Utah AIS Fee Changes

[dubob]

It has come to my attention that there is a bill before the legislature this year to make some changes to Utah's AIS Program. That bill is H.B. 255 and the sponsor is Representative Steve Waldrip. I have been having a conversation with him about the good and the bad via emails and phone calls. I would like to point out to all of the Lake Powell user family what the bill will do, and more importantly, what it won't do.

For Utah residents, it will continue the $10 AIS fee being tacked on to your boat registration cost. For non-residents, it will add a $20 cost to you to use your out of state registered boat on any Utah body of water. So, after getting a 5 year free pass, non-residents will finally have to start paying into the AIS fund to water recreate in their out of state registered boats.

There will also be a requirement for residents and non-residents to successfully complete an AIS education course offered by the DWR.

The other main point of the bill will be to set up a separate AIS account in which all AIS fees will be deposited. All monies in that account would only be usable to support AIS functions in the state. None of the fees will go to the boating account which could be used for many non-AIS projects.

Now, the bad news. What the bill doesn't do is require ALL water vessels to pay the fee. The only folks paying the fee will be a continuation of Utah registered boats owners continuing to pay the annual $10 fee through the boat registration process and non-residents paying a $20 fee through a yet unnamed process that isn't spelled out in the bill and isn't known by the bill's sponsor at this time. The state boating agency 'may' (the bills wording, not mine) makes rules establishing procedures to cover this.

Mr Waldrip felt that it would be too big a step to include non-registered vessels (kayaks, paddle boards, float tubes, etc.) in the mix, even though each and every one of those vessels are capable of spreading the mussels from one water body to another. Yes, I know the risk factor is lower for those vessels, but there is still a risk. Nobody, IMHO, should get a free pass to NOT support the AIS Program in Utah. ALL water vessel owners need to be informed and involved in this program, educationally & financially, if the program is ever going to have a chance of succeeding. By not requiring all water vessel owners to participate in Utah's program, Bill HB255 is a badly written bill and I'm very much against its passage.

The other really bad aspect of this bill is that it will leave the Utah resident fee as part of the boat registration process instead of removing it from there and requiring the fee be used to purchase an AIS decal like our neighbors to the north and east have been doing since day one of their programs. I am very surprised that Representative Waldrip doesn't see the logic in that.

Therefore, I am asking all Utah registered boat owners to call or write their state representative and ask them to vote 'NO!' on this badly written bill. There is no change for you by doing so. You will still continue to pay the $10 fee via the boat registration process either way. But if you can convince the majority of our representatives that this is a bad bill, then we might get them to make think about it and work to get a bill ready for next years session that will truly involve all water vessel owners in the AIS Program. Its been 5 years living with our current asinine AIS Program and I really don't want to wait another 5 years to get them to involve all water vessel owners in owning the program. Please get involved. Let your representatives know you want them to defeat this bill. Get on other social media and spread the word. Talk to other boat owners and ask them to get involved. And thanks for taking the time to at least read through to this point.

 

[Ziggy]

Starting to sound like California, who will tax you for using or doing almost anything.

 

[Squirrel]

Maybe with the additional annual fee the ANS Decon Sataions will stay open additional hours. I personally haven’t had issues with the hours of operation, but some may have. Sq

 

[dubob]

Starting to sound like California, who will tax you for using or doing almost anything.

So to be clear, you don't think water vessel owners have any responsibility to fight the spread of AIS?

 

[dubob]

Maybe with the additional annual fee the ANS Decon Sataions will stay open additional hours. I personally haven’t had issues with the hours of operation, but some may have. Sq

I really can't tell from your post if you know that this is bill (HB255) has one heck of a lot more to do with Utah's AIS Program than the Lake Powell decontamination station. My two main concerns about this bill are it doesn't include ALL water vessels (which ALL contribute to the AIS spread), and it isn't structured to require an AIS decal purchase and vessel attachment instead of adding it to the boat registration (which doesn't address the non-registered water vessels).

 

[Alan Wade]

The problem I have with AIS requirements is at Flaming Gorge I pay $30.00 and it's a shared water, In Nevada I pay $13.00 and Utah $10.00 all of these are on the Colorado Drainage, It is getting expensive going to these places. Why can't these states get together and fund a process that actually works, Seems like we are taxed for everything and nothing is improving

 

[Squirrel]

I really can't tell from your post if you know that this is bill (HB255) has one heck of a lot more to do with Utah's AIS Program than the Lake Powell decontamination station. My two main concerns about this bill are it doesn't include ALL water vessels (which ALL contribute to the AIS spread), and it isn't structured to require an AIS decal purchase and vessel attachment instead of adding it to the boat registration (which doesn't address the non-registered water vessels).

So, none of the money collected will go towards enforcement or inspection? Sq

 

[dubob]

So, none of the money collected will go towards enforcement or inspection? Sq

Since I don't know who you are, are you a resident of Utah?

