RBOC & BoatUS Urge Orange County to Adopt Slip Rate Pricing Policy in New Dana Point Lease Agreements

In support of the engaged recreational boating community, Recreational Boaters of California [RBOC] and our national advocacy partner Boat Owners Association of the United States [BoatUS] are urging the Orange County Board of Supervisors to revise the proposed new Ground Lease agreements with Dana Point Harbor Partners, LLC [Commercial Core and Marina Component] to include the boat slip rate pricing policy as presented by Supervisor Foley at the June 23 meeting.

This would be accomplished by revising Attachment B, Master Ground Lease Commercial Core and Marina Component with DPHP, LLC, Section 11.9, to establish a slip rate stabilization policy for future slip rental rate increases after the July 1, 2026, adjustment, including the following requirements:

• Require any future slip rate increase to be submitted to the CEO Real Estate Office at least 90 days before the proposed effective date.

• Require each proposed slip rate increase to include a detailed marina slip survey of comparable Southern California marinas from Santa Barbara to San Diego, with emphasis on comparable publicly owned marinas.

• Limit annual slip rate increases to the cumulative change in the Consumer Price Index and cap any annual increase at 5 percent per slip size category, unless a fifth-year market adjustment applies.

• Beginning in 2030, allow a fifth-year market adjustment above cumulative CPI only when supported by a marina slip survey conducted by a credentialed appraiser.

• Require the fifth-year market survey to include comparable Southern California publicly owned marinas and prohibit reliance on a single harbor, such as Newport Beach.

• Cap any fifth-year market adjustment at 10 percent.

RBOC and BoatUS believe this policy will provide the recreational boating community with important and reasonable assurances on the manner in which potential slip rate increases will be managed during the next 66 years that the agreements will be in effect.

RBOC and BoatUS are advocating for boaters as golden mussel legislation moves forward without essential boating provisions

RBOC and our national advocacy partner BoatU.S. are advocating for the inclusion of essential boating provisions in legislation addressing golden mussels and is opposing the bill unless they are included to provide balance, accountability, focus and access.

We embrace the objectives of AB 1772 [Papan] to enhance the current efforts to prevent the infestation and spread of nonnative, invasive golden mussels into additional waterways and water delivery infrastructure. This is a challenging issue and we appreciate Assembly Member Papan’s engagement and leadership.

Our organizations have been engaged in a collaborative process as AB 1772 has moved through the Assembly as an acknowledged work in progress. For a previous update: click here

Today we received confirmation of the amendments the author will be making to the bill for consideration in the Senate Committee on Natural Resources and Water.

These amendments do not address several key issues that are critical to the recreational boating community and present concerns as well. The issues and concerns are of such significance that we have adopted a position in opposition to the measure unless it is amended to resolve them. We would support the bill if it were to be so amended.

It is important to recognize that the Department of Fish and Wildlife [DFW] is already engaged and is leading the effort to develop a uniform standard and procedures for decontaminating conveyances, even without the enactment of AB 1772. The legislation adds a comprehensive inspection and decontamination program and imposes an additional invasive mussel infestation prevention fee of $20 per nonmotorized vessel every 2 years.

Significantly, the measure as amended will not provide the balance, accountability, focus and access RBOC and BoatU.S. have consistently advocated. AB 1772 will not:

• Prevent the continued introduction of invasive species by commercial vessel ballast water and to impose responsibility and financial accountability on the responsible entities.

• Identify and implement alternative and equitable funding sources for prevention, control, and mitigation activities to respond to aquatic invasive species beyond fees imposed on the recreational boating community. This could be in the form of assessments on commercial activities, including on international cargo shipping operations that may impact the introduction of aquatic invasive species to California waters. Instead, the measure imposes a new fee on non-motorized boaters.

• Ensure reciprocity so that boaters can leave a body of water that is not infested to travel to another body of water and launch their boats. This should be authorized, for instance, when a boat is leaving a body of water that is not infested, or when a boat has been decontaminated upon departure.

• Provide for the anticipated future, post-infestation, when many water bodies are infested. The golden mussel that was first discovered in the U.S. in the Sacramento - San Joaquin Delta in 2024 has now been found as far south as the San Diego area. This could structured as reciprocity between the affected water bodies.

• Provide for a potential termination of the program, if the invasive species threat is removed, e.g., if testing shows no further state infestations for 12 months.

The proposed amendments raise new concerns as well:

• A vessel operator should have the ability to refuse to submit to decontamination or quarantine, and depart the location without entering the protected waterway, without the conveyance being quarantined or impounded, and without the conveyance being decontaminated involuntarily.

• Non-governmental inspection and decontamination stations should not have the authority to issue a quarantine certificate.

• The legislature should not be authorized to appropriate funds with arbitrary percentage limits, and without minimum funding to DBW or DFW. This could result in the Legislature appropriating the entirety of the funds for grants to entities and failing to support the department’s and division’s actual direct costs of administration.

• As a condition of receiving grant funding an entity receiving funding should be required to implement an invasive mussel prevention and inspection program.

There are also technical issues that need to be addressed in the amendments:

• The designated period of time in an order to dry should not be unlimited in duration and should be limited to the amount of time necessary to dry the conveyance.

• The department should not have unlimited authority to impose “any requirements” in situations where there is a drying order.

