Committee reviews new S.224 draft that would let towns seek delegation to regulate water use and impose wake-boat rules

The Natural Resources & Energy committee on Feb. 4 considered a working draft of S.224 that would let a municipality petition the Agency of Natural Resources for delegation to regulate use of public waters and would add new rules for wake boats, registration and decontamination requirements.

The draft, presented to the committee as a work-in-progress, would allow municipalities that operate and control a public water system to request limited or full delegation to regulate uses such as motorized craft, boat speed and the number of boats. The presenter said the ANR could terminate delegation with six months’ notice. The session also focused on a new section that would require owners or controllers of wake boats to identify their vessels on a form provided by the department and—in some circumstances—to get agency-approved decontamination before entering other lakes.

Why it matters: The changes are designed to limit the spread of aquatic invasive species and to clarify who may regulate activities on grant-funded access areas. Municipalities and department staff raised competing claims about where statutory authority rests and how delegation would interact with Fish and Wildlife Board rules. That legal overlap drove sustained discussion among committee members.

Key points and debate A presenter walking the committee through the draft said the measure preserves the state agency’s ability to terminate delegation and noted delegation “could prevent motors on the water” or limit boat speed, but emphasized the proposal does not automatically transfer all authorities. Several members pressed for clearer language so towns that own or control watershed land could not inadvertently lose or gain enforcement obligations.

On wake-boat controls, the draft would eliminate a decal-based system and replace it with registration and a requirement that a wake-boat that moves between lakes be decontaminated by an agency-approved provider prior to entering the receiving lake. The presenter said existing boat-washing stations would not be treated as approved decontamination providers unless the agency specifically authorized them to perform decontamination services. One member proposed a grandfather clause to exempt stations “in existence as of 07/01/2026” from the approval requirement so operators would not be caught in a circular approval problem.

Enforcement and operation The proposal would apply aquatic nuisance inspection and drainage requirements to wake boats and would allow greeters or law-enforcement officers to request decontamination. The presenter clarified that greeters do not have law enforcement authority: “They can just inform, and then the wake boat operator can do what they want, and the greeter can inform law enforcement, if necessary.” The bill would route enforcement of wake-boat violations to the Judicial Bureau (the minor civil offenses bureau), and presenters recommended coordination with the administrative judge in advance of any change.

Members also probed operational issues: several witnesses and committee members noted many existing inspection stations lack hot water and space and would need either agency support or public-private partnerships to operate as decontamination providers. Representatives urged more outreach and signage at common access points so out-of-state boaters would have notice of new requirements.

Remaining questions and next steps Committee members asked staff to clarify (1) exactly which authorities would be delegable, (2) whether delegation would supersede Fish & Wildlife Board rules in certain circumstances, (3) the exact scope of reimbursable municipal costs when a town’s drinking-water protection requires overtime policing or other services, and (4) whether to include explicit grandfathering language for existing boat‑washing infrastructure. The chair asked staff to bring revised language and to coordinate with ANR, Fish & Wildlife and municipal representatives before the next draft.

The committee did not take a formal vote on S.224 during the session and asked staff to return with refined drafting options and legal clarifications.