Prohibits the use of polystyrene foam docks, buoys and floating structures

2025 Regular Session Introduced by William Colton and 11 co-sponsors

Prohibits polystyrene foam in docks, buoys, and floating structures to reduce marine litter; affects marinas, owners, manufacturers, and local regulators.

REFERRED TO ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION

Overview and status

Bill: A 9047

Title: Prohibits the use of polystyrene foam docks, buoys and floating structures

Introduced: September 5, 2025

Current status: Referred to the Environmental Conservation Committee

Legislative actions: On September 5, 2025, the bill was referred to Environmental Conservation (listed twice in the provided actions)

Purpose and intent

The bill seeks to prohibit the use of polystyrene foam materials in docks, buoys, and other floating structures.

The title and description indicate an environmental protection objective, aiming to reduce polystyrene foam pollution and related environmental impacts associated with foam debris in aquatic environments.

Key provisions

Prohibition: The core provision would ban the use of polystyrene foam for docks, buoys, and floating structures.

The provided information does not specify:

Exemptions (e.g., for certain uses, locations, or emergency gear)
Enforcement mechanisms or penalties
Effective dates or phased implementation
Responsibilities of state agencies or local governments
Definitions of terms (e.g., what constitutes “polystyrene foam” or “floating structures”)

Scope and potential impact

Likely affected parties include:

Owners, operators, and managers of docks, piers, marinas, and other floating facilities that currently use polystyrene foam components
Manufacturers and suppliers of polystyrene foam docks, buoys, and floating structures
Local governments and regulatory agencies involved in harbor, marina, and coastal management

Expected environmental impact: If enacted and enforced, the bill could reduce polystyrene foam debris in waterways, potentially decreasing marine litter and plastic pollution.

Practical considerations: Without details on exemptions, timelines, or penalties, the fiscal and operational implications for affected stakeholders remain uncertain.

Sponsors and related bills

Primary sponsor: Anna Kelles

Cosponsors: Sarahana Shrestha, Jo Anne Simon, Dana Levenberg, Jessica Gonzalez-Rojas, Deborah Glick, William Colton, Catalina Cruz, Steven Otis, Harvey Epstein, Ron Kim, Jeffrey Dinowitz

Related legislation:

A 8142 (prior-session)
S 1129 (companion in the Senate)

The existence of a Senate companion indicates parallel consideration in another chamber.

Procedural notes and next steps

As of the provided information, the bill has been referred to the Environmental Conservation Committee and has no further actions listed.

Next steps typically include committee hearings, potential amendments, and floor votes in the Assembly. If advanced, a companion Senate bill would follow a parallel track for consideration.

Stakeholders may seek clarifications on exemptions, enforcement, penalties, and implementation timelines during committee deliberations.

Bill