• There should be a prohibition against the removal or destruction of a tamper-proof device by anyone other than law enforcement or a qualified inspector.

• There is no definition of the “minimum retention period for inspection and decontamination certificates.” This could be interpreted to mean the owner/operator’s retention of the certificate, or of the tamper-proof device, or retention of the conveyance or the certificate by the station.

• Department recognition of other state certificates should not require inspection, decontamination and quarantine, and “achieving the same standards” is not the correct determination. It would be appropriate for the department to recognize other government-issued confirmation of compliance with standards and procedures that the department determines are at a minimum as effective as those established here.

• There is no definition of a “notice of noncompliance.”

• There is no definition of the WID Data Sharing System in one section, while it is defined in two others.

• There is no assurance that boaters will be able to launch at a water body when the database confirms that a conveyance has not been in an infected water body. 

• There is authorization for the expenditure of non-motorized sticker fees for costs and grants without specific parameters or controls, for example, to “contractors issuing stickers.”

For the reasons set forth above, RBOC and BoatU.S, believe that AB 1772 as it will be amended will not achieve its stated purpose but will stand up expensive programs and staffing and place new obstacles in front of the recreational boating public. We therefore have an opposition position on the bill unless it is amended to resolve these concerns.

RBOC Adds to Suggestions to Address State Boating Fund Deficiency

RBOC appreciates the renewed stakeholder engagement efforts California’s Division of Boating and Waterways is conducting with a May 8 discussion and more to follow.

As the Division considers the Harbors and Watercraft Revolving Fund [HWRF] deficiency and the interests of stakeholders, RBOC is reinforcing the recommendations that we have made consistently through the past few years including at the conclusion of the previous stakeholder process. For more information on our recommendations: click here

RBOC is also adding to our recommendations with the following perspectives from the May 8 meeting:

• Progress is being reported on efforts to obtain the financial participation of other stakeholders and beneficiaries. It is important to confirm those arrangements within statute. An example is the invasive species program.

• Responses to some of the recommendations is that legislation would be needed. It is important that the Division recommend that legislation be pursued to implement those recommendations. Examples include the transfer of vessel registrations from DMV to DBW, the financial participation of nonmotorized vessels, commission responsibility to provide advice and consent on loans, grants and other decisions; and recapturing a portion of the over $100 million in motor vehicle fuel tax dollars attributable to vessels.

• RBOC appreciates that beach erosion control expenditures have not been funded from the HWRF over the past few years. The statutes should be revised to eliminate the authority for such funding.

• Consideration has been given to enhancement of operational efficiencies and updates to statutorily-mandated processes. The Division should identify and recommend those statutory revisions. Examples of the programs include private marina loans, public marina loans and grants, and abandoned vessel programs.

• HWRF monies have been directed to other programs including the Department of Food and Agriculture, Special Resources Programs including the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, the Yosemite Foundation Program, and the Sea Grant Program, the Delta Protection Commission, the Department of Water Resources, the Department of Fish and Wildlife, and probably others. In light of the HWRF deficiency, these expenditures should be addressed and perhaps eliminated.

There are certainly additional issues and potential actions, and we look forward to our continued engagement going forward.

Boating Fees & Taxes - RBOC Encourages Boaters to Join the Conversation on May 8

RBOC is encouraging boaters to join the conversation on Friday, May 8 when California’s Division of Boating and Waterways holds its kick-off meeting for Harbors and Watercraft Revolving Fund stakeholder engagement. RBOC will be participating as we continue to advocate for the effective and efficient utilization of the significant registration fees, fuel taxes and property taxes California boaters contribute.

More on this issue from DBW:

The California Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR), Division of Boating and Waterways (DBW) invites you to participate in a virtual kick-off meeting regarding the future of the Harbors and Watercraft Revolving Fund (HWRF). As a valued partner in California’s boating community, your perspective is essential as we begin the required stakeholder engagement process. This initiative is designed to ensure the long-term sustainability of the fund, which supports critical programs including, but not limited to:

• Boating safety

• Law enforcement

• Infrastructure grants

• Aquatic invasive species management

Purpose

To outline the engagement roadmap, define key objectives for the HWRF review, and establish a collaborative framework for future discussions.

Why Your Participation Matters

HWRF is the primary funding source for many of the services that keep California’s waterways safe and accessible. This kick-off meeting serves as the foundation for a transparent and inclusive dialogue. We aim to:

• Provide a clear overview of the current status of the HWRF.

• Review past stakeholders’ engagement initiatives.

• Gather additional feedback on stakeholder priorities.

• Review the timeline for the upcoming engagement sessions.

• Inform DBW on drafting long-term solutions.

RBOC Advocating for Balance, Accountability & Focus with Legislation Addressing Golden Mussels

RBOC shares the objectives of AB 1772 to enhance the current efforts to prevent the infestation and spread of nonnative, invasive golden mussels into additional waterways and water delivery infrastructure. This is a challenging issue and we appreciate the leadership of Assembly Member Diane Papan [D-San Mateo] as the Member develops provisions that will be incorporated into this legislation as it moves forward.

The Assembly Water, Parks and Wildlife Committee analysis that has now been published for the April 23 hearing on AB 1772 sets forth a series of amendments for consideration of the committee.

RBOC has several perspectives on the amendments that are consistent with and in furtherance of our communications with legislators, the committee, the administration and other stakeholders over the course of the past several months including as AB 149 [Chapter 831, Statutes of 2025] was developed and considered in the Legislature.