As to your question about where the money collected will go, the bill says this:

Upon appropriation, the division shall use the fees collected under Section 23-27-305 and deposited in the Aquatic Invasive Species Account to fund aquatic invasive species prevention and containment efforts.

I don't know if enforcement or inspection would be part of AIS prevention and containment efforts; do you?

 

[dubob]

The problem I have with AIS requirements is at Flaming Gorge I pay $30.00 and it's a shared water, In Nevada I pay $13.00 and Utah $10.00 all of these are on the Colorado Drainage, It is getting expensive going to these places. Why can't these states get together and fund a process that actually works, Seems like we are taxed for everything and nothing is improving

Are you a Utah resident?

 

[Ryan]

Is there any state that requires AIS/ANS permits for paddle boards, float tubes, inflatables, and the like? I can't think of one. Colorado doesn't. Neither does Wyoming.

Honestly, I'm not sure how you would choose as to where to draw the line. I'd also suggest that many of the devices that are not required to pay the permit are owned by someone with a boat who has paid the permit. If I take my Malibu to the lake along with 3 paddle boards you think I should have to pay for 4 permits?

If you wanted to truly be "fair", the permit should only be required of a watercraft owner. So one permit would cover however many watercraft I own. Which would be incredibly difficult to enforce.

I guess the moral of the story is you can't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Like it or not, AIS are here to stay. Containment costs money, and the funds have to come from somewhere.

And @dubob , if you hover your mouse over a persons avatar you can usually see where they are from.

 

[dubob]

Is there any state that requires AIS/ANS permits for paddle boards, float tubes, inflatables, and the like? I can't think of one. Colorado doesn't. Colorado requires an ANS (AIS) Stamp for water vessels with a motor on it. Neither does Wyoming.

All watercraft using Wyoming waters are required to display an Aquatic Invasive Species decal. Costs for the decal are $10 for motorized watercraft registered in Wyoming, $30 for motorized watercraft registered in other states, $5 for non-motorized watercraft owned by Wyoming residents, and $15 for non-motorized watercraft owned by non-residents. Non-motorized inflatable watercraft 10 feet or less in length, all solid and inflatable paddleboards regardless of length, and all devices defined as water sport toys are exempt from the decal requirement.

Idaho also requires a decal for non-motorized water vessels at a reduced rate.

Honestly, I'm not sure how you would choose as to where to draw the line. I'd also suggest that many of the devices that are not required to pay the permit are owned by someone with a boat who has paid the permit. If I take my Malibu to the lake along with 3 paddle boards you think I should have to pay for 4 permits?

If you wanted to truly be "fair", the permit should only be required of a watercraft owner. So one permit would cover however many watercraft I own. Which would be incredibly difficult to enforce.

I guess the moral of the story is you can't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Like it or not, AIS are here to stay. Containment costs money, and the funds have to come from somewhere.

And @dubob , if you hover your mouse over a persons avatar you can usually see where they are from. Only if that person has included that information in their profile. A couple of the respondents above have not done that. I forgot to check Squirrel - he's from Colorado.

Non-residents of Utah will be required to help pay for the Utah AIS Program in the future - as they should. And what I'm asking Utah residents to look at in this bill will not change that. I welcome all points of view on this complex issue, but the bottom line is only Utah residents can vote on this issue. If you are a Utah resident and see the same problems with this bill as I do, I'm asking you to contact your Representative and ask them to vote against this bill in its present form. It wouldn't hurt a thing to contact the sponsor of the bill (Rep Steve Waldrip) as well.

 

[Pegasus]

Bob, I appreciate your taking on this battle. It's never easy putting yourself and your opinions out on public display. More power to you!

In general, I agree with you that we should be doing much more than we are to stop the spread of invasive species in the state. And that there is a huge loophole in not requiring non-motorized (not registered) watercraft to pay anything into this system when they absolutely do pose a risk. But as Ryan says, and even the bill's sponsor says, taking on the process and management of such an expansion to the AIS seems nearly impossible, unfortunately.

As I'm not up to speed on this bill and you obviously are, are you suggesting that the changes in the new bill will make it worse than the laws/regulations currently in place? Or that the new bill just does not go far enough in fighting against invasive species contamination? Is your primary concern making all watercraft pay into the AIS system, or in making sure all watercraft are inspected/certified/clean before launching in Utah waters? These are really two different goals.

Again, thanks for your efforts on this. Many of us on WW have stated for years that the AIS system could be better, but you're actually trying to do something about it. Thank you, Doug

 

[Leardriver]

I would consider selling my giant Powell boat and quit coming to the lake. When I started, there wasn't the entrance station fleecing people to use their own public land. That entrance fee has to cover all expenses.

 

[dubob]

Bob, I appreciate your taking on this battle. It's never easy putting yourself and your opinions out on public display. More power to you! Thank you.

In general, I agree with you that we should be doing much more than we are to stop the spread of invasive species in the state. And that there is a huge loophole in not requiring non-motorized (not registered) watercraft to pay anything into this system when they absolutely do pose a risk. But as Ryan says, and even the bill's sponsor says, taking on the process and management of such an expansion to the AIS seems nearly impossible, unfortunately.

