NOVA Policy Position Paper / Jennifer Briggs

[Grumpy]

Nonhighway and Off-road Vehicle Activities (NOVA) Program Funding in the State Of
Washington.
By Jennifer Briggs
2 Briggs
December 21, 2007
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
There is a serious theft of off-road vehicle (ORV) funds, along with a grave underfunding
for ORV recreation. These funds are the only funds available to properly maintain trails
used by ORV enthusiasts. When there is under-funding of these trails, then ORV users go
elsewhere to ride. That elsewhere includes places where ORV use is not properly managed.
Better policies are desperately needed to save an increasingly popular sport. ORV
recreation benefits the state of Washington economically. Sales have increased steadily over for
decades, and enthusiasts usually purchase and maintain significant other vehicles including
trucks, trailers, and motorhomes.
Better policies benefiting this sport will help the environment of Washington. The basic
issue is the growth of demand (number of ORV owners) vs. stagnant or decreasing opportunities.
This demand tends to find its own opportunities, and this is wrong for the environment, ORV use
should be planned and managed. The funds being stolen from ORV users are the only funds that
exist, and those funds are also what keep the existing opportunities properly maintained.
Stop the theft of funds taken from the Nonhighway and Off-road Vehicle Activities
(NOVA) program along with increasing them, and have an ORV community that has ample,
properly managed, opportunities, which benefits the families and citizens, the economy, and the
environment.
3 Briggs
INTRODUCTION
In the early 1970’s, off-road vehicle (ORV) recreationists gave up their State
Constitutional right to a fuel tax refund for fuel used off-road, and further, created an ORV
license fee, with both of these funds to be to the Interagency Committee (IAC) to manage, create,
and maintain motorized off-road recreation. The Nonhighway and Off-road Vehicle Activities
(NOVA) program was created during this same time, to provide the IAC with recommendations
on how to spend that money within the three categories—Education and Enforcement,
Maintenance and Operations, and Capitol Projects. Six user representatives make up NOVA, and
those six trail user representatives are all-terrain vehicles (ATVs), equestrians, four wheel drivers
(4wd), hikers, mountain bikers, and ORV’s/motorcycles.
Since the creation of NOVA, the Washington Trails Association (WTA, representing the
hiker group) has been attempting to divert the funds from NOVA, even though by increasing
NOVA funds, it increases funds available to hikers. The Northwest Motorcycle Association
(NMA, representing the ORV’s/motorcycle group) has fought tooth and nail to increase funds for
NOVA, because the NMA is dedicated to the preservation of trails and the off-road recreation
sport as a whole.
Despite the constant efforts of the NMA and lately groups representing all forms of
motorized and non-hiking off-road recreation (including the Pacific Northwest 4 Wheel Drive
Association, Quad/ATV groups, Backcountry Horsemen), the WTA has been mostly successful
in diverting funds for motorized recreation. The IAC has ignored the majority vote of NOVA
users and has diverted funds from motorized recreation in the past and present. The fully-staffed
4 Briggs
WTA has used paid lobbyists that work in Olympia year round to fight for bills and budget plans
that divert NOVA funds from motorized recreation to hiking recreation. The NMA, on the other
hand, has fought to defeat almost every bill that does this, and is a 100% volunteer only
association with no paid positions.
The NMA and WTA both have different ideas on who is allowed on trails in the state of
Washington. The WTA advocates hiker only trails, while the NMA advocates multiple-use trails
(that includes hikers), as well as hiker-only trails.
Something must be done to return all of the funding originally allowed to NOVA that has
been diverted over the past decades. It is naïve, of course, to hope for a refund of the millions of
dollars lost over these years.
HISTORY
Before the early 1970’s, there were no funds available for off-road vehicle (ORV)
recreation management in the state of Washington. Leadership within the ORV community
decided in 1972 that funding was needed to provide proper maintenance and organization to the
trails and facilities used. To determine how much money would go to the ORV community for
these purposes, a fuel use study was conducted. The results of this fuel use study showed that
approximately 4.6% of the state fuel tax—the state fuel tax was 18 cents per gallon at that time—
was produced by all vehicles on trails and nonhighway roads. The state legislature then decided
that 1% of the state fuel tax was representative of the off-road and trail use by motorcycles and
4x4s on trails available for multiple use. The ORV leadership came up with an agreement with
5 Briggs
the legislature that if ORV users gave up their State Constitutional right to a gas tax refund, and
paid an annual ORV sticker fee, then these funds, as written into the RCWs (RCW46.09), would
be made available to the Interagency Committee (IAC) for off-road recreation management only.
In 1973, the Nonhighway and Off-road Vehicle Activities (NOVA) program was created
to represent the six main trail users—all-terrain vehicles (ATVs), equestrians, four wheel drivers
(4wd), hikers, mountain bicyclists, and ORVs/motorcycles. Representatives of theses six trail
users (in other words, NOVA) give recommendations to the IAC on how the money should be
spent to benefit off-road recreation. There are three categories in which the IAC can divide the
NOVA funds. Those three categories are Education and Enforcement (E&E), Capitol Projects,
and Maintenance and Operations. Each category receives a part of the 1% of the state fuel tax
and license fees provided to NOVA, and that part of the NOVA funds is determined based on
how much needs to be done to the different categories to benefit off-road recreation the most.
In 1985, the Nonhighway Roads (NHR) program was created. The WTA changed the
legislation—via HB1653—using a lobbyist in Olympia and this legislation made NOVA create
the NHR program. 20% of the NOVA funds went to that program. Therefore, 80% of the 1% of
the state fuel tax that went to NOVA was used for off-road use, and 20% was used for NHR use.
That same bill also allowed a WTA member to join the NOVA committee. This was the first
open attack the WTA made on diverting NOVA funds from off-road recreation. Logically, from
the original fuel use study, 3.6% of the gas tax should have been applied here.
In 1990, the state fuel tax increased from 18 cents per gallon to 23 cents per gallon.
Instead of the 1% of the state fuel tax for NOVA increasing along with the tax increase, the
legislature decided that the refunds of the state fuel tax by nonhighway and off-road use given to
the IAC were capped at that original 1%. Therefore, the amount NOVA receives is
6 Briggs
approximately 18/23 of the current 1% of the state fuel tax. That five cent difference has taken
approximately $12.5 million from funds that are rightfully meant for NOVA since this bill
passed. The Northwest Motorcycle Association (NMA) fought to return the full 1% of the state
fuel tax to NOVA with SB5844 in the year 1997 and SB6134 in the year 1998. SB5844 passed
the Senate 49 to one, but for reasons unknown it never got out of the Budget Committee, and
therefore the representatives never voted on it. The next year, SB6134 was brought into
legislation, but was defeated because of the same reasons as SB5844.
In the year 2000, the WTA wished to challenge the arguably dated fuel use study, and
conduct a new study on nonhighway and off-road fuel use in the state of Washington using
existing NOVA funds via HB1653 to pay for it. Five out of the six user representatives of NOVA
voted against having NOVA funds pay for this fuel use study—the one group who approved the
fuel use study funding was the hiker group, WTA. The idea in mind was that since the legislature
already does not pay NOVA the full 1% of funds that are rightfully NOVA’s, then a new fuel use
study would not serve any purpose because despite the results the legislature would most likely
not increase the amount given to the IAC for ORV recreation. Further, ex-WTA executives were
now in IAC leadership positions, and had already identified a survey company and produced the
“draftâ€