First, there are several important over-arching issues that remain partially addressed, unaddressed, or limited to the legislative intent provisions that will have no impact. These include:

• A balanced approach that does not place the entire financial burden on recreational boaters and recognizes that our community is not responsible for the introduction of golden mussels and other invasive species.

• Requirements to prevent the continued introduction of invasive species by commercial vessel ballast water and to impose financial liability on the responsible entities.

• A recognition that the infestation of golden mussels is rapidly expanding at a pace that exceeds the consideration, enactment and implementation of legislation. As of today, infestations have been identified as far south as the Rialto and Santa Ana Valley pipelines, Silverwood Lake, and Sweetwater Reservoir [in San Diego!].

• A focused approach on what would be most effective for prevention efforts (versus more costly control efforts after the fact) that do not create a bureaucratic infrastructure, financial burden, and other requirements on the recreational boaters who will continue following widespread golden mussel infestation protocols. Decontamination that is effective on golden mussels may not be effective against future invasives.

• Clear authority for the private sector to act rapidly to establish and provide decontamination services for the recreational boating community.

In addition to these broad issues and concerns, we offer the following comments and suggestions that are specific to the amendments:

• The provisions would apply to “conveyances,” which appears to be intended to pertain to objects that can convey aquatic invasive species. Perhaps ice chests, life vests, and more. It would be important to provide a definition including in-water work related to permitted construction activities.

• The provisions would impose a label requirement on conveyances. Because many nonmotorized conveyances are not required to have state registration, they would be difficult if not impossible to identify.

• The provisions authorize “authorized personnel” of the department to provide decontamination, but this needs to be clarified whether it would include the private sector.

• The provisions do not identify the funding for decontamination.

• The provisions refer to “launches” as a nexus for decontamination even though potential conveyances can enter waters without launching.

• The provisions would require the state to develop decontamination standards but there is no reference to a process that would include stakeholder input.

• The provisions focus on new fees on boaters without identifying other stakeholders and beneficiaries such as agriculture, ports and utility districts.

• The Golden Mussel Response Framework notes the need to address other potential pathways of spread but also states that the spread of Golden mussel will happen anyway through state and federal water conveyance systems because there are no mechanisms to prevent it.

• The provisions do not provide an assurance of reciprocity so that verified decontaminated boats can be placed into non-infested bodies of water.

• The provisions ignore the continuing deficit in the Harbors and Watercraft Revolving Fund, as well as the cumulative impact to recreational boaters from the new vessel registration fees, the recently authorized increased invasive sticker fees, and the proposed non-motorized vessel fees.

• The provisions fail to address whether recreational boaters and other conveyances will be able to enter and utilize bodies of water after they have been infested. The framework suggests 5 days of mandatory decontamination and should include decontamination of equipment related to in-water work (i.e., not related to vessels or other watercraft).

• The provisions do not address and incorporate any additional efforts with other states, federal agencies and owners of private facilities who can also prevent infestation or spread from access points that are not state-managed, but these water conveyances are linked.

• The provisions do not include a periodic, ongoing review of the program and potential termination (sunset), as well as fee reduction or elimination.

As discussed above there are several issues outstanding that are essential to an effective, balanced effort to prevent and control golden mussels and enable recreational boaters to enjoy the vast and unique waterways of this state. 

RBOC has offered our continued engagement to accomplish this shared objective as AB 1772 moves forward through the Assembly Water, Parks and Wildlife Committee.

California Boating Congress 2026 - April 28 & 29 in Sacramento

RBOC is again co-hosting this year's California Boating Congress that kicks-off on the afternoon of Tuesday, April 28, 2026 with policy sessions and networking opportunities for attendees. On Wednesday, April 29, 2026 attendees will hear from state legislators and top regulators on issues such as abandoned vessels (SAVE program), Aquatic Invasive Species (AIS), Golden Mussel infestation, along with top legislative priorities for California's boating and waterways collective industries. Speakers include the Co-Chairs of the California Legislative Outdoor Sporting Caucus and a national economic outlook on the impact of boating and waterways.

For more information and to register:

RBOC Directors Lobby 2026 Boating Issues in State Capitol

The voluntary RBOC Board of Directors, representing communities throughout the state, lobbied state legislators in the State Capitol today on key 2026 boating issues including copper-based anti-fouling surfaces, documented vessels, aquatic invasive species including golden mussels, boat registration fees, E15 fuel, marine flares, the state boating fund deficiency, unreasonable boat slip rate increases, and more.

RBOC 2026 legislative day participants Colleen Stauss [San Rafael], Gary Green [San Pedro], Carliane Johnson [Oakland], Anne Sacks [La Jolla], Ron Orr [Marina del Rey], Bill Edwards [El Cajon], Themis Glatman [Woodland Hills], Bill Gargan [Sausalito], Linda Blue [Petaluma], John Wimer [San Luis Obispo], Anne Eubanks [Aliso Viejo], Jerry Desmond [Sacramento], and Mia Bernt [San Rafael]

For the 2026 RBOC Legislative Day Handout:

Top 2026 Boating Issues RBOC is Advocating

See our timely Boater Brief publication for an overview of our efforts on aquatic invasive species [including the golden mussel], marine flares, the Delta Conveyance Project, the state boating fund deficiency, copper-based anti-fouling marine coatings; E15 fuel, and boat registrations.