As I'm not up to speed on this bill and you obviously are, are you suggesting that the changes in the new bill will make it worse than the laws/regulations currently in place? No, I'm not saying that at all. There are a couple of MINOR things (IMHO) that will be accomplished if it passes.

Or that the new bill just does not go far enough in fighting against invasive species contamination? That's pretty much it.

Is your primary concern making all watercraft pay into the AIS system, or in making sure all watercraft are inspected/certified/clean before launching in Utah waters? These are really two different goals. They ARE two different goals. The first is easily accomplished; the second, not so much. The system was flawed originally and I tried to convince Senator Jenkins of that since he was the original sponsor. My own Senator agreed that it was flawed as well after we discussed it and he also tried to convince Senator Jenkins it was flawed. Senator Jenkins attitude was this: Do NOT confuse me with facts; my feeble mind is made up!

So we have been plodding along for 5 years now with a flawed AIS Program. Inadequate funding due to giving free passes to not pay for the system to way to many participants in the issue. No accountability for the funds that were collected because they were put into a boating account which could be used for just about anything the Utah Parks & Rec folks wanted to spend it on.

My first goal would be to get almost all water vessels (registered, non-registered, resident, & non-resident) to pay into the AIS Program if they place any water vessel in/upon any Utah body of water. I wouldn't have any major issues with the exemption that Wyoming places on non-motorized inflatable watercraft 10 feet or less in length, all solid and inflatable paddleboards regardless of length, and all devices defined as water sport toys. My second goal is to require that a decal be purchased and permanently attached and visible at a prescribed distance to any water vessel defined by the program. Easy to administer and easy to verify without actual contact. This bill does neither. So how many more years is it going to to take get it right; next year, five years, ten? Enough is enough; fix it NOW. HB255 doesn't do that and should be defeated and re-written so that it DOES fix it.

Again, thanks for your efforts on this. Many of us on WW have stated for years that the AIS system could be better, but you're actually trying to do something about it. Thank you, Doug

 

[dubob]

I would consider selling my giant Powell boat and quit coming to the lake. When I started, there wasn't the entrance station fleecing people to use their own public land. That entrance fee has to cover all expenses.

Sorry, I just couldn't help myself

 

[Leardriver]

I suppose I should say that the user fee to get in is all that I am willing to pay. I may get to go to the lake for 3-4 days every other year, and my $50K a year in federal taxes should suffice. I don't need any services or government intervention, I want them to get out of the way.

 

[dubob]

I suppose I should say that the user fee to get in is all that I am willing to pay. I may get to go to the lake for 3-4 days every other year, and my $50K a year in federal taxes should suffice. I don't need any services or government intervention, I want them to get out of the way.

Good luck with that.

 

[Havalina]

I understand the complaints about being nickeled and dimed to death. I spent $400 on licenses and Ais stamps last year. In my opinion, Utah is severely lacking behind Colorado in AIS inspection protocol. Just my opinion, but it seems like Wyoming and Montana are using their ais fee’s as a source of revenue. The onus to stop the spread of invasive species really falls on the outdoor enthusiast. I understand, about the kayaks and float tubes. There still needs to be some responsibility from the boat owners. However, I will be amazed if we are actually able to contain the muscles spread. Bear lake now has the eurasian milfoil.
I will contact my representative and request a no vote, But I doubt that he listen to me after I beat him up on changing the mmj bill despite a popular vote.

 

[dubob]

I will contact my representative and request a no vote.

Thank you; that's all I'm asking for folks to do.

 

[Alan Wade]

Are you a Utah resident?

Yes I'm a Utah resident, I agree everyone who puts a vessel on an infected water should pay, But Pay for what ? I pay a fee everywhere I go Lake Mead, Lake Powell, Flaming Gorge etc and I have to demand a Decon at powell or it doesn't happen. At Powell I was told to take it to Quail creek, they have a setup and can do it anytime, Ok 100 miles round trip for me so they don't have too. I have been through the Port of Entry twice in the last month and a half and all that happens is where you been, where you going next, I even said once Panquitch Lake, The person said ok, Thats when I told him it had 2 feet of ice on it. There's 3 or 4 machines sitting there and No Offer to Decon ? That's why I'm disgusted with paying all these fees, Nothing is being done to eliminate or slow down the problem. At Lake Mead last week I talked to some Water testing people who sample Lake mead for the Government, They said the mussels have subsided greatly in Mead, They said they explode when in a new area but are limited by food after over populating and die, They said Lake Powell was the worst case but should start subsiding, except the Colorado River is a good source of a food chain. At Powell you have to be off the Lake by a certain time to even get Deconed, If DNR is going to charge the fees and I support Decontamination and will not launch before dry times are met i think a better effort by all Colorado River water impoundments needs to come up with a better solution to address the problem and instute it Fairly and over the whole system pooling the revenues collected and charging one fee instead of taxing us out of using the waters.