At the July 16, 2025 JLARC meeting, staff presented a preliminary review of Washington’s recreational boating programs, revenues and expenditures and compared Washington to other states’ programs.

JLARC staff Melanie Stidham and Amanda Edrick told the committee that during the 2021–23 biennium the state collected about $108 million in boating‑related revenue from multiple sources, including a watercraft excise tax, a marine fuel transfer portion of the state gasoline tax, trailer registration fees and federal grants. The presenters said roughly 47 percent of those revenues were specifically designated for boating while 53 percent supported general government purposes, citing statute and grant agreements that direct some revenue away from boating.

On expenditures for 2021–23, JLARC staff reported about $86 million was spent on recreational boating activities. They said 61 percent of spending went to infrastructure and access projects (docks, restrooms, ramps, hand‑launch sites), 24 percent to environmental protection programs (for example derelict vessel removal and aquatic invasive species controls), 7 percent to boater safety programs and 7 percent to marine law enforcement.

Edrick summarized that six state agencies collect or spend boating‑related funds: State Parks, Recreation and Conservation Office (RCO), Department of Natural Resources (DNR), Department of Fish and Wildlife (DFW), Department of Ecology, and Department of Licensing (DOL). The committee also heard that Washington is among several states that provide state funding to local governments for recreational boating activities.

JLARC staff’s preliminary recommendations included continuing certain statutory exemptions and, for the public‑utility tax and brokered natural gas tax exemptions tied to natural gas used for transportation, adding required reporting by beneficiaries so future reviews can more precisely assess benefits. Staff also noted a Department of Revenue work group directed by the legislature must report recommendations on taxation of liquefied natural gas (LNG) by Dec. 1, 2025, and suggested the Legislature consider that work group’s output in determining future policy.

Committee members asked questions about environmental outcomes, how conversions to LNG were tracked, and whether missing data or non‑conversion by entities such as the ferry system affected emissions targets. JLARC staff said emissions reductions were less than anticipated because many vessels did not convert to LNG and that some statutory exemptions appear to provide uniform tax treatment while others (for marine LNG) do not.

JLARC staff indicated the full final report will be presented in September and that the presentation appendix includes interactive dashboards with detailed revenue and expenditure data.