RBOC Engaging on Legislation Addressing Copper-based Anti-fouling Marine Coatings

RBOC and BoatUS appreciate the leadership of Assembly Member Diane Dixon [R-Newport Beach] and her efforts to address the ineffective and scientifically-questionable regulatory approaches that have been taken to address copper in the state’s waters including her AB 773 of 2025 that proposed to suspend enforcement of the regulations relating to copper-based anti-fouling marine coatings until several actions were taken.

Copper-based anti-fouling marine coatings 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 anti-fouling marine coatings 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 effective, affordable and available.

RBOC is engaging with Assembly Member Dixon in an effort to address and resolve concerns with the current version of this year’s legislation, AB 1691. This measure does not propose to suspend enforcement of regulations relating to copper-based anti-fouling marine coatings until specific determinations are made of the best methods to regulate the use of copper-based anti-fouling marine coatings within the state.

Concerns with AB 1691 as introduced include:

• The legislation focuses on copper-based anti-fouling marine coatings and fails to consider the other sources of copper in saltwater harbors, bays and marinas, other measures that can be taken to reduce the presence of copper, the importance of copper in preventing the introduction and spread of invasive species, and the consideration being given by the regional water quality control boards to new approaches to address copper.

• Studies have already been conducted and call into question the necessity for the new studies the legislation would require.

• The legislation would require collaboration between state and regional agencies in completing studies and determining best methods to address elevated copper concentrations but with no required engagement with or input by interested and invested stakeholders including the recreational boating community. The AB 773 reference to regulatory processes is not proposed in AB 1691.

• The new studies would impose significant new costs during a difficult period for the state budget. The Assembly Appropriations Committee fiscal analysis of AB 773 last year estimated $809,000 first year costs and $744,000 in annual costs to the Department of Pesticide Regulation, and $250,000 in annual costs to the State Water Board.

• Any restrictions or prohibitions on the use of copper-based anti-fouling marine coatings must be accompanied by findings that alternatives are effective, affordable and available. This is not the case today, yet the legislation could foreseeably result in this specific recommendation.

For these reasons, RBOC and BoatUS have adopted an opposition position on AB 1691 as introduced and are engaged in efforts to resolve the concerns that have been identified.

Save the Date - California Boating Congress April 28-29 in Sacramento

RBOC is again co-hosting the California Boating Congress that will be held April 28 and 29 in Sacramento.

Look for location, schedule and hotel information when registration is open in February.

RBOC Applauds Governor's Re-Appointment of Boating & Waterways Commissioners Hallahan and Pier

RBOC applauds the action California Governor Gavin Newsom took on January 17 to re-appoint two dedicated and effective individuals to new terms on the Boating and Waterways Commission: Maggie Hallahan and Thomas Pier.

California’s recreational boaters have benefited from the engagement of Commissioners Hallahan and Pier and we are fortunate that they will continue to serve on this important commission.

From the Governor’s announcement:

“Maggie Hallahan, of San Francisco, has been reappointed to the California Boating and Waterways Commission where she has served since 2024. 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.”

“Thomas Pier, of San Francisco, has been reappointed to the California Boating and Waterways Commission, where he has served since 2020. Pier has been the Principal/Founder of Pier Admiralty Group since 2025. He was Of Counsel at Alioto Law Firm from 2005 to 2024. Pier was a Self-Employed Political Consultant from 1991 to 1999. He was a Lifeguard at the City of Newport Beach from 1998 to 1992. Pier was a Fisherman and Ship Engineer at Various Fishing Vessels from 1985 to 1988. He earned a Master of Laws degree in Admiralty and Maritime from Tulane University, a Juris Doctor degree from the University of San Francisco, a Master of Arts degree in Journalism from University of Texas, Austin, and a Bachelor of Arts degree in Public Policy from Brown University. This position requires Senate confirmation and the compensation is $100 per diem. Pier is a Democrat.”

The Boating and Waterways Commission is established in the Harbors and Navigation Code and is chartered to advise and comment on all matters within the jurisdiction of the Division of Boating and Waterways within State Parks. The Commission also advises and comments on all 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.

Boat Fees, Flares, Paints, Slip Rates & More - RBOC in 2025

RBOC has been advocating throughout 2025 on a number of important policy issues impacting all aspects of recreational boating in California: boat registration fees, golden mussel infestations, marine flares, E15 fuel, copper-based anti-fouling paints, water conveyance, unreasonable increases in boat slip rates, and abandoned vessels:

Registration Fees – RBOC is 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.

The Legislature did not increase boat registration fees this year. The efforts will continue, as there is a $20 million annual deficit in the Harbors and Watercraft Revolving Fund.

This fund provides essential boating programs and services including aquatic center grants, boater education certification, boating safety and enforcement aid to counties abandoned vessel program, invasive species prevention and eradication, vessel pumpout facilities, yacht and ship broker licensure, and more.

Golden Mussels – RBOC is engaged with the state legislature, state and regional agencies and boating industry groups as they take action to prevent the  further infestation of water bodies by the golden mussel, often imposing restrictions and prohibitions on all on-the-water activities.

Governor Newsom signed into law the golden mussel budget trailer bill AB 149 increasing the cost of the DMV-issued quagga \ zebra sticker from $20 to at least $30 to help fund the golden mussel efforts.

