Can Idaho counties spend boat-registration money on roads, restrooms, picnic areas, or campgrounds at a lake?

Plain-English summary

Idaho Parks and Recreation asked which lake-side improvements could lawfully be funded from two different boating-related accounts. The answer turned on the difference between revenue sources and the statutes that channel them.

County Vessel Fund (Idaho Code § 67-7013(7)). Funded by boat registration fees and use permits. The statute lets counties spend it only "for the exclusive purpose of maintaining and improving the public waters of this state for recreational boating purposes and for law enforcement activities related to the enforcement of the provisions of law." Read literally, "the public waters" means the water itself, plus what's on, in, or very near it. So docks, ramps, pumpout facilities, and boat-trailer parking (because launching requires somewhere to put the trailer) all qualify. Roads, picnic areas, restrooms, campgrounds, landscaping, and shore-fishing-only docks do not.

State Waterways Improvement Fund / WIF (Idaho Code § 57-1501). Funded by a small share of the state gasoline tax (originally the percentage attributable to fuels burned in boats). The statute lists eight permissible uses, broader than the Vessel Fund: protection and promotion of safety, waterways improvement, parking and ramps and moorings for boating, waterways marking, search and rescue, and "all things incident to such purposes." The AG read this list to allow land-based facilities at water-recreation sites, restrooms, parking, picnic, camping, landscaping, if boaters engaging in boating activities are the primary beneficiaries. It would be unrealistic to expect boater-only use, but the limiting feature is benefit to boaters.

Both funds bar spending on roads. The opinion treated road spending out of either account as repugnant to the user-pay scheme that created the WIF: the legislature carved boating's share away from highway funds in 1963 precisely so it would benefit boaters, not be returned to roads.

The opinion is mostly a fund-management cheat sheet for state and county officials administering boating accounts, and it does what most AG opinions on dedicated-revenue questions do: read the enabling statute literally, identify the universe of beneficiaries the legislature had in mind, and reject expenditures that benefit a different group.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1989. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.

Idaho Code § 67-7013 has been amended several times since 1989 (subsection numbering and revenue-sharing percentages have changed). Idaho Code § 57-1501 (Waterways Improvement Fund) and the gas-tax distribution at Idaho Code § 63-2412 have also been amended. The substantive distinction the AG drew, water-based-only for the Vessel Fund vs. broader for WIF, has not been disturbed in any way the AG's office has flagged here.

Background and statutory framework (as it stood in 1989)

The Vessel Fund was a tightly worded "use it on water" account. Boat registration ("numbering") and use-permit revenue went first to the state vessel account (85%) and the parks-and-recreation account (15%), then back out to eligible counties under a user-designation system. Counties spent their share through the board of county commissioners.

The WIF was a 1963 creation. The legislature found in 1963 Idaho Session Laws ch. 174 that "1.4% [of motor and special fuel taxes] are derived from motor fuels and special fuels used for marine purposes to propel vessels on the inland and surrounding waterways of this state and that .4% is sufficient to pay the costs of administration and claimed refunds." It carved that share out of the gas-tax revenue stream and dedicated it to boating facilities. The user-pay logic, boaters' fuel taxes go to boating facilities, was the structural reason the AG would not let WIF dollars go back to roads.

Two Idaho cases (Nicolaus v. Bodine, 1968; Webster v. Board of Trustees, 1983) sit in the citation list but are background; the analysis is mostly statutory text and legislative history.

Common questions

Can a county put gravel and asphalt down on the access road to a public boat ramp using Vessel Fund money?
No. The opinion specifically excluded roads. Trailer parking yes, but the road from the highway to the ramp is not a "water-based recreational boating improvement."

What about a restroom right next to the ramp?
Vessel Fund: no. WIF: yes, if boaters using the ramp are the primary beneficiaries. Same answer for a picnic shelter or a campground at the same location.

Why is trailer parking allowed under the Vessel Fund when other land-based things aren't?
The AG framed trailer parking as a necessary adjunct to launching: a boater can't use the dock or ramp without somewhere to leave the trailer while they're on the water. So it's read as part of the dock/ramp infrastructure, not a separate land-based benefit.

Could a county pool Vessel Fund and WIF money for a single project to cover both water-side and land-side costs?
The opinion doesn't address pooling explicitly, but the analysis is statute-by-statute. As long as each fund's contribution covers expenses permissible under its own enabling statute, that approach would track the AG's reasoning.

What about a fishing pier with no boat access?
The opinion called this out as an example of an impermissible use of Vessel Fund money: "land access only, no boat access" doesn't maintain or improve "the public waters of this state for recreational boating purposes." It might still qualify under WIF if it can be tied to safety or some other listed purpose, but pure shore-fishing infrastructure is a hard sell.

