OC board urges state legislature to consider enhanced wake rules

On March 19, the Oneida County board of supervisors passed and sent to the state legislature a resolution urging lawmakers to establish minimum standards that prohibit enhanced/excessive wakes within 500 feet of the shore and in waters shallower than 20 feet in depth.

The resolution passed 13-6, with two supervisors absent.

In January, the board had also considered an enhanced wake resolution, but the board decided to send it back to the land conservation committee for further review. That review resulted in the new recommendations, which satisfy some but do not appease many environmentalists and likewise do not sit well with opponents of the restrictions, who believe responsible boating education rather than regulation is sufficient.

At the March 19 meeting, Oneida County conservationist Michele Sadauskas explained the rationale behind the proposed 500-foot distance and 20-foot depth restrictions.

“Our number one goal in [our 10-year land-and-water resource management plan] was to protect our surface waters in the state and particularly in Oneida County,” Sadauskas said. “Our number one activity under that goal was to protect our shoreland. So my role as county conservationist is to be here and to deliver that plan to Oneida County, in other words, to protect our lakes and shorelands.”

However, Sadauskas said, when state legislation about regulating enhanced wakes was proposed last year by state Sen. Mary Felzkowski (R-Tomahawk) and state Rep. Rob Swearingen (R-Rhinelander), it fell short of what current science indicates is needed.

“The proposed legislation had mentioned 200 feet from shore,” she said. “They did not mention any depth requirement and there was no mention of aquatic invasive species.”

Sadauskas referenced research she said showed that enhanced wakes should be a minimum of 500 feet from shore.

“In fact, there is new research starting to come out that is suggesting a minimum of 600-to-700 feet from shore and 30 foot of depth,” she said. “My department recommended to our conservation committee 500 feet from shore and 20-foot minimum depth as reasonable and balancing the right of everyone to recreate on state waters, but yet protecting the quality of our waters in the county.”

Sadauskas said she considered the numbers to be a compromise.

Supervisor Billy Fried questioned the specific numbers, saying he’d like to leave that open, allowing the legislature to debate and to consult and digest their own resources.

“That being said, I like the philosophy of trying to protect our waters,” Fried said. “I think everyone shares that goal. How we do it is where we differentiate, and I like that you’re trying to address the invasive species as well. But you said when you put your plan together, the second point was protecting the shoreland, and while we’re doing this, wouldn’t it be a good time to ask the legislators to give property owners more tools to work with to protect their shorelands?”

For example, Fried said that incorporated areas like the city of Madison can erect sea walls.

“So why can they put a sea wall up and we can’t protect our shorelands here with a sea wall or retaining wall,” he said. “It doesn’t seem right. The intent is to protect the lakes, protect the shorelands. I’d like to see us ask not only for the invasive species to be addressed and the enhanced or excessive wakes, but to give property owners some tools as well. I think they all should be incorporated.”

Where’s the beef, ur, wake?

Supervisor Mike Roach wanted more than just generic references to research.

“What exactly have we seen for this data that shows what the enhanced wakes are doing to our lakes?” Roach asked. “I’ve heard a lot of people talk about how factual it is and that we really have to listen to the facts, that the science is out there, but what exactly are we getting for reports?”

People say that fish are dying, that weeds are getting ripped up, and there’s less oxygen in the lakes, Roach said, but he wanted to know just what facts existed that established those realities.

“I live on a lake,” he said. “I’ve got a lot of big enhanced wakes there and I’ve been there over 20 years and I don’t see the fishing being affected. I don’t see anything happening and so I just want to know what exactly is happening that you’re getting all these facts and the science showing this is terrible.”

Where is this science? Roach wanted to know.

Sadauskas said much of the research was still to come, and, as for existing research on increased wakes, she referred to unnamed studies.

“Even up to 2023 there are studies showing that shoreline erosion increased with the size of wake,” she said. “So that’s something that is there in research and we’re starting to see that research come out in more research.”

Sadauskas said her department sees the impacts in the field.

“It is like a great storm that we’re starting to see,” she said. “We’re starting to see fish beds, wildlife populations and I don’t think it’s so easy to just dissect one particular reason out of a group of things. There’s certainly information and research to pass on that shows increased wake height is causing shoreland erosion and pressure on the shoreland.”

Supervisor Linnaea Newman said there was no question that excessive wakes are damaging.

“I want to take it out of the research category because we’ve always known that wakes cause shoreline damage,” Newman said. “That’s why there’s ‘no wake ’districts in lakes and they’re marked ‘no wake through here’ because it’s created erosion and problems.”

All motor boats create wake, Newman said. 

“All wake, regardless of size, is going to contribute to erosion,” she said. “This is a new kettle of fish. We haven’t seen this before. Besides erosion, we have waves the size that can push people off their docks and have. They have been the size of waves that can swamp kayaks and have.”

And so there’s more things to consider, Newman said

“Number one is property values,” she said. “If I have, and I do have lake frontage, and somebody on the lake is coming too close to shore, whether it be a wake boat or any other kind of boat, and it’s eroding my shoreline, I am going to be concerned that my property values are going down and I’m sure everybody out there wants to see the lakes as they are preserved.”

Newman said people don’t need studies to see how wake boats in shallow water stir up the silt from the bottom and cause algae blooms that cause problems for fishing through the years.

“Not only our ability to fish, but the fish’s ability to reproduce,” she said. “We’ve always been concerned with invasives. This is just one more way that invasives can be perpetuated and spread.”

