invasive mussels.

• Implement education and outreach strategies (Objective 2. Education and Outreach Plan).

• Enhance inspection hours of operation at CDFA Border Protection Stations and consider inspection of outgoing moored vessels. 

• Evaluate options for in-water hull cleaning of recreational watercraft.

• Evaluate anti-biofouling coatings for recreational watercraft, submerged intakes, pumps, fish screens, etc.

• The California State Legislature could amend the law to include golden mussel or, alternatively, more clearly define the word mussel for purposes of fund expenditure. Additionally, consideration should be given to allow these funds to be used in waterbodies already infested to help prevent the spread.

• Upon authorization and amendments to HNC Sections 675-676, State Parks could revise the regulations to add golden mussel to be included with the Mussel Fee.

• Upon authorization and amendments to HNC Sections 675-676, State Parks could revise the regulations to add golden mussel infestation prevention work to be included in QZ Grant Program awards.

• Upon authorization and amendments to FGC 2301 and 2302, CDFW could amend this section to include golden mussel allowing water operators and reservoir managers to continue to operate under the approval of a control plan and prevention plan. Strong consideration should be given to ensuring that control and prevention plans include feasible mitigation measures.

• Upon authorization and amendments to FGC 2301, CDFW could amend this section to require watercraft and equipment leaving mussel-infested waters to be decontaminated.

• Under existing FGC Section 2301, establish a regulation requiring mandatory removal of conveyance drain plugs when not in water.

• The CSLC could amend ballast water management regulations to strengthen existing performance standards by adding an exchange requirement to more effectively kill fresh or brackish water organisms (e.g., the CSLC could add a mid-ocean ballast exchange requirement).    Action - The CSLC is targeting Spring of 2025 to amend these regulations via emergency rulemaking, to be followed by permanent rulemaking.

• Statewide General National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit for Residual Pesticide Discharges to Waters of the United States from Aquatic Animal Invasive Species Control.

• SWRCB should work with water operators and managers to expedite, to the extent possible, the issuance of Aquatic Animal Invasive Species Control Permits to help control and contain golden mussels.

• Utilization of the Mussel Fee Sticker (aka quagga/zebra mussel sticker) revenue.

• Create an out-of-state boater fee for vessels not registered in California.

Registrations Open for 2025 California Boating Congress

RBOC Co-hosting May 27-28 event in Sacramento

The annual California Boating Congress, a two-day policy conference focused on legislative and regulatory impacts on marine, boating, waterway, and recreation industries, is scheduled for May 27-28, 2025 in Sacramento, California.  The conference is steps away from California’s State Capitol and will feature lawmakers, policymakers, and statewide elected officials who will share their views on issues facing marinas, boating, and water recreation.

“The impact of the California Boating Congress goes beyond sharing two-days in Sacramento advocating for our respective industries,” said Arron Pellarin, president of the Marine Recreation Association, a co-host of the event. “Our work in and around the State Capitol is an industry-unified voice to make real impact on legislation and regulations that will negatively impact our businesses.  The CBC is the foundation of that work.”

The CBC kicks-off on the afternoon of Tuesday, May 27 with policy sessions and networking opportunities for attendees.  On Wednesday, May 28, attendees will hear from state legislators and top regulators on issues such as abandoned vessels, challenges with securing insurance for marinas and vessels, California Air Resources Board regulations, and an economic outlook for the state’s marine and waterways industry.

Our industry’s voice is needed now more than ever in California.  Join us for the California Boating Congress to help shape legislation and regulations that are facing you and your business.

RBOC & BoatUS urging revisions to new marine flare extended producer responsibility proposal

SB 561 [Blakespear] of 2025 is a new version of previous year’s SB 1066

RBOC and our national advocacy partner BoatU.S. are urging that amendments be made to SB 561 [Blakespear], legislation that would establish an extended producer responsibility [EPR] requirement for pyrotechnic marine flares, to incorporate an alternative product collection program such as the proposal by Orion Safety Products. 

Recreational boaters care both about responsible environmental stewardship of the waterways, as well as boater safety on the water.  We look forward to the development of more feasible paths for replacement of chemical flares and being able to support a future version of this initiative.  