Source

• Landing page: https://www.ag.idaho.gov/office-resources/opinions/
• Original PDF: https://ag.idaho.gov/content/uploads/2018/04/OP89-11.pdf

Original opinion text

STATE OF IDAHO
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
JIM JONES, ATTORNEY GENERAL
BOISE 83720

ATTORNEY GENERAL OPINION NO. 89-11

Yvonne S. Ferrell, Director
Idaho Department of Parks and Recreation
Statehouse Mail
Boise, ID 83720

Per Request for Attorney General's Opinion

RE: Use of Moneys in County Vessel Fund and State Waterways Improvement Fund.

Dear Ms. Ferrell:

QUESTION PRESENTED:

You have asked for legal guidance regarding appropriate uses of moneys in the county vessel funds and the state waterways improvement fund (WIF). For each account you inquired as to the propriety of expenditures for roads and for each of the following specific activities:

Items used solely for boaters and boating activity:
1. Boat docks
2. Boat ramps
3. Boat pumpout facilities (on-the-water boat sewage removal facilities)

Items subject to multiple users:
1. Restroom facilities
2. Parking areas
3. Picnic facilities
4. Camping facilities
5. Landscape improvements
6. Fishing docks (land access only — no boat access)

CONCLUSION:

Moneys in the county vessel funds can be spent only on water-related recreational boating improvements. This includes, but is not limited to, boat docks, ramps, pumpout facilities, and boat trailer parking, and on enforcement of boating laws.

Moneys in the WIF may be expended for land based projects, but must be for the primary benefit of boaters engaging in boating activities, and must fall within or be incidental to the following categories: protection and promotion of safety; waterways improvement; development/improvement of boating related parking, ramps, or moorings; waterways marking; search and rescue. Permissible expenditures would include but are not limited to boat docks, ramps, pumpout facilities, restrooms, camping facilities and picnic areas which are primarily accessed by boat, and items incidental to such development, including landscaping.

ANALYSIS:

Your letter expresses a concern about the propriety of expending moneys in the county vessel funds and the WIF on particular types of projects. While the funds are both related to boating activities, each has different revenue sources and statutory directives for expenditures of the moneys.

A. County Vessel Fund (Idaho Code § 67-7013(7))

The county vessel funds, as currently constituted, are made up of revenues collected from the sale of boat registrations ("numbering") and use permits. The revenues from the sale of registrations and use permits are first remitted to the state treasurer for deposit in the state vessel account (85%) and the park and recreation account (15%). The funds in the state vessel account are then returned to the eligible counties under a user designation system set out in Idaho Code § 67-7013(5). The moneys in the county vessel fund are tightly restricted in the purposes for which they can be spent. The moneys "shall be used and expended by the board of county commissioners for the exclusive purpose of maintaining and improving the public waters of this state for recreational boating purposes and for law enforcement activities related to the enforcement of the provisions of law." § 67-7013(7).

This statutory directive is clear and unambiguous. The moneys in the county vessel funds can be spent only (1) to maintain and improve the public waters for recreational boating purposes; and (2) for boating law enforcement. The first provision limits the expenditure of these funds in several ways. Expenditures are primarily for the benefit of recreational boaters engaging in boating activities; these activities must be in, on, or very near the water. This clearly includes boat docks, boat ramps, and boat pumpout facilities.

Boat trailer parking would also be an appropriate expenditure of county vessel funds because boat launching facilities (docks and ramps) usually require the use of a vehicle and trailer which must be stored on land while the boating activity occurs on the water.

The remaining facilities enumerated in your opinion request — roads, restrooms, picnic facilities, camping facilities, landscaping, and land access fishing docks — do not appear to be facilities that maintain or improve "the public waters of this state for recreational boating purposes." (Emphasis added.)

In summary, the statute expressly limits the expenditure of county vessel funds to water-based recreational boating improvements and enforcement of boating laws. Expenditure of county vessel funds for other purposes, either land-based, or for other than recreational boating, is clearly improper.

B. State Waterways Improvement Fund (Idaho Code § 57-1501)

The state waterways improvement fund was created in 1963. The purposes of the WIF are broader than those of the county vessel funds. WIF funds can be used "for the protection and promotion of safety, waterways improvement, creation and improvement of parking areas for boating purposes, making and improving boat ramps and moorings, marking of waterways, search and rescue, and all things incident to such purposes including the purchase of real and personal property." Idaho Code § 57-1501, 1963 Idaho Session Laws, Ch. 175, § 3, p. 500. While § 57-1501 has subsequently been amended on two occasions, the cited language appears unaltered in the current code.