We share the objectives of AB 149 to enhance the current efforts to prevent the infestation and spread of nonnative, invasive golden mussels into additional waterways and water delivery infrastructure.

Our advocacy efforts continue on the issues we have identified with this legislation as enacted:

·         Piecemeal - The legislation is a piecemeal approach on an important issue that deserves a comprehensive, multi-disciplinary dedication of resources.

·         Boater Fee Focus - While the measures identify and dedicate tens of millions of additional state funds for these efforts, they impose additional fees on only one stakeholder: the owners of recreational vessels.

o   New fees place yet another obstacle in front of boaters who are already deterred by constantly-changing prohibitions and restrictions being imposed on a case-by-case basis for individual bodies of water. There are locations where boaters are paying $120 or more to decontaminate their boats, avoid 30-day quarantines, and launch them at a lake.

·         Decontamination - Attention must be given to approaches to minimize the disruptions to on-the-water recreation without compromising the prevention and eradication efforts. These should include enhanced decontamination facilities, as well as an extension of inspections to the variety of non-motorized craft that are placed into the water at locations other than launch ramps and present a risk of spreading infestation, such as kayaks, canoes, rafts and other vessels.

·         Commercial Ships - The measure fails to identify and address the most prevalent source of the introduction of invasive species in our waterways, which is commercial ship ballast water. A high priority must be placed on new measures to effectively prevent future occurrences and place responsibility and accountability on these sources of infestation.

These issues are essential to an effective, balanced effort to prevent, control and eradicate golden mussels, and we will continue to be engaged to accomplish this shared objective.

Marine Flares – RBOC is advocating for significant revisions to SB 561 [Blakespear] that proposes a comprehensive extended producer responsibility program [EPR] program for pyrotechnic marine flares.

It is essential that the structure and requirements of the legislation acknowledge that there is only one manufacturer and so that the take-back requirements are tailored to ensure that the costs of implementation do not place an unreasonable burden on boaters.

The author has temporarily halted the advancement of the measure until 2026 to enable the proponents, state regulators and RBOC to develop provisions that would address this concern.

E15 Fuel – RBOC opposed AB 30 [Alvarez] that authorizes the offering of E15 fuel in California. The concerns are that the state’s authorization of E15 fuel will raise prices on E10 gasoline, restrict the availability of that fuel, and inevitably ruin many boat engines.

As AB 30 progressed through the Legislature its was significantly amended to condition this authorization on completion of the multimedia evaluation and the state air board adoption of a regulation for E15 or finds that it is not possible to use E15 in California without an adverse impact.

With the Governor’s signature of AB 30 into law,  California has become the 32nd state to authorize E15.  RBOC will continue to push for the availability of affordable E10 for the boating community.

Copper-based Antifouling Paints – RBOC advocated in support of AB 773 [Dixon] 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.

RBOC has also supported local boaters and the City of Newport Beach in the State Water Resources Control Board hearing with testimony re-emphasizing several key concerns with the Santa Ana Water Board amendment to the Water Quality Control Plan for the Santa Ana River Basin to incorporate Total Maximum Daily Loads for Copper in Newport Bay.

This bill was held in committee this year and the author is considering introduction of a new measure in 2026.

Water Conveyance - RBOC continues to advocate in opposition to the Delta Conveyance Project that, as revised to one tunnel, would still significantly impede navigation and harm Delta recreation.

RBOC joined Delta legislators and lobbied in opposition to draft budget trailer legislation that would have streamlined permitting, limited legal challenges and revised water rights processes.

Fortunately, the draft was not introduced prior to the end of session on September 12.

Efforts will continue – the Governor remains committed to this project.

Boat Slip Rates - RBOC and our parent organizations, the Southern California Yachting Association [SCYA] and the Pacific Inter-Club Yacht Association [PICYA], are requesting that the State Lands Commission take the appropriate and necessary actions to ensure that the recreational boating public is not subjected to unreasonable slip rates.

Recreational boaters, especially those located throughout Southern California, are concerned that slip rates are being very significantly increased at marina facilities on granted tidelands with oversight by the Commission.

The Commission secures and safeguards the public’s access rights to navigable waterways and the coastline and protects the public’s right to these valuable lands and resources. Boaters impacted by the rate increases are of the opinion that the Commission should protect and promote affordable boating when it is challenged by unreasonable slip rates that are contrary to these objectives.

RBOC shares the interest of local boaters in specifcally-impacted communities and throughout the state that fair pricing of recreational boating services by operators and lessees of marinas and recreational harbors on tidelands properties, particularly those owned by the State of California and ceded to local government authorities for the purpose of construction and operation of small boat marinas, is important to ensure the availability of recreational boating opportunities to the widest possible cross-section of the public.

There are tens of thousands of recreational boaters, most of moderate income, who depend on publicly owned harbors and marinas to provide facilities for their activities, and, for professional fisherman, for their livelihood. As per the Tidelands doctrine, under which most marinas operate, these facilities should be provided at a fair and reasonable price so all segments of the public can enjoy these publicly owned assets. In most cases, the marinas appear to have a local monopoly over slip space.

RBOC joins local boaters and requests that the State Lands Commission investigate these slip rate increases and take the appropriate actions to protect boaters who feel they are being treated in a manner inconsistent with the applicable laws that protect their rights to use public facilities on our coast and waterways.