RBOC notes the good-faith engagement that was made by Senator Blakespear and her office, Orion Safety Products, National Stewardship Council, Zero Waste Sonoma and other stakeholders during 2024 to understand the objectives of last year’s SB 1066, its implementation, impacts and costs. However,... with widely varying estimates of disposal cost and impact, no clarity about substitute safety measures, or the disposition of similar but much larger commercial flares, and no phase-in period or plan for support ... RBOC was not able to support SB 1066 as it was presented to the Governor for his consideration. The organization did not, however, request the Governor’s veto of the measure.

The organization remains informed by the recreational boating community’s experiences with state and local efforts to facilitate and encourage boaters to voluntarily turn in their marine flares through the past several years, especially thought the California Boating Clean and Green Campaign.

Boaters place a high priority on the importance of marine flares as a mandatory and essential public safety feature. Visual distress signals are an essential part of the safety equipment of a recreational vessel and are required by federal regulations. Alternatives to pyrotechnic flares including electronic beacons are not as effective, especially during daytime hours.

The dialogue to-date has focused on a statewide EPR program as the solution to end-of-life management of marine flares to address the toxic metals and potential pollutants. Effective and affordable alternatives to a full-blown extended producer responsibility requirement can address the specific nature of marine flares, their components, and their ultimate disposal or destruction.

So far as we are aware, Orion is the sole producer of pyrotechnic flares for recreational boaters. The absence of a robust, competitive business environment is likely to lead to the new state and industry costs imposed by an EPR requirement being passed on to and borne by the recreational boaters.  A significant cost impact on individual boaters could become a disincentive to purchases.

It is our recollection that Orion previously proposed a one year "test program" in which it would participate in pyrotechnic marine flare collection events in California by packaging and arranging for the transportation of all returned "Orion" branded marine flares back to its Indiana manufacturing and distribution facility with all such costs covered by Orion.

This test program would address a number of critical issues that RBOC and others identified as SB 1066 progressed through the legislative process last year. It would:

• Resolve any backlog inventory of outdated pyrotechnic marine flares that are in the possession of boaters.

• Enable all stakeholders to obtain additional information and data that will lead to the development of realistic, reasonable and affordable approaches for the end-of-life management of pyrotechnic marine flares.

• Identify the challenges and opportunities for pyrotechnic marine flares to be transported, managed, re-used, recycled, and destroyed or disposed.

• Accomplish these objectives with no additional state or local government expense.

• Avoid the imposition of significant cost increases in a noncompetitive marketplace to be borne by the many recreational boaters who rely upon pyrotechnic marine flares as the most effective visual distress signal.

RBOC will continue to be engaged on SB 561 as the measure moves forward, as the organization is quite concerned that the current version of SB 561 does not resolve the issues the organization articulated with SB 1066.  

RBOC urges creative and effective alternatives such as the test program Orion offered in 2024 as an alternative to the imposition of a boilerplate EPR requirement. The organization would also engage in its implementation of this program as an opportunity to advance environmental stewardship of the state’s waterways in a manner that is tailored to this product and mindful of the importance of boater safety on those waterways.

RBOC Supporting Legislation to Address Copper-Based Antifouling Paint Concerns

RBOC is supporting AB 773 [Dixon], legislation that would suspend enforcement of regulations relating to copper-based antifouling paint until a determination is made of the best methods to regulate the use of copper-based antifouling paint within the state.

Copper-based anti-fouling surfaces are important to boating. From recreational boats in the water for a season to commercial ships that are in the water year-round, antifouling paint on the underwater part of the boat is fundamental to the proper maintenance and performance of almost all watercraft. The uncontrolled growth of marine organisms on boats significantly degrades performance, increases fuel consumption, contributes to the spread of aquatic invasive species and can even lead to a vessel sinking in extreme cases.

Boaters are doing their part to address the presence of copper in impaired water bodies in California. They are buying and using low-leach-rate copper-based antifouling paint approved by the Department of Pesticide Regulation in an attempt to reduce the amount of dissolved copper that is discharged into impaired water bodies.

Boaters have also been participating in studies to identify potential alternatives. To date, however, there is no replacement that is available, effective and affordable.