Funding for the WIF has always come from state gasoline tax revenues. Initially the program was funded by a one percent (1%) share of these revenues. In creating the WIF the legislature stated:

The legislature hereby finds a fact that of all the taxes collected under Section 49-1210 and Section 49-1231, Idaho Code, 1.4% are derived from motor fuels and special fuels used for marine purposes to propel vessels on the inland and surrounding waterways of this state and that .4% is sufficient to pay the costs of administration and claimed refunds by marine users of special fuels. The legislature hereby declares that it is the policy of this state to use the funds derived from the sale of motor fuels and special fuels for marine use to improve boating facilities throughout this state.

1963 Idaho Session Laws, Ch. 174, § 1, p. 500.

The gas tax distribution has been changed several times since 1963, but a portion of the revenue has always gone to the WIF. The current distribution formula, found at Idaho Code § 63-2412, recognizes that not all gasoline was purchased for use on the state's roads and highways (which prior to 1963 received one hundred percent (100%) of the gas tax revenue). The separation of tax revenue generated by the sale of marine fuels was simply a refinement of the user-pay system for funding roads and highways which the gas tax provided.

The statutory limitations on the expenditure of funds in the WIF are also clear and unambiguous, though of somewhat broader scope than those imposed on the county vessel funds. Permissible uses are: (1) protection and promotion of safety; (2) waterways improvement; (3) development/improvement of boating related parking; (4) development/improvement of boat ramps; (5) development/improvement of boat moorings; (6) waterways marking; (7) search and rescue; and (8) anything incident to the enumerated uses, including the purchase of property both real and personal. The common limiting feature here is that all the items listed are boating related, a fact which parallels the source of the funding as boating-generated tax revenue. Unlike the county vessel funds, expenditures for land-based boating activities are proper under the WIF.

When one applies the provisions of § 57-1501 to the items enumerated in your opinion request, the items sort themselves out appropriately. Boat docks, boat ramps, and boat pumpout facilities are clearly permissible, as are restrooms, parking facilities, picnic facilities, camping facilities, and landscaping, when these items are primarily for the benefit of boaters engaging in boating activities. It would be unrealistic to expect that boaters would have the exclusive use of these facilities developed with WIF moneys. On the other hand, use of WIF moneys for the development of projects with little or no benefit to boaters would be contrary to the existing user-pay funding scheme.

The expenditure of WIF moneys on the construction and/or maintenance of roads is repugnant to the WIF funding scheme. The WIF was created specifically because of the inequity of spending marine fuel revenues for non-marine uses. Currently, only a small percentage of gas tax revenue (less than one percent (1%) goes to the WIF) with the bulk of gas tax revenue going to roads. To spend the small proportion of gas tax revenues going to the WIF on roads would be a step back to the days before 1963 when boaters received no benefits from their boating-generated tax dollars. This result would be clearly contrary to the existing statutory scheme.

In summary, proposed expenditures of WIF moneys should be scrutinized to assure that they come within the eight permissible categories for expenditures, and that boaters engaging in boating activities will be the primary beneficiaries of the funds. Expenditures that are outside the scope of § 57-1501, or that provide no benefits or only incidental benefits to boaters are improper.

Both § 67-7013(7) and § 57-1501 show the evolution in the funding mechanisms for the support of recreational boating programs toward a user supported system. This parallels the phenomenal growth of recreational boating activities in the state and the resultant need for increased boating facilities. The careful expenditure of funds in compliance with the statutory provisions will assure compliance with the express intent of the legislature.

AUTHORITIES CONSIDERED:

Idaho Statutes:
Idaho Code § 57-1501
Idaho Code § 63-2412
Idaho Code § 67-7013

Idaho Session Laws:
1949 Idaho Sess. Laws, Ch. 203, p. 423 (H.B. 154)
1951 Idaho Sess. Laws, Ch. 55, p. 79 (H.B. 22)
1961 Idaho Sess. Laws, Ch. 281, p. 499 (S.B. 233)
1963 Idaho Sess. Laws, Ch. 174, p. 500 (S.B. 256)
1969 Idaho Sess. Laws, Ch. 210, p. 611 (S.B. 1223)
1977 Idaho Sess. Laws, Ch. 122, p. 261 (S.B. 1183)
1980 Idaho Sess. Laws, Ch. 246, p. 568 (S.B. 1438)

Cases:
Nicolaus v. Bodine, 92 Idaho 639, 641, 448 P.2d 645, 647 (1968).
Webster v. Board of Trustees, 104 Idaho 342, 659 P.2d 96 (1983).

DATED this 27th day of October, 1989.

JIM JONES
Attorney General
State of Idaho

Analysis by:
Rinda Just
Deputy Attorney General
Idaho Department of Parks and Recreation

cc: Idaho Supreme Court
Supreme Court Library
Idaho State Library