Kansas lawmakers question wildlife and parks regulators’ disregard for costs
Kansas state lawmakers criticized a state agency’s lack of compliance with a new law that seeks to revise economic impact statements that accompany regulatory changes.
When the Kansas Department of Wildlife and Parks presented a regulation requiring fire extinguishers on recreational boats to the Joint Committee on Administrative Rules and Rules on Monday, Republicans and Democrats alike attacked the regulator for ignoring numerous questions about the impact of its proposed regulation on the public.
The meeting was the first since House Bill 2648 became law on July 1. That law, which the Republican-led legislature passed despite a veto by Democratic Gov. Laura Kelly, requires more robust economic impact statements. The law also prevents agencies from issuing regulations that cost more than $1 million to implement unless the legislature ratifies it.
“Click here to enter the agency’s response.”
Dan Riley, KDWP’s chief legal counsel, presented the committee with an amendment to the boating regulations that would specify fire extinguisher requirements.
As part of the economic impact analysis, the Agency did not answer several questions. As a result, the response field of the official documents submitted to the Committee was left with dummy text: “Click here to enter the Agency’s response.”
Unanswered questions included questions about how the regulation “will encourage or restrict business activities,” “what economic impact it will have, including a detailed quantification of the costs of implementation and compliance,” “which companies would be directly affected,” and “measures the authority is taking to minimize costs.”
When asked what the cost would be for businesses, local authorities and the public, the agency left a number of other questions unanswered. The dummy text read: “$Click here to enter the amount.”
The agency then left unanswered a question about its methodology for calculating the cost estimate. Although it did not provide a cost estimate, the agency stated that the costs do not exceed the $1 million limit set out in HB 2648, writing, “The total costs do not exceed the threshold.”
KDWP follows the Coast Guard
Riley told lawmakers the change would update state regulations to align with the U.S. Coast Guard’s latest federal requirements.
“One of the most significant changes is the fact that no fire extinguisher older than 12 years will be accepted, which is a good change,” Riley said.
Federal records show that the Coast Guard rule requiring a 12-year expiration date for disposable fire extinguishers from the date of manufacture took effect on April 20, 2022. The Coast Guard made the change as part of a broader effort to reduce the burden of monthly inspections for recreational boaters.
The US Coast Guard has no empirical data showing that fire extinguisher failure on recreational boats is a cause for concern, the US government said. “This new standard will continue to ensure that portable fire extinguishers are in good working order and ready for immediate use without imposing unnecessary burdens on the public,” the statement said.
“So you just heard what came out of Washington, saying I have to throw away a perfectly good fire extinguisher on my boat every 12 years and buy a new one?” said Democratic Rep. John Carmichael of Wichita.
Riley said boaters who do not replace an expired fire extinguisher would be in violation of regulations.
“We take safety very seriously,” Riley said. “And given that many of the boats on the water carry large groups of people, families and young children, we don’t want a fire to become a tragedy just because a 13-year-old fire extinguisher doesn’t work.”
Lawmakers describe regulators as “lazy” and “sloppy”
Riley said the cost of a fire extinguisher is “not significant.” The price of the fire extinguisher he bought last year was $32. Carmichael called that “real money.”
“Whether it’s the Coast Guard’s idea or Governor Kelly’s, your agency needs to make an economic impact statement,” Carmichael said. “I’m trying to figure out why you think it wouldn’t cost boaters in this state something meaningful if we threw out all our fire extinguishers and bought new ones.”
Riley said the agency has consulted internally with its game wardens who inspect watercraft, but the agency apparently never spoke with boat owners, marinas or recreational associations about how the rule will affect them.
While Riley faced bipartisan criticism from lawmakers who wanted the agency to do more work and do more research, the harshest comments came from Rep. Patrick Penn (R-Wichita).
“This is lazy. This is botched,” Penn said, adding that the work is being done for the people of Kansas and the information should help people understand “how much it’s going to hit them in the pocket.”
“You say you don’t have data. That’s wrong,” Penn said.
He said the agency must already have data on the number of boats affected in the state, how many fire extinguishers they need and what the rate is. “So you can extrapolate using simple math: X times Y times Z.”
“I would say if this gentleman can’t do the job, he needs to find someone in his agency who can,” Penn said.
Why Wildlife and Parks “ignored” questions
Senator Kellie Warren (R-Leawood), chair of the committee, asked Riley why the agency believed it did not need to comply with the required economic impact statement.
The reason for this appears to be that the Agency interpreted the Committee’s previous dissatisfaction with the inadequate answers as meaning that the Committee would prefer no answer.
“Previously, we were told not to respond with ‘none expected’ because that’s the response we would typically use if we didn’t have information to suggest there would be an economic impact,” Riley said. “So we followed that direction in terms of no response rather than ‘none expected.'”
Warren said, “It looks like you ignored it.”
“I was previously told by this committee not to file a response with the note ‘not expected.’ So instead of filing a response, which is essentially a non-response, the instruction was to just not do it at all,” Riley said. He reiterated that KDWP has no information demonstrating significant economic impact and said, “I’m not going to create information just to be able to file something on the form.”
Warren said KDWP’s lack of response shows they “ignored their obligation to answer and complete the economic impact statement.” She also questioned whether the committee would have instructed regulators to ignore questions in the economic impact statement. She said it was unacceptable for an agency to “simply skip the question.”
“I’ve been told that the answer ‘not expected’ is not enough and I honestly don’t know what a better answer would be if we don’t have any information,” Riley said.
Previous regulatory filings and committee meeting reports show that lawmakers have long expressed a desire for more robust economic impacts, particularly from Wildlife and Parks. One such occasion was the April 25, 2023, meeting, where lawmakers criticized the limited information included with turkey hunting season regulations and permit applications.
“We want more information on the economic impact,” Republican Rep. Barb Wasinger of Hays told Riley at the meeting. “We’re not forced to do it, but we’re going to change the legislation to make sure we get better information on the economic impact.”
Jason Alatidd is a statehouse reporter for the Topeka Capital-Journal. He can be reached by email at [email protected]. Follow him on X @Jason_Alatidd.