Abandoned Vessels - AB 274 [Ransom] - proposed a requirement that the State Lands Commission inventory all abandoned and derelict commercial and recreational vessels on or in waters within the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta.

RBOC advocated for the continued separation of efforts to address abandoned commercial vessels by the State Lands Commission and addressing abandoned recreational vessels by the Division of Boating and Waterways.

One abandoned commercial vessel could cost $3 million or more and wipe out the recreational vessel fund.

The bill was held on suspense in the Assembly Appropriations Committee and will not move forward.

A recent update: the BoatUS Foundation has launched the first national database to track abandoned boats and derelict vessels across the US. This have been created in partnership with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Marine Debris Program.

This national database will allow visitors to report abandoned and derelict vessels on their coastlines, allowing the issue to be better understood on a national scale with the support of the public.

Eventually, this database will be able to track the impacts of removal and prevention efforts by showing how the number of ADVs across the country may one day decrease.

Register today for our free RBOC & BoatUS virtual boating advocacy update on Wednesday November 19

Register today for the RBOC & BoatUS free virtual, boat advocacy update on Wednesday, November 19, with timely updates on the key government affairs issues in which we are engaged including golden mussels, marine flares, registration fees, copper-based anti-fouling paints, water conveyance, E15 fuel, and more!

Governor Signs Golden Mussel Budget Trailer Bill - RBOC advocacy continues

As anticipated, the Governor has just signed into law the golden mussel budget trailer bill AB 149. This is the legislation that increases the cost of the current maximum DMV-issued quagga \ zebra sticker from $20 to at least $30 to help fund the golden mussel efforts. The enacted legislation:

• Expands the current quagga and zebra mussel sticker fee to include golden mussels and rename the stickers as the “invasive mussel infestation prevention sticker.”

• Increases the current $20 maximum quagga \ zebra mussel prevention fee as follows:

  • If the invasive mussel infestation prevention fee is due between January 1 and December 31 of any even-numbered year, the fee shall not be less than fifteen dollars ($15) and not more than twenty-one dollars ($21).

  • If the invasive mussel infestation prevention fee is due between January 1 and December 31 of any odd-numbered year, the fee shall not be less than thirty dollars ($30) and not more than forty-two dollars ($42).

  The above amounts shall be adjusted for inflation every odd-numbered year using the California Consumer Price Index to the nearest whole dollar value.

• Moves $20 million from the Invasive Species Account to the Department of Food and Agriculture to fight invasive species.

• Move $20 million from Wildlife Conservation Board grants to the Department of Fish and Wildlife to address invasive mussel infestations including golden mussels.

• Establishes the intent of the Legislature to enact subsequent legislation to provide structural balance to the Harbors and Watercraft Revolving Fund, established pursuant to Section 85 of the Harbors and Navigation Code. This may include an adjustment to the invasive mussel prevention fee to fully fund the Department of Fish and Wildlife and Department of Parks and Recreation’s costs to address invasive mussel species.

• Requires the Department of Fish and Wildlife by December 31, 2026, to review all approved plans and require all plans that do not specifically address all invasive mussel species known to be present in bodies of water in the state as of January 1, 2026, to be updated or revised appropriately to include all invasive mussel species, on or before September 30, 2027.

• Requires every invasive mussel species to be addressed in a plan no later than 180 days from the date that the species is listed in a regulation. The Department of Fish and Wildlife shall approve plans or provide written comments and suggestions on plan deficiencies within 180 days from the date of plan submission.

RBOC shares the objectives of the just-recently-amended AB 149 to enhance the current efforts to prevent the infestation and spread of nonnative, invasive golden mussels into additional waterways and water delivery infrastructure. Our advocacy efforts continue on the issues that RBOC and others have identified with this legislation as enacted:

Piecemeal - The legislation is a piecemeal approach on an important issue that deserves a comprehensive, multi-disciplinary dedication of resources with the engagement of the various agencies, departments, divisions, stakeholders and beneficiaries.

Boater Fee Focus - While the measures identify and dedicate tens of millions of additional state funds for these efforts, they impose additional fees on only one stakeholder: the owners of recreational vessels.

New fees place yet another obstacle in front of boaters who are already deterred by constantly-changing prohibitions and restrictions being imposed on a case-by-case basis for individual bodies of water. There are locations where boaters are paying $120 or more to decontaminate their boats, avoid 30-day quarantines, and launch them at a lake.

Interstate Impact - As currently drafted, SB 149 requires nonresident vessels to obtain and display a California Invasive Mussel Infestation Prevention Fee sticker to operate on nonmarine waters within the state. This inadvertently creates a regulatory gap on Lake Tahoe and Topaz Lake. Both lakes straddle the California–Nevada border, and thousands of vessels cross jurisdictions during a single boating season. This oversight risks undermining decades of collaborative work between California and Nevada agencies, the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency [TRPA], and local partners.

Decontamination - Attention must be given to approaches to minimize the disruptions to on-the-water recreation without compromising the prevention and eradication efforts. These should include enhanced decontamination facilities, as well as an extension of inspections to the variety of non-motorized craft that are placed into the water at locations other than launch ramps and present a risk of spreading infestation, such as kayaks, canoes, rafts and other vessels.