RBOC supports the provisions of AB 773 that would suspend enforcement of the regulations relating to copper-based antifouling paint until:

• The completion and release any active studies related to the effectiveness of low-leach-rate paint before adopting any new regulations relating to copper-based antifouling paint or low-leach-rate paint.

• The determination of the best methods to regulate the use of copper-based antifouling paint within the state.

• A collaborative agreement on guidelines that provide for the uniform enforcement of the copper-based antifouling paint regulations throughout the state.

RBOC Directors Advocate Key 2025 Boating Issues with Policy Makers in Sacramento

RBOC’s voluntary Board of Directors, together with their national advocacy partner BoatUS, spent the day on March 18 visiting with their elected representatives in the State Legislature as well as the Senators and Assembly Members authoring legislation impacting recreational boating including:

• Copper-based Anti-fouling Surfaces

• E15 Threat to Boat Engines

• Marine Flares - Extended Producer Responsibility

• Inventory of Abandoned Vessels

• Sacramento -San Joaquin Delta Conveyance

• State Division of Boating & Waterways Deficit

• Boat Slip Rates

• Outdoor Recreation for all [30x30]

For more information on these issues and RBOC’s positions: click here

RBOC opposing E15 authorization legislation unless adequate supply of E10 for boats is ensured

RBOC is opposing AB 30 [Alvarez] unless the measure is amended to ensure the availability of an adequate supply of E10 gasoline as required for motorized recreational vessels in California.

 As RBOC has shared with the office of Assembly Member Alvarez as the author of AB 30:

1.       The engines in motorized recreational vessels require E10 fuel.

2.       The USEPA prohibits the use of E15 gasoline in recreational vessel engines.

3.       E15 fuel ruins the recreational vessel engines and voids the manufacturers’ warranties.

4.       The enactment of AB 30 will reduce the availability of E10 gasoline and increase its price.

5.       Requirements in other states to require labeling at the pump have not been an effective solution.

We look forward to further engagement to address and resolve these concerns. At this time, RBOC is opposed to AB 30 unless it is amended to ensure the availability of an adequate supply of E10 gasoline as required for motorized recreational vessels in California.

RBOC Supporting California Update to PFD Regulations

RBOC today submitted formal comments to the Division of Boating and Waterways in State Parks, supporting the adoption of proposed amendments to the personal flotation device [PFD] provisions in the California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Division 4, Chapter 1 (CCR) Sections 6656.2, 6656.4, 6565.5, 6565.6, and 6565.7.

RBOC supports the objective of the amendments to:

1. Remove references to type codes found on PFDs which in turn will facilitate future incorporation by reference of new industry consensus standards for PFD labeling that more effectively convey safety information to boaters and is a step toward harmonization of USCG regulations with PFD requirements in Canada and in other countries. These regulatory changes will align CCR with federal statute and provide consistency throughout the state on use of PFD terminology. 

2. Move the requirements found in Title 14 CCR 6567.7 (a) to section 6565.5 to ensure boaters understand what “readily accessible” means if they are over 13 years of age and choose not to wear a PFD, and to more clearly define what “readily accessible” means. 

3. Add definitions of “personal flotation device” and “wearable PFD” consistent with 33CFR Subpart B—Personal Flotation Devices § 175.13 to ensure regulatory language found in CCR is consistent throughout the state on use of PFD terminology.

RBOC Directors to Lobby Boating Issues in Sacramento on March 18

Members of RBOC’s voluntary board of directors will be in Sacramento on March 18 to lobby in the State Capitol on the key 2025 issues impacting California boaters.

Members of the RBOC Board of Directors take a pause during the organization’s 2024 Legislative Day in Sacramento.

Legislation has been introduced to assist boaters who have applied low-leach-rate copper-based anti-fouling paints to their boat hulls, to require the manufacturer of pyrotechnic marine flares to create a take-back program for expired flares, to accelerate the state approval of E15 gasoline; to inventory abandoned and derelict vessels in the Sacramento - San Joaquin Delta, and more.

Also top of mind for the meetings and discussions with policy-makers: the structural deficit in the Harbors and Watercraft Revolving Fund, the Delta Conveyance, increasing boat slip rates, the Outdoor Recreation for All initiative, and offshore wind energy development.