Newman said the resulting decline in property values because of excessive wakes must be considered.

“Nobody’s saying get the wake boats off the lake,” she said. “We’re saying let’s all recreate together safely and continue into the future in a way that’s safe for everybody.”

Pot, kettle

Supervisor Mike Timmons wondered what the difference was — ultimately — between wake boats and regular boats.

“We’re talking about the shoreline and the wakes and the wake boats, but what’s the difference between a big outboard motor and a wake boat when you take a person or two or three and put them in an inner tube, or go water skiing or in tubes, and that boat takes off in 25 or 10 feet of water, whatever, and disturbs it,” Timmons said. “What’s the difference between that and a wake boat? That’s a hypothetical question to everybody involved. We’re talking about wakes, we’re talking about disturbing the bottoms. If we’re going to do it for one, should we do it for all. We’re picking on one specific boat here again, but you can water ski, tube, and everything else and we’re calling out one item.”

Sadauskas replied that the resolution did not target any one type of watercraft but focused on activity.

“The resolution did not specifically call out wake boats,” she said. “We did use that language [on one line] because that is how the state had proposed their legislation. We went toward enhanced/excessive wakes. We were not calling out a particular type of boat. …  We’re not looking at watercraft.”

Supervisor Robb Jensen said supervisors should not get hung up on the numbers.

“So I think we can get hung up on the 500, the 20 and we can talk and talk and talk and talk,” Jensen said. “The bottom line is we’re making a recommendation for the legislature to consider this and then at their hearings they’re going to hear all of this again. ... We can talk all day about research. …  So we can debate that forever. So I say we not worry about 500 and 20 and move on with the resolution, send it on to the state for their consideration and these dialogues and we again as individuals can all send our legislators our opinion to encourage them 500, 200, 700, whatever.”

Supervisor Steven Schreier emphasized that the resolution was advisory.

“I’m guessing nobody sitting here is going to be happy regardless of what number we send to Madison,” he said. “My personal opinion is Madison could care less what numbers we send them because they generally don’t seem to care one way or the other about anything. If we’ve ever received a response from Madison to any resolution, I’ve never seen it. So I’m going to take that as a confirmation of my opinion about them.”

That being said, Schreier said he thought the biggest focus should be on the transportation of invasive species.

Roach again said he would not support a specific number such as a 500-foot recommendation.

“I know there’s people that think they’re experts and I just haven’t heard enough for me to say at least 500 feet, maybe it should be a thousand feet because experts think we ought to not do this anymore,” he said. “I’ve been on lakes long enough to know that at one time in the northern lake area here we had people coming out with 30-horsepower motors and that was going to end everything. It was going to ruin our lakes and guess what? It didn’t ruin our lakes and we’re still fishing and catching a lot of fish.”

Roach said he thought the “boogeyman” was in the crowd again.

“And so I will not put a yes to this saying that I think it should be at least 500 feet when I don’t see anybody showing me proof about 500 feet versus 300 feet,” he said. “We all know that you have to be a certain distance from shore for ski boats. Boats can go right next to each other at 50 miles an hour. Most people don’t know that. They say, ‘oh no, that’s crazy.’ Nope. They can, just like snowmobiles can. If somebody gets hurt, there’ll be a citation given. So the boogeyman again is out there saying we got to have at least 500 feet.”

The resolution was simply asking for more regulation, Roach said.

“So what’s next?” he asked. “What are they going to go after next? Like I said, I lived on a lake for a long time and I have a lot of these boats on there. The fishing’s been outstanding, the erosion from storms and mother nature is a heck of a lot worse than this. So unless we scratch that saying at least 500 feet, I can’t vote yes on this.”

Supervisor Greg Oettinger said he thought the county was being premature.

“I think we are a little early on this,” Oettinger said. “We’ve got some data to come in on all this. I don’t want to send the wrong message that we’re just okay with whatever they want to do. I think we should think about it.”

Supervisor Jim Winkler said he thought depth was more important than distance from the shore.

“We can all bicker back and forth about whether it can be 500 feet, 700 feet, 600 feet or two feet,” he said. “But depth is what I think is the most important and I think we need to send a message down to Madison that we do not want our lakes screwed with, and I don’t have a lot of confidence in Madison in some of their legislative process. Maybe we should just go with depth.”

That idea did not fly, but the original resolution did, 13-6.

Meanwhile, the bill by Felzkowski and Swearingen sits in committee, going nowhere fast. That bill, states the Legislative Reference Bureau, defines wakesurfing as surfing a motorboat’s wake, regardless of whether the person is bering pulled by a tow rope attached to the motorboat that is producing the wake or operating a motorboat in a manner that creates a wake that is, or is intended to be, surfed by another person. 

The bill defines wakeboarding as being towed on a board with or without foot bindings by a motorboat across the vessel's wake or operating a motorboat in a manner that creates a wake while towing a person on a board with or without foot bindings.

The bill also explicitly provides that “aquaplaning” includes wakesurfing and wakeboarding, and thereby applies the same safety regulations that apply to water skiing and aquaplaning to wakesurfing and wakeboarding. The bill prohibits wakesurfing and wakeboarding on a body of water of 50 acres or less or that is less than 400 feet wide, regardless of public access, and prohibits wakesurfing or wakeboarding within 200 feet of a shoreline or dock, pier, boathouse, or other structure on the water.