LATEST DISTANCE BILL COULD PASS

STORY BY BETSY ILER & PHOTO BY CLIFF WILLIAMS

If it becomes law, SB281 would prohibit wake surfing within 200 miles of shoreline

AA wake surfing distance bill now under consideration in the Alabama Legislature could be signed into law before this issue of Lake magazine returns from the printer. Senate Bill 281 passed the State Senate on March 9 and is scheduled for its third and final reading in the State House on March 29.

Sponsored by Sen. Garlan Gudger (R-Dist. 4) and Sen. J.T. Waggoner (R-Dist.16), the bill would prohibit wake surfing, or operating a boat in a manner that creates a wake intended to be surfed, on bodies of water that are less than 400 feet wide or within 200 feet of any shoreline, dock, pier, boathouse or other structure on any body of water in the state, including Lake Martin. Violators would be guilty of a Class B misdemeanor and fined $150 or more on the first offense. A second violation in the same calendar year would carry a Class A misdemeanor and a minimum fine of $250. Second time violators also could lose vessel operating privileges for the remainder of the year. Permitted events would be exempt from the law. For the first year after the bill’s enactment, first-time violators would receive a written warning; second-time violators would be guilty of a Class B misdemeanor and fined a minimum of $150. A number of similar proximity bills, but with wider scope, presented in previous legislative sessions have failed to pass, but this bill has seemingly sailed through both houses of the Alabama State Legislature with little opposition. It is the most specific and limited rendition that has been presented in that it is targeted at only wake surfers and operators of boats creating wakes intended to be surfed. Previous bills addressed the size of the wakes from all vessels and their proximity to shorelines and other recreational water activities. Big wake activities from a variety of vessels, including fishing boats, have long been controversial on Lake Martin. The erosion effects of large wakes is well documented, as are property damage reports and safety concerns. At the same time, proponents of wake sports are legally entitled to recreate on the lake as much as anyone else. And while the arguments continue, so does the erosion, the damage and possible compromised safety of swimmers in the path of the large, strong wakes created.

The bill could be expected to be viewed as a step in the right direction by advocates for water quality and property owners, but this bill seems to be no more popular with some agencies than the previously rejected full proximity measures.

“It just doesn’t address the problem we have on Lake Martin, where we have wakes being created by other boats,” explained Lake Martin Resource Association president John Thompson. “When fishermen in these sloughs get ready to go from one spot to another, they gear up, take off and kick up a big wake. The same goes for personal watercraft getting into small sloughs and going round and round to create big wakes. And it doesn’t address the problem of rude boaters that come in too fast and too close, endangering property and people in the water. It just doesn’t go far enough.” Local lake homeowner and business owner Jamie Burnett agreed with Thompson but has a different perspective. “I am all for a proximity law, but I don’t think going after just one sport is the right way to address it,” Burnett said. “And I don’t think criminalizing one sport will change the erosion. I think, instead, it endangers surfers, and there has to be a better answer.”

Burnett’s fear is that wake surfers will be forced into the center lane of boat traffic, where downed surfers will be less visible to fast-moving boat traffic and vulnerable to injury.

“I also think that when wake surfers move into the center, more boat traffic will move out closer to the shoreline. We will still have the wake action close to the shorelines,” she said. “If we’re going to regulate, we should regulate all of the sports together. I think there are more questions to answer before we start to legislate it and criminalize people who are not criminals.”

Calls to the bill’s sponsors were not returned before presstime for this publication.