An upcoming legal ruling on a Washington State county ban on jet skis may have an impact on how these watercraft are regulated around the country. And while coastal managers may not be directly involved in regulation, it is an issue that could have a tremendous impact on local agencies.
"This is clearly something that has come to our attention, and is already an issue in other areas," said Tom Mark, senior policy analyst with the Washington Department of Ecology, which is responsible for coastal management issues. "If there are sensitive resources that you can identify, and you can determine that jet skis shouldn't go over there, then the basis for a coastal manager's involvement is pretty strong."
Rhea Miller, a San Juan County commissioner, said she thinks "any organization that deals with environmental issues really needs to look at the scientific studies that have been done on the impact these machines have. These craft present a tremendous number of environmental, enforcement, and safety issues."
In February 1996, the San Juan County Board of Commissioners imposed a two-year ban on personal watercraft, commonly known by the Kawasaki trademark "Jet Ski." While many communities and states have placed restrictions on personal watercraft use, San Juan County outlawed the use of these craft everywhere along its 375 miles of saltwater shoreline for anything but law enforcement purposes. The ban set up a fine of up to $250 for repeat violators.
The ban prompted a lawsuit by the national Personal Watercraft Industry Association, which claimed the regulations would illegally keep certain individuals out of public parks and navigable waters. The county's ban was struck down when it went to trial in October 1996, with the judge ruling that the commissioners could regulate, but not outlaw the craft because they are registered with the state. The judge issued an injunction preventing enforcement.
"Our case was not overturned on the issue of personal freedom," Miller said. "The issue was that they were licensed by the state and therefore there is no local control. We thought the ruling was wrong. Look at gun control. Guns are licensed by the state, but communities have the local authority to issue shooting and hunting ordinances. Based on this, we decided to appeal."
The case was argued before the Washington State Supreme Court in May 1997. According to Randall K. Gaylord, San Juan County prosecuting attorney, the court has not set a time for issuing a decision, although decisions are usually issued about six months after they are argued.
Mark said he thinks San Juan County went too far in banning all personal watercraft activity. "I saw a problem with San Juan County singling out that particular craft. I don't think you can say they create a specific problem. I think the need is to identify those resources that need protection, and then tailor the protection to meet those needs."
He said he is concerned that if the ban is upheld it will create a "proliferation of bans," which could affect public access. "Part of our charge is to promote public access. To go from unregulated to a ban is perhaps extreme. Protecting wetlands and animal habitats is reasonable, but saying one particular craft is the problem is going too far."
Miller said the county has hired a consultant to determine if there are any areas that would be compatible with personal watercraft use. The consultant will be looking at safety issues, and what the impacts will be environmentally, economically, and on residents' quality of life. She added that if the county loses its appeal and it is determined that all watercraft must be governed under the same regulations, all boat owners might face extensive restrictions.
She said regulations of personal watercraft are needed because of the county's geographic, environmental, and economic makeup. San Juan County is comprised of a cluster of islands off the northwest coast of Washington State. It maintains 83 wildlife refuges, and tourism is the main income generator.
Miller said there are three primary reasons the board voted to ban the watercraft. "Number one is that it really threatens our basic economic life blood. The state's Department of Employment Security describes San Juan County as a place of peace and quiet, which is the main reason tourists visit the islands. Number two is our county's abundant wildlife." Miller said studies have shown that when startled, birds nesting in the area trampled their eggs, and seals abandoned their pups. She said there is also concern for the Orca whales that are prolific in the area. "The craft could really be devastating to our natural environment."
The third issue Miller noted is safety. "We have a lot of rip tides and debris in the water and these machines have a bad safety record. The county could go bankrupt trying to service these users. There is no way we can come up with a budget big enough to deal with this issue."
Nationally, personal watercraft have the reputation of being unsafe. Chip Davis, regulations program manager for the National Park Service, said safety is a major reason his agency is drafting regulations that would "prohibit personal watercraft in all areas of the National Park Service except for a limited number of primarily recreational areas and sea shores that are specifically established for water-related recreational purposes."
Davis said, "There has been a rapid increase in the number of personal watercraft that are in use. You could really call it an explosion. While it's not been a critical issue, we foresee it possibly becoming one. Because they represent a disproportionate number of boating accidents and fatalities, we're very concerned."
According to the California Department of Boating and Waterways Accident Report, in 1996 there were about 141,213 personal watercraft registered in California, comprising 16 percent of registered vessels. During the 1996 boating season, 385 personal watercraft-related accidents were reported, which resulted in 298 injuries, eight fatalities, and $508,300 worth of property damage. This represents 45 percent of all boating accidents, 55 percent of all injuries, 14 percent of all fatalities, and 23 percent of all property damage.
The National Park Service is also concerned about the environmental impact the machines might have. "Our primary role is conservation," Davis said. "A lot of the talk of regulation is based on their performance capabilities-their potential for accessing sensitive areas that larger boats can't access, and disturbing nesting birds and wildlife. They access quiet waters that traditionally have been used by canoes and kayaks, and we also are concerned about the potential conflict of mixing these craft with paddle-propelled crafts.
"We consider them to be in the same category as hang-gliders and ultra lights," he added. "New recreational activities develop and outstrip our ability to manage them. They are coming to pristine waters and we don't want that to happen."
Washington State Supreme Court decisions are listed on the Internet at http://www.wa.gov/courts/opinpage/home.htm. For more information on the case, call Rhea Miller at (360) 378-2898.
