LCI subcommittee hears testimony on H.3771 requiring recovery insurance for long‑anchored vessels

Members of the South Carolina House Labor, Commerce and Industry (LCI) Banking and Insurance Subcommittee on Wednesday heard more than an hour of testimony on H.3771, the “Marine Recovery Insurance” bill that would require a liability insurance endorsement and a vessel survey for boats that remain at anchor in state waters for an extended period.

The measure seeks to make it easier to remove derelict and abandoned vessels, which speakers said are damaging docks, polluting waterways and creating hazards to navigation. Garrett Lacey, with the South Carolina Coastal Fishing Guide Association, told the committee, “it is beating my dock and now I have to pay for it,” and said guides see abandoned vessels daily. Rudy Socia of the nonprofit Wounded Nature Working Veterans said the current system lets owners keep nonworking boats on public waterways for “$10 a year” under a DNR permit and that his group has removed 219 derelict vessels to date.

Why it matters: Committee members and Department of Natural Resources (DNR) officials described gaps in enforcement and funding that make removal costly and slow. Major Michael Paul Thomas of the South Carolina Department of Natural Resources said a statutory process exists but can take about 90 days — a 45‑day notice period followed by another 45 days — before a boat is deemed abandoned and eligible for removal. Witnesses and members said earlier intervention and a clearer funding or insurance mechanism could reduce environmental harm and municipal costs.

Supporters’ pitch and technical details

Proponents said H.3771 would apply narrowly to vessels “that remain at anchor in the waters of South Carolina for a period of more than 14 days,” a threshold the bill presenter said might be changed to 30 days to avoid capturing transient boaters. The presenter described the insurance as an endorsement on a general liability policy that, according to insurers consulted by proponents, could cost roughly $200 per year and provide up to $100,000 of recovery coverage for removal. The bill also ties issuance of a DNR placard to a survey verifying the vessel can move under its own power or otherwise is seaworthy.

Opponents and questions from members

Several committee members said they support cleaning up waterways but questioned whether an insurance mandate is the best or fairest mechanism. Representative Ligon said a state recovery fund — described by witnesses as a separate Senate proposal called the Waterways Protection Act filed by Senator Khamson that would add a small fee to registration — might be more equitable than a new insurance requirement on some owners. Representative Ligon said the recovery‑fund approach “seems more fair” and raised concern about repeated surveys and regulatory burden on owners.

Implementation and process concerns

DNR and volunteer operators described operational limits. Major Michael Paul Thomas said officers try to identify owners using registration or title information, send a certified notice, place a placard and, if unclaimed after the statutory period, treat the vessel as abandoned. “If this is your boat, call us,” he told members when describing the placard process. He said shortening the statutory timeline could help retrieve boats while they remain afloat, which is cheaper and easier.

Witnesses gave cost examples and operational anecdotes that shaped the committee’s questions: Socia said early removal typically costs about $3,000, while raising a vessel after it sinks can cost $15,000 or more and described one recovery that required three days and 10 divers. Members discussed additional policy components that witnesses and local officials have used — local ordinances, insurance placards or stickers that would make compliance visible to enforcement officers, and fundraising mechanisms to cover removals.

Outcome and next steps

Committee leadership did not move H.3771 today. The chair said there are “a lot of moving parts” and asked stakeholders — DNR, insurers, local governments, and volunteer groups — to continue work to craft a more comprehensive bill. The chair adjourned the hearing without taking action on H.3771 and said the committee will revisit the proposal soon.

Votes at a glance: No formal vote or motion on H.3771 was taken; the committee adjourned without action.

Ending

Committee members said they want a single, clearer package of measures rather than a patchwork of local rules and one‑off changes. Several members expressed bipartisan interest in a combined bill and asked DNR and proponents to return with refinements, clearer enforcement mechanics and funding options.