Commercial Ships - The measures also fail to identify and address the most prevalent source of the introduction of invasive species in our waterways, which is commercial ship ballast water. A high priority must be placed on new measures to effectively prevent future occurrences and place responsibility and accountability on these sources of infestation.

These issues are essential to an effective, balanced effort to prevent, control and eradicate golden mussels, and RBOC will continue to be engaged to accomplish this shared objective.

RBOC Advocating for Revisions to Piecemeal Approach to Golden Mussel Legislation

As the Legislature rushes to pass budget trailer legislation to the Governor by September 12, RBOC has identified several key boating concerns with the golden mussel measures AB 149 and SB 149 that prevent it from supporting the measures as currently worded. The nonprofit boater advocacy organization is advocating for changes to resolve those concerns.

The organization appreciates the efforts of Assembly Member Heather Hadwick in bringing issues forward in today’s hearing of the Assembly Budget Committee and urging their resolution for the many recreational enthusiasts in her Northern California district that includes Lake Tahoe and many other lakes.

RBOC shares the objectives of the just-amended AB 149 and SB 149 to enhance the current efforts to prevent the infestation and spread of nonnative, invasive golden mussels into additional waterways and water delivery infrastructure.

These two budget trailer bills and their specific provisions were just made public this week through amendments,

Piecemeal - They comprise a piecemeal approach on an important issue that deserves a comprehensive, multi-disciplinary dedication of resources with the engagement of the various agencies, departments, divisions, stakeholders and beneficiaries.

Boater Fee Focus - While the measures identify and dedicate tens of millions of additional state funds for these efforts, they impose additional fees on only one stakeholder: the owners of recreational vessels.

New fees place yet another obstacle in front of boaters who are already deterred by constantly-changing prohibitions and restrictions being imposed on a case-by-case basis for individual bodies of water. There are locations where boaters are paying $120 or more to decontaminate their boats, avoid 30-day quarantines, and launch them at a lake.

Interstate Impact - As currently drafted, SB 149 requires nonresident vessels to obtain and display a California Invasive Mussel Infestation Prevention Fee sticker to operate on nonmarine waters within the state. This inadvertently creates a regulatory gap on Lake Tahoe and Topaz Lake. Both lakes straddle the California–Nevada border, and thousands of vessels cross jurisdictions during a single boating season. This oversight risks undermining decades of collaborative work between California and Nevada agencies, the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency [TRPA], and local partners.

Decontamination - Attention must be given to approaches to minimize the disruptions to on-the-water recreation without compromising the prevention and eradication efforts. These should include enhanced decontamination facilities, as well as an extension of inspections to the variety of non-motorized craft that are placed into the water at locations other than launch ramps and present a risk of spreading infestation, such as kayaks, canoes, rafts and other vessels.

Commercial Ships - The measures also fail to identify and address the most prevalent source of the introduction of invasive species in our waterways, which is commercial ship ballast water. A high priority must be placed on new measures to effectively prevent future occurrences and place responsibility and accountability on these sources of infestation.

These issues are essential to an effective, balanced effort to prevent, control and eradicate golden mussels, and RBOC offers our continued engagement to accomplish this shared objective.

RBOC & BoatUS Concerned that Golden Mussel Fee Legislation May be Rushed Through

RBOC and BoatUS are suggesting to a coalition of interests pursuing expedited budget trailer bill legislation that the issue should not be rushed during the final month of legislative activity this year, and should instead be addressed within the stakeholder process the Division of Boating and Waterways will be initiating in the near future.

The proposed amendments to the Fish and Game Code and the Harbors and Navigation Code would expand the existing quagga and zebra program to include invasive freshwater mussels including golden mussels. This presents several issues:

• Legislation should address prevention efforts in a comprehensive manner and involve the various agencies, departments, divisions, stakeholders and beneficiaries rather than a piecemeal approach focused prematurely on recreational vessels.

• Expansion of the current program should address and include the financial participation of the most prevalent source of the introduction of invasive species in our waterways, which is commercial ship ballast water.

• Expansion of the current program should identify and place a high priority on timely, efficient, and effective measures to prevent the spread of golden mussels.

• A stronger emphasis should be placed on recreational vessel decontamination to minimize the disruption of on-the-water recreation.

• Inspections should extend to the variety of non-motorized craft that are placed into the water at locations other than launch ramps, such as kayaks, canoes, rafts and other vessels, together with their financial participation.

• Expansion of the current program should be preceded by an analysis of the data and findings developed through its implementation over the past 10 years with grants exceeding $26 million, incorporating improvements where appropriate.

• Expansion of the current program should be preceded by an analysis of how the current inspections for quagga and zebra mussels also effectively identify the presence of golden mussels without an additional dedication of resources.

• Fees paid by boaters should be deposited in the Harbors and Watercraft Revolving Fund and administered by the Division of Boating and Waterways in State Parks with an assurance that the funding will be utilized for and dedicated to boating-related services.

  These issues will be considered by the Division of Boating and Waterways as it develops recommendations to the Legislature to resolve the ongoing structural deficiency in the Harbors and Watercraft Revolving Fund, as per the recently-adopted state budget for Fiscal Year 2025-2026.

  This soon-to-be-initiated DBW stakeholder process is our preferred mechanism for the consideration and development of plans to expand the current prevention program to include invasive freshwater mussels including golden mussels. RBOC and BoatU.S. are encouraging this as an alternative to the current proposal.

