View Single Post
Old 01-30-2024, 01:40 PM   #66
Descant
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Merrimack and Welch Island
Posts: 4,060
Thanks: 1,219
Thanked 1,527 Times in 988 Posts
Default Hb1390

I don't surf anymore. (since 1970). I don't live anywhere that has a problem with those who do. I do see several flaws in the language in HB1390.
More important is that I think it is misdirected at wake boats. In the 60's and 70's we had surfing without wake boats. Using a 20-22' boat, it was easy to seat 2-3 people in one corner of the stern and create a wake for surfing. Just as the laws restricting jet skis were overridden by making three seat 13' "boats", there will be means to create wakes without ballast tanks. Or, a new (bothersome) sport will come along.

There are (to me) technical flaws. The bill is supposed to be effective July 1, 2024. That would be the date when the DOS is authorized to make wake zone maps. Can't do that simultaneously. I'd guess the DOS needs to bid that out with required time frames for the bid process and then time to actually make the maps. There's no funding provided. If my wake boat with a surfer needs 200' to turn, shouldn't the map show1200' instead of 1000'?Bills that involve penalties for violations are usually effective January 1. This allows time for training, printing new guides, educating staff and the public, etc.

Can I surf near Middle Ground Shoals in the middle of the broads? How about the Witches? And the bay opposite Patrician Shores?

When there are multiple bills on the same subject it is not uncommon for the committee to kill all except one, and vote the last one as "Interim Study". I would support Interim Study. That means the bill will get a report to the House at the end of the session and a new bill will be filed next year. 2025 is a budget year so that will solve the issue of the cost of mapping.
Descant is online now   Reply With Quote