Save the Date - California Boating Congress May 27 & 28

Boaters are welcomed and encouraged to attend this year’s California Boating Congress together with RBOC, BoatUS and several boating industry organizations in Sacramento on May 27 & 28. More details will be announced soon!

RBOC Urging Governor to Incorporate Boating Community Input into the Budget

As preparations are made for the January release of your proposed state budget for fiscal year 2025-2026, RBOC together with several other organizations collectively representing California’s boaters and boating industry are urging Governor Newsom and legislative leaders to consider and include the recommendations that were developed by the Division of Boating and Waterways [DBW] in State Parks through a comprehensive stakeholder engagement process.

In addition to RBOC, groups joining in the request include our national advocacy partner BoatUS, California Marine Affairs and Navigation Conference, Coastal Conservation Association of California, Marine Recreation Association, National Marine Manufacturers Association, Pacific Inter-Club Yacht Association, and Southern California Yachting Association.

DBW created three ad hoc subcommittees in November 2021 on Revenue Generation, Program Development and Alternative Funding Sources, each chaired by a Boating and Waterways Commission member, staffed by DBW, with stakeholder participation. Each met several times through 2022 and developed recommendations that were submitted to DBW and State Parks on November 17, 2022. The stakeholders participated in a two-year effort and submitted our joint recommendations in writing during this process.

The key expectation was that adoption of the recommendations would reduce costs and increase revenues, thereby reducing or eliminating any increase in the boater registration fees. In January of 2021 the proposal was to raise the fees from $20 to $70 every 2 years. Subsequent proposals called for even more of an increase, from $20 to $80 every 2 years.

We remain concerned that the stakeholder engagement has not continued, that the submitted recommendations have not been implemented, that the projected structural deficit in the Harbors and Watercraft Revolving Fund will remain, and that a proposed Administration solution will be a significant boat registration fee increase that is not supported by the boating community.   

The net effect would be the creation of a financial barrier to healthy on-the-water opportunities for the average California boat owner, whose boat is under 25 feet in length, and even more so for individuals in disadvantaged communities or on fixed incomes.

The average boat owner in California has an income of less than $70,000 per year, among those who are least able to afford the significant 300% increases in their registration fees.  In California, the state collects use/sales tax on the purchase of a boat and annual unsecured property tax on the boat. A significant registration fee increase will essentially make boating an activity that the average Californian family cannot afford.

The number of registered vessels in California has already been decreasing. Several years ago, California ranked third in the number of registered boats by state, today the state is fifth. Local assessors have been drastically increasing the assessed value of vessels for local property tax purposes, regardless of their age. Boaters are being required to spend more money on less effective hull paints.

The hardship of quadrupling fees coupled with severely increased fuel costs would also decrease tax revenue from boaters that fuel boats and the vehicles that tow them off the water, impact on the water or walkable restaurants accessed by boats, shopping by boaters who buy boating and camping equipment, and pay for repairs. This is in addition to the day use and launch ramp fees boaters pay at State Parks. Our communities would pay less fees for fishing and hunting, and fewer launches would decrease launch fees collected and place more hardships on marina owners. 

For these reasons, we reaffirm our support for the attached recommendations that were submitted by the three subcommittees on Alternative Funding, Revenue Generation and Program Development.

RBOC Urges that Ethanol-Free Sustainable Fuel Be Available for Boaters

RBOC is pointing out the potential negative ramifications for recreational boaters and urging the availability of ethanol-free sustainable fuel for boaters as the State Legislature considers legislation in the Second Extraordinary Session aimed at accelerating and increasing access to ethanol-based fuels in the California marketplace.

ABX2-9 [Petrie-Norris] is one of the measures that has been introduced in the special session that Governor announced on August 31 “to address the pernicious problem of gasoline price spikes at the pump — and save Californians hundreds of millions of dollars annually.”

The bill would:

• Require the California Air Resources Board (CARB) to complete its multimedia evaluation of gasoline containing up to 15% ethanol (E15) by July 1, 2025.

• Require the California Energy Commission (CEC) to report to the Legislature by July 1, 2025, on specified potential solutions to increase the supply of gasoline identified by the 2024 CEC Transportation Fuels Assessment.

