HB 2395
In CommitteeHouse
Private docks and buoys
Authorizing additional use of certain private recreational docks and mooring buoys.
This status may be delayed. See Action History below for the latest updates.
How does a bill become law?
- Introduced: The bill is filed and assigned a number.
- Committee: A subject-matter committee holds hearings, takes public testimony, and decides whether to advance the bill.
- Floor Vote: The full chamber (House or Senate) debates and votes on the bill.
- Opposite Chamber: The bill repeats the committee and floor vote process in the other chamber.
- Governor: The Governor reviews the bill and decides whether to sign or veto it.
- Signed: The bill has been signed into law.
AI Analysis
This bill allows residential property owners whose land borders state-owned aquatic lands to install and maintain private docks and mooring buoys for recreational use—free of charge—and to share those facilities with other recreational boaters under strict limits, without triggering commercial leasing rules. It also clarifies how disputes over buoy placement are resolved and when the state may require removal of docks or buoys.
- Allows abutting residential property owners to install and maintain a dock on state-owned aquatic lands at no charge, provided it is used exclusively for private recreational purposes and complies with applicable rules.
- Allows abutting residential property owners to install and maintain a mooring buoy at no charge under similar conditions, with limits on boat size (≤60 feet) and requirements to avoid obstructing existing buoys.
- Permits 'recreational moorage sharing'—allowing qualified recreational vessels to use the owner’s dock or buoy for up to 7 consecutive days per stay, and up to 90 days total per year—without triggering commercial leasing requirements.
- Limits income from such sharing to no more than three times the owner’s documented maintenance costs over the prior 12 months.
- Clarifies that compliant moorage sharing is not a commercial use, does not create a separate lease, and is exempt from the department’s usual leasing and authorization rules.
- Allows revocation of dock or buoy permission by the Department of Natural Resources if public safety, navigation, or environmental protection requires it (e.g., hazard, obstruction, or habitat damage).
Who is affected
- Abutting residential property owners — Residential property owners who own land adjacent to state-owned aquatic lands (e.g., tidelands, shorelands, or beds of navigable waters) and wish to install or maintain a private dock or mooring buoy for personal recreational use—this bill allows them to do so at no charge, and to allow limited sharing of those facilities with others under specific conditions.
- Private dock and buoy owners — Owners of private docks or mooring buoys who want to temporarily share their facilities with other boaters for noncommercial, recreational purposes—this bill clarifies and expands the conditions under which such sharing is allowed without triggering leasing requirements or commercial-use classification.
- Recreational boaters (guest users) — Recreational boaters who do not own docks or buoys but may be invited by property owners to use them for short-term stays—this bill explicitly allows such access under defined limits, including stay duration and income caps.
- State and local government agencies — State agencies and local governments—this bill does not create new costs but may require the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) or port districts to process disputes or enforce compliance with new sharing rules.
Pro/Con Analysis
Stronger case for benefits
Potential Benefits (5)
The bill allows abutting residential property owners to install docks and buoys at no charge, effectively increasing the utility and perceived value of waterfront homes—this enhances quality of life and may support property values for middle-income homeowners who live on state-owned shorelands.
HousingPeopleRef: Sec. 2(1) & (2)By permitting limited recreational moorage sharing (up to 90 days/year), the bill expands access to private dock facilities for non-owners, supporting low-cost, flexible boating access—especially beneficial for seasonal or part-time residents who lack private moorage but are not wealthy enough to buy marina slips.
TransportationPeopleRef: Sec. 2(3)The bill clarifies dispute resolution procedures for overlapping buoy claims, reducing ambiguity and potential for conflict—this may reduce informal disputes and encourage orderly use of shared aquatic space, though it does not eliminate court-based resolution.
Local GovernmentPeopleRef: Sec. 2(2)(b)The explicit exemption of compliant moorage sharing from commercial leasing rules reduces regulatory uncertainty for owners who share facilities informally—this supports low-risk, small-scale hospitality and recreation sharing without triggering complex permitting.
Business & EmploymentLean peopleRef: Sec. 2(4)By limiting stays to 7 consecutive days and 90 total days/year, the bill reduces the risk of long-term, unmonitored vessel occupation—this helps prevent illegal habitation, waste dumping, or vessel abandonment that could threaten public health or navigation safety.
Public SafetyLean peopleRef: Sec. 2(3)(a)-(c)
Potential Concerns (5)
The $35,000 annual income cap (three times maintenance costs) effectively limits the ability of owners to generate meaningful income from sharing facilities—most residential owners have low documented maintenance costs, making the cap functionally a non-income opportunity rather than a revenue-generating activity.
Business & EmploymentRef: Sec. 2(3)(d)The bill shifts dispute resolution for overlapping buoy placements to superior court, imposing a new civil legal burden on residential owners and potentially increasing local court caseloads without providing state funding for adjudication.
Local GovernmentRef: Sec. 2(2)(c)The state may revoke dock or buoy permission at any time for vague reasons like “public necessity” or “degradation of aquatic habitat,” without requiring compensation or clear procedural safeguards—this creates uncertainty and risk for long-term investment by property owners.
Rights & LibertiesPeopleRef: Sec. 2(5)By exempting docks and buoys from standard leasing and environmental review, the bill may accelerate uncoordinated infrastructure expansion on sensitive shorelines, potentially increasing localized habitat disruption, sediment disturbance, and nutrient loading from increased vessel traffic.
EnvironmentLean peopleRef: Sec. 2(1) & (2)The maintenance-cost-based income cap prevents the development of small-scale commercial services (e.g., shared dock operators supporting local guides or outfitters), limiting entrepreneurial opportunities for low- to middle-income waterfront residents.
Business & EmploymentLean peopleRef: Sec. 2(3)(d)
Who Is Most Affected
Middle- and upper-middle-income waterfront homeowners who own abutting property gain direct, no-cost access to state-owned aquatic land for private recreation—this enhances property utility and quality of life but does not meaningfully benefit low-income households.
Recreational boaters gain temporary, low-cost access to private docks and buoys—this is especially helpful for seasonal users and those without private moorage, but the 90-day cap limits long-term reliance.
Local governments face increased civil caseloads for buoy disputes and may need to coordinate with DNR on enforcement, but incur no new costs; no significant benefit or harm overall.
The state (DNR) avoids new administrative costs but gains flexibility to revoke installations for environmental or safety reasons—no net fiscal impact, but increased discretion may create regulatory tension with owners.
Marina operators and commercial moorage providers face indirect competition from expanded private sharing, but the 90-day cap and income limits prevent meaningful displacement of commercial services.