Senator to Provide More Time for Marine Flare Producer Responsibility Bill Development

RBOC and BoatU.S. appreciate the decision of Senator Blakespear to remove her pyrotechnic marine flare extended producer responsibility [EPR] measure [SB 561] from today’s agenda in the Assembly Environmental Safety and Toxic Materials Committee to enable more time for further conversations to be held with stakeholders on the provisions of the bill.

RBOC and BoatU.S. will continue to be engaged with the Senator, legislative committees, proponents, and the state toxics department over the summer months to develop a practical solution for the safe disposal of marine flares.

We support the intent of SB 561 to address environmental concerns but are concerned about its current structure. The proposed EPR program could impose significant costs on boaters, potentially discouraging the purchase of these critical safety devices. Additionally, we believe the program’s requirements may lead the primary manufacturer of marine flares to withdraw from the California market, reducing access to these essential products.

To address these challenges, RBOC and BoatU.S. have proposed amendments to ensure the program is practical and cost-effective for boaters while maintaining safety and compliance. With these changes, we would fully support the legislation.

State Budget Update - Boater Fees, Delta Conveyance Project

The state’s fiscal year began on July 1 with the Governor and legislative leadership having agreed upon the main budget trailer bill and related budget trailer bills.

Boating Fees & Taxes

Registration fee increase have not yet been raised to resolve the $20 million annual deficit in the Harbors and Watercraft Revolving Fund and the programs and services if supports.

The enacted budget directs the Division of Boating and Waterways to consult with stakeholders to develop and submit a proposal to the Legislature to keep the fund in structural balance on an ongoing basis.

RBOC continues to advocate 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.

The adopted budget incorporates a number of revisions including the financial participation of other beneficiaries in invasive species efforts, and the elimination of funding for the beach erosion program that does not benefit boaters.  Even with these and other actions, the HWRF deficiency has not yet been resolved.

Placing the burden of a $20 million annual deficit solely on vessel registration fees and ignoring the $107 million in annual fuel taxes that are attributable to boats would increase those registration fees by at least 300%.

There are proposals that would increase boat registration fees even more. Legislation has been drafted and is being circulated to amend state law to expand the current quagga and zebra mussel sticker boaters purchase through DMV to include the golden mussel and other invasive species.

Delta Conveyance Project

The Governor’s proposed budget trailer bills to expedite this project have not yet been introduced and were not included in the 20 budget trailer bills that have been enacted thus far.

RBOC continues to oppose the 2 proposed trailer bills, agreeing with the suggestion of the independent and nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s Office, as well as individual legislators and other stakeholders who are urging the Legislature to defer these trailer bills so that they are not taken up within the budget development process.

The significant precedent-setting policies raised by the trailer bills, together with their potential implications for the recreational boating community and others, are more appropriately developed, deliberated and voted upon within the public, transparent policy committee process that applies to thousands of legislative measures introduced each year.

Additional Budget Actions

Ongoing discussions involving the leadership of the Senate and Assembly, and the Governor, are continuing and could result in additional legislation [termed "budget trailer bills"] revising the budget provisions that have been enacted.

RBOC & BoatUS Propose Amendments to Tailor Marine Flare EPR Legislation to Boating

RBOC and our national advocacy partner BoatU.S. continue to advocate in support of amendments to SB 561 [Blakespear], legislation that would establish an extended producer responsibility [EPR] requirement for pyrotechnic marine flares, to enact an effective and efficient requirement for the single manufacturer of marine flares to collect and dispose of the products that it manufactures.

RBOC and BoatU.S. will support the measure with these amendments [disccussed below] and will oppose the measure if the amendments are not made.

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 and BoatU.S. note the good-faith engagement that have been made by Senator Blakespear, her office, Orion Safety Products, National Stewardship Council, Zero Waste Sonoma and other stakeholders during 2024 to understand the objectives of 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 and BoatU.S. were 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.

Our organizations remain 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 legislation 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.

As SB 561 advances to the Assembly Committee on Environmental Safety and Toxic Materials for consideration, RBOC and BoatU.S. have developed and have submitted amendments to the author that would tailor the mandate to the specific situation in California and resolve our concerns.

The amendments would require that the manufacturer collect and dispose of the flares it manufactures. At the same time, the amendments would delete the requirements that:

• The state Department of Toxic Substances Control [DTSC] adopt regulations.

• The manufacturer submit its manufacturer responsibility plan for DTSC consideration, with DTSC then considering and approving the plan.

• A manufacturer responsibility organization be established for multiple manufacturers.

The amendments would also move up the deadline for the manufacturer to create and submit its plan to DTSC by one year, to January 1, 2027.

This program would resolve the critical issues that RBOC, BoatU.S. and others have identified and communicated while last year’s SB 1066 progressed through the legislative process and as SB 561 has been considered this year.

What We're Working On Now - invasive mussels, marine flares, Delta Conveyance, Boater Funds and More

A brief snapshot on what RBOC is working on now:

• 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 changes in 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 within the state budget process to obtain 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 local Dana Point boaters by requesting that the Court provide clear and understandable rules as they apply to boaters who feel they are being treated in a manner inconsistent with the applicable laws and the Tidelands doctrine that protect their rights to use public facilities on our coasts and waterways.

•  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.