Together with our national partners BoatUS, the National Marine Manufacturers Association, American Sportfishing Association, Marine Recreation Association and other like-minded groups, RBOC appreciates the work to tackle increased fuel prices. As the Legislature considers ABX2-9, it is important to note the potential ramifications if fuels containing increased amounts of ethanol, especially E15, enter the California market.

Close to 627,000 registered boats in California could be placed at risk due to the shortcomings and destructive nature of E15 fuel. As has occurred in other states allowing the use of E15, mislabeling at fuel pumps is a common occurrence due to few consumer education and protection measures – which leads consumers to unknowingly use incompatible fuels and destroy their products.

As the Legislature considers alternative fuel initiatives and programs, RBOC is therefore encouraging the state to make available ethanol-free sustainable marine fuels to boaters, which provide an innovative solution to protect California boaters and an immediate carbon emissions reduction from existing boat propulsion systems.

Governor's 30x30 Update: 16.2% of coastal waters conserved and 500,000 more acres to go

RBOC is closely following developments to conserve California’s waters to ensure that previous achievements are taken into account and that on-the-water recreational opportunities will be recognized and enhanced.

Most recently, Governor Newsom announced on September 9 that California has officially conserved more than 25% of its land on its march to achieving its ambitious conservation goals with the release of the 2024 Annual Progress Report for the 30×30 Initiative – California’s commitment to conserve 30% of state lands and coastal waters by the year 2030.

A stated by the Governor, “The report shows that California is making significant progress toward this goal, with the state now having conserved 25.2% of its lands and 16.2% of its coastal waters.”

The report also states that there is more work to be done including coastal waters conservation:

“Looking forward, the 30x30 movement must conserve an additional 4.8 million acres on land and 500,000 acres of coastal waters to meet our commitment. This is no small task. With fewer than six years until 2030, achieving it will require all of us to work together in an unprecedented way to meet our goal.”

“California’s marine protected area (MPA) network already conserves 16.2% of our coastal waters, and OPC is spearheading the effort to conserve an additional 13.8% of coastal waters by 2030. This will include adaptively managing the MPA network; strengthening biodiversity protections in California’s National Marine Sanctuaries; exploring the role of area-based biodiversity conservation tools beyond MPAs and sanctuaries (such as water quality protected areas or fisheries management measures in specific areas); and supporting tribally led conservation, including through the designation and co-stewardship of Indigenous Marine Stewardship Areas.

“In June, OPC released a draft decision-making framework for evaluating candidate 30x30 Conservation Areas in coastal waters that builds upon internationally recognized, science-based guidance and sets an ambitious standard for marine protections. Simultaneously, it recognizes that biodiversity conservation and sustainable, well-managed use of marine ecosystems are not mutually exclusive. OPC is conducting robust public engagement and tribal consultation on the draft framework throughout the summer of 2024. The goal is to have it finalized and make initial determinations about areas beyond MPAs that may count toward 30x30 by the end of the year. In the future, the framework will help identify potential new conservation measures to address major threats to biodiversity in coastal waters. These measures would then be designed and implemented in partnership with tribes, coastal communities, conservation organizations, and commercial users.

“Additionally, following the first-ever science-based review completed last year, the California Fish and Game Commission (CFGC), in close partnership with CDFW and OPC, has begun considering community-driven petitions for changes to the MPA network. In parallel, OPC initiated early consultation with California Native American tribes to explore the concept of Indigenous Marine Stewardship Areas and develop a pathway for their designation and costewardship. Last year, as sovereign nations, the Resighini Tribe of Yurok People (now the Pulikla Tribe of Yurok People), Tolowa Dee-ni’ Nation, and Cher-Ae Heights Indian Community of the Trinidad Rancheria designated the first-ever Indigenous Marine Stewardship Area in the U.S. along the North Coast. This is a critical step in restoring Traditional Ecological Knowledge and management practices that sustained the area’s natural abundance before colonial disruption. The state is in the early stages of developing policies to support this concept, and OPC is working in partnership with these three tribes on next steps to align state and tribal priorities.

“Combined, these efforts will identify opportunities for California to build partnerships, strengthen biodiversity protections, and conserve an additional 500,000 acres of coastal waters in the coming years.”

