Dan Riley, chief counsel to the Kansas Department of Wildlife and Parks, was criticized by members of a Kansas Legislature committee because he declined to follow a state law requiring proposed rules and regulations to be accompanied by an economic impact report. (Kansas Reflector screen capture of Kansas Legislature's YouTube channel)
TOPEKA — A state Department of Wildlife and Parks’ attorney ran into a bipartisan buzz saw for failing to submit to the Kansas Legislature an estimate of the potential cost to consumers, businesses and government if lawmakers approved a proposed regulation requiring the replacement of fire extinguishers on boats every 12 years.
State Wildlife and Parks general counsel Dan Riley told the Legislature’s joint committee on rules and regulations Monday that he didn’t follow the state statute requiring the economic impact report whenever requesting approval of regulatory changes. He left blank a set of generic questions that would explain the economics of adopting the U.S. Coast Guard’s recommendation for replacing portable fire extinguishers stored on boats.
“One thing I will not do is put in information that’s based on speculation or a guess or some haphazard estimate just for the sake of … filling in a line,” Riley said. “We take safety very seriously given the fact that boats on the water transport large groups of people — families, small children. We don’t want a fire to become a tragedy because a fire extinguisher that’s 13 years old doesn’t function.”
Sen. Kelli Warren, a Leawood Republican and chair of the Legislature’s rules and regulations oversight committee, joined other legislators in pointing to Kansas law directing state agencies to complete an economic impact report when submitting proposed regulations or rules for consideration by the Legislature.
She said the state Department of Wildlife and Parks should return to the committee with a report showing how the fire equipment change would impose new costs on Kansans.
“None of this was really answered,” the senator said. “I would think a revised economic impact statement would be prudent.”
Rep. John Carmichael, D-Wichita, told Riley that he wasn’t convinced the U.S. Coast Guard was justified in establishing a 12-year limit on the life of a hand-held extinguisher.
“You just listened to what came from Washington? They said every 12 years I have to throw the perfectly good fire extinguisher away on my boat and buy a new one? Because if it’s 12 years old, it would work. But if it is 13 years old, it won’t?” Carmichael said.
Carmichael asked Riley for information about the number of watercraft registered in Kansas. Riley said he didn’t know. He asked whether Riley consulted sporting associations or marina owners about the proposed policy on extinguishers. Riley said he didn’t.
The state representative asked Riley to estimate of the number of extinguishers likely to be found noncompliant during random inspections by state law enforcement officers? Riley said he didn’t know, but assumed a “small number” would fail a 12-year rule.
Carmichael asked Riley how much a replacement extinguisher would cost. Riley said a basic extinguisher might cost $32, which he said should be viewed as “not significant.”
“That may not be significant to you, but to me and some of my constituents, $32 is real money. That’s food for kids at the lake,” Carmichael said. “Your answers are unsatisfactory.”
Under the U.S. Coast Guard policy, Riley said, a disposable dry chemical fire extinguisher would have to be removed from service 12 years after the date of manufacture. Existing Kansas regulations say fire extinguishers on boats must be readily accessible, maintained in serviceable working condition and of a type approved by the Coast Guard.
Republican Rep. Patrick Penn of Wichita, who also serves on the Legislature’s rules committee, said expecting the committee to endorse the extinguisher regulation without following state law on economic impact reports was unprofessional.
“I’ll pull no punches. This is lazy. This is shoddy,” Penn said. “The problem we have is that we work for the people of Kansas.”
He said if Riley couldn’t pull together the economic statement associated with the proposed rule, responsibility for that work should be passed to someone else at the state Department of Wildlife and Parks.
Most Popular
Comments / 0