RBOC Supports Test Program for Pyrotechnic Marine Flare end-of-life management

Recreational Boaters of California [RBOC] and our national advocacy partner BoatU.S. are requesting that amendments be made to SB 1066 [Blakespear], legislation that would establish an extended producer responsibility [EPR] requirement for pyrotechnic marine flares, to incorporate the alternative test program proposal by Orion Safety Products.

Orion is proposing a one year "test program" in which it would participate in pyrotechnic marine flare collection events in California during 2024 and the first six months of 2025 by packaging and arranging for the transportation of all returned "Orion" branded marine flares back to its Indiana manufacturing and distribution facility with all such costs covered by Orion.

This test program would address a number of critical issues that RBOC and others have identified as SB 1066 has progressed through the legislative process. It would:

• Resolve any backlog inventory of outdated pyrotechnic marine flares that are in the possession of boaters.

• Enable all stakeholders to obtain additional information and data that will lead to the development of realistic, reasonable and affordable approaches for the end-of-life management of pyrotechnic marine flares.

• Identify the challenges and opportunities for pyrotechnic marine flares to be transported, managed, re-used, recycled, and destroyed or disposed.

• Accomplish these objectives with no additional state or local government expense.

• Avoid the imposition of significant cost increases in a noncompetitive marketplace to be borne by the many recreational boaters who rely upon pyrotechnic marine flares as the most effective visual distress signal.

RBOC would support SB 1066 if it were to be amended to provide for this test program as an alternative to the imposition of a boilerplate extended producer responsibility requirement.

We would also engage in its implementation as an opportunity to advance environmental stewardship of the state’s waterways in a manner that is tailored to this product and mindful of the importance of boater safety on those waterways.

RBOC emphasizes boater safety as extended producer responsibility is considered for marine flares

RBOC has updated our position on SB 1066 [Blakespear], legislation that would establish an extended producer responsibility [EPR] requirement for marine flares.

This update is informed by the conversations that have been held among the stakeholders, the amendments having been made to the bill on April 18, and the placement of the measure onto suspense in yesterday’s hearing of the Senate Appropriations Committee.

RBOC notes the good-faith engagement that is being made by Senator Blakespear, Orion Safety Products, National Stewardship Council, Zero Waste Sonoma and other stakeholders to understand the objectives of the legislation, its implementation, impacts and costs.

We are also informed by the recreational boating community’s experiences with state and local efforts to facilitate and encourage boaters to voluntarily turn in their marine flares through the past several years, especially thought the California Boating Clean and Green Campaign that receives the financial support of boater fees and taxes.

Boaters place a high priority on the importance of marine flares as a mandatory and essential public safety feature. Visual distress signals are an essential part of the safety equipment of a recreational vessel and are required by federal regulations. Alternatives to pyrotechnic flares including electronic beacons are not as effective, especially during daytime hours.

It therefore remains critical that legislation not have the unintended impact of causing boaters to decide not to purchase incendiary flares. A significant cost increase could have this effect.   The Senate Appropriations Committee analysis identifies a very significant cost:

“Unknown but significant ongoing costs, potentially up to $1 million annually (special fund) for DTSC to develop and administer the marine flare program. DTSC notes that the magnitude of this bill is currently unknown, but the department anticipates it would require additional staff and up to $1 million in permanent and ongoing funding to sufficiently implement this bill as currently written.” 

This is in addition to the costs to the producer to comply with the legislation by registering with a product responsibility organization (PRO), which would be required to develop and implement a producer responsibility plan for the collection, transportation, and the safe and proper management of covered products. The Senate Appropriations Committee analysis identifies a very significant cost here as well:

“According to the Division, it costs approximately $7 to $50 per flare to be properly disposed of at an out-of-state permitted facility. However, Zero Waste Sonoma, in 2023, states it cost an estimated $185 to properly dispose of one unwanted marine flare, when partnering with nearby jurisdictions to help share the cost of transportation.”

 So far as we are aware, Orion is the sole producer of pyrotechnic flares for recreational boaters. The absence of a robust, competitive business environment is likely to lead to the new state and industry costs imposed by SB 1066 being passed on to and borne by the recreational boaters.  A significant cost impact on individual boaters could become a disincentive to purchases.

 The dialogue to-date has focused on a statewide EPR program as the solution to end-of-life management of marine flares to address the toxic metals and potential pollutants. Consideration has not yet been given to exploring the possibility of effective and affordable alternatives that address the specific nature of marine flares, their components, and their ultimate disposal or destruction. This could be helpful.

 RBOC will continue to be engaged on SB 1066.  Recreational boaters care both about responsible environmental stewardship of the waterways, as well as boater safety on the water.  We look forward to the development of more feasible paths for replacement of chemical flares and being able to support a future version of this initiative.  

 However, at this time ... with widely varying estimates of disposal cost and impact, no clarity about substitute safety measures, or the disposition of similar but much larger commercial flares, and no phase-in period or plan for support ... RBOC continues to view SB 1066 as premature and in need of further study, development and refinement before it is enacted. 

RBOC Advocates for Legislation to Allow Existing Floats to be Maintained

RBOC testified in today’s Assembly Environmental Safety and Toxic Materials Committee, advocating for the author and committee to revise legislation so that existing floats can be maintained without triggering a requirement that they be replaced with new floats with fully enclosed plastic foam.

RBOC will continue its engagement with Assembly Member Laura Friedman [D-Burbank] and the proponents of AB 2916 as the measure moves forward and has informed the author that it will oppose the legislation if this issue is not resolved.

As stated in the committee’s analysis of AB 2916:

“Since the intent of AB 2916 is to prevent the release of EPS or other plastic foam to the waters, the current language is requiring existing overwater structures, block or float to be in compliance at the time that existing structures are "repaired or maintained."  Other legislation outside the state, for example the State of Washington, provides the following statement:  "Nothing in this section applies to any dock sold, distributed or installed prior to January 1, 2024" (date when the law went in effect).  The language of the State of Washington is referred to as a 'grandfather clause.'  This clause addresses the concerns of stakeholders with regards to costly labor that would be required in order to make changes to existing overwater structure, blocks or floats.  Furthermore, the current language uses the word "maintenance" which has broad implications.  As this bill moves through the legislative process, the author may wish to consider conversations with stakeholders to further clarify if or when the bill applies to existing structures.”

RBOC advocate Jerry Desmond [far right] testifying on AB 2916 in the Assembly Environmental Safety and Toxic Materials Committee on April 23.

RBOC Requesting Resolution of Key Concerns with Marine Flare Legislation

SB 1066 [Blakespear] would establish an extended producer responsibility requirement for marine flares.

RBOC appreciates the conversations we have had to-date with Senator Blakespear and the proponents regarding the provisions and objectives of SB 1066 that would establish an extended producer responsibility requirement for marine flares.

The recreational boating community has been engaged in the state’s efforts to facilitate and encourage boaters to voluntarily turn in their marine flares through the past several years with the California Boating Clean and Green Campaign that receives the financial support of boater fees and taxes.

With SB 1066 scheduled to be heard in the Senate Committee on Environmental Quality on April 3, RBOC has re-confirmed the issues we have identified and their status with the author and committee:

That the bill not propose a ban marine flares.

• RBOC appreciates that the legislation does not propose a ban and that there is no plan to do so.

That there be an effort to work as collaboratively as possible with the marine flare manufacturers.

• It is our understanding that a dialogue has recently occurred, but that so far, that there is no collaboration at this time, and that the leading marine flare manufacturer is opposed to the measure.

That there be a recognition that marine flares are a mandatory and essential public safety feature.

• Visual distress signals are an essential part of the safety equipment of a recreational vessel and are required by federal regulations.

• SB 1066 does not recognize the essential safety function of marine flares. To the contrary, proposed Health and Safety Code Section 25000 states that the purpose of the Marine Flare Producer Responsibility Act of 2024 “is to provide for the safe and proper management of pyrotechnic marine flares, which pose significant threats to health and safety and may cause significant and costly damage to the environment when managed improperly.”

That there be an acknowledgement that alternatives are not effective during daytime hours.

• The reason flares are mandatory is that they may be the only way for a boater whose craft is disabled to be found by a rescue attempt. This is a health and safety issue itself. If a mayday call is made, the rescuer still must locate the craft; and often that search and rescue operation takes place over large fields of open water in the dark. Many of today's electronic beacons are barely visible in those conditions.

• The legislation is likely to cause boaters to turn to electronic alternatives due to the significant cost increases for traditional flares, even when they are ineffective. The legislation does not address this issue.

That the provisions avoid a significant cost impact on individual boaters that could become a disincentive to purchases.

• The legislation is more than likely to significantly increase the price recreational boaters pay for marine flares:

  • SB 1066 places a financial burden on marine flare producers to create a producer responsibility organization, as well as develop and implement plans for the collection, transportation, and the safe and proper management of the flares including the acceptance and management of all flares at the end of their useful life. We'd like to know more about those costs, but at this stage, it appears that burden might drive effective night flares completely out of the market.

  • Significant funding will also be required for the Department of Toxic Substances Control’s actual and reasonable regulatory costs, which include full personnel costs, the actual regulatory development costs and other startup costs incurred prior to plan submittal and approval.

  • The absence of a robust, competitive business environment is likely to lead to the new costs imposed by SB 1066 being borne by the recreational boaters.

For these reasons, RBOC has adopted an opposition position on the current version of SB 1066. We will remain engaged and look forward to additional discussions.

RBOC Lobbies California Legislators on Key 2024 Issues

Members of the RBOC Board of Directors met with their representatives in the State Legislature on March 12 to advocate the interests of the state’s recreational boaters on proposals ranging from boat fuel taxes and registration fees, outdoor on-the-water opportunities, marine flares, offshore wind energy, and polystyrene buoys, docks, and piers. This action-packed day is a key component of RBOC’s ongoing engagement in the State Capitol.

For RBOC’s Key Issue Update - click here

RBOC Officers and Directors “Hitting the Hill” in Sacramento

Governor Newsom has announced two appointments to the Boating and Waterways Commission

California Governor Gavin Newsom has announced one new appointment and one reappointment to the Boating and Waterways Commission. Following is the excerpt from his press release:

Maggie Hallahan, of San Francisco, has been appointed to the California Boating and Waterways Commission. Hallahan has been licensed by the United States Coast Guard as a Captain since 2017 and has been Chief Executive Officer of MHPV, a San Francisco LBE Company, since 1990. She has been a Photographer and Director since 1990 and a Motivational Speaker for the UN Commission on the Status of Women since 1991. She was a Photographer for the United Nations Population Fund from 1981 to 2012. This position requires Senate confirmation and the compensation is $100 per diem. Hallahan is a Democrat.

Katie Hawkins, of Truckee, has been reappointed to the California Boating and Waterways Commission, where she has served since 2020. Hawkins has been California Program Director for Outdoor Alliance since 2023. She was National Sales Manager for Marmot Mountain from 2013 to 2018. Hawkins was International Sales Manager for Black Diamond Equipment from 2008 to 2011. Hawkins is a member of the California Department of Natural Resources 30×30 Partnership Coordinating Committee. She earned a Bachelor of Arts degree in Business Administration from Washington State University and a Master of Business Administration degree from California State University, Sacramento. This position requires Senate confirmation and the compensation is $100 per diem. Hawkins is a Democrat.

The Boating and Waterways Commission is established in statute in the Harbors and Navigation Code and is charged with providing advice and comment to the Division of Boating and Waterways in State Parks on all matters within the jurisdiction of the division. The Commission also provides advice and comment on boating facilities loans and grants proposed by the Division. 

The Commission is composed of seven members appointed by the Governor and confirmed by the State Senate. Each commissioner's term runs for four years. State law specifies that in making appointments to the Commission, the Governor shall give primary consideration to the geographical location of the residences of members as related to boating activities and harbors. One member is required to be a private small craft harbor owner and operator, one member must belong to a recognized statewide organization representing recreational boaters, and one member must be an officer or employee of a local law enforcement agency responsible for enforcing boating laws.

RBOC appreciates the leadership role individual commissioners and the entire commission have demonstrated, especially on recent issues as the division endeavors to address the solvency of the Harbors and Watercraft Revolving Fund and to enhance access to boating opportunities.