Jump to content

Never thought I'd get in the paper for skiing

Nautibynature

By Nautibynature
in News & Other Stuff

 Share

Recommended Posts

Nautibynature Collaborator

Nautibynature

Posted
  • Author
Posted

This is exactly what I said at the meeting.

 

I am here to speak against New Kent County Ordinance 46-52 which prohibits waterskiing on Chickahominy Lake. There are no state laws, Game and Inland Fisheries or Water Works regulations restricting access of any kind to the lake. There are no vessel; size, type, horsepower, or speed restrictions. There are also no hunting or fishing restrictions. It is perfectly legal for me to drive my ski boat anywhere on the lake. BUT, as soon as my wife or I ski on the lake we would be charged with a Class 4 misdemeanor...WHY? Why would we be charged with a crime for skiing on a public body of water?

 

Walker’s Dam was built in 1943 to prevent salt water from infiltrating the portion of the river above the dam, ensuring an adequate water supply to Newport News Shipbuilding. This low water dam did not create the boundaries of the lake, it only made part of the river non tidal. The War Department recognized it needed to keep unrestricted access to this portion of the river available to all God’s creatures, so a fish ladder and boatlocks were installed as part of the original construction. Recently a lot of money was spent rebuilding the locks with the sole purpose of keeping boat traffic between the river and the lake unrestricted.

 

There is no requirement of being a New Kent County resident to use the lake which serves as the New Kent/Charles City county line. This law also restricts the residents of Charles City from skiing, as the wording of the law does not specify certain areas of the lake nor does it state it only applies to people who launch their boats from the New Kent side. If a Conservation Police Officer observes a person skiing they would issue a summons regardless of residency or location in the lake.

I am a resident of the Colonies and own several hundred feet of shoreline on Diascund Creek. My rights as a waterfront property owner stop at my shoreline, I have no control over boat traffic or activities in the creek. The same holds true for property owners on the Lake. It shouldn't matter if they like water skiing or not, this is not a private lake with a property owners association that has the authority to govern activities on the lake.

 

Just to be clear, I do not believe any recreational activity should be restricted by a county ordinance. Why does New Kent County think it is okay to take away the rights of even one person on a public body of water. What did the county gain by making skiing illegal? Why is the county giving preference to one recreational activity over another? I asked this question when I first found this ordinance, and I ask it again tonight. Why is skiing prohibited on Chickahominy Lake. There is no logical answer that justifies continuing this prohibition. I would like the board to begin the process of ending this ordinance that effectively and specifically restricts the freedom of the general public to use this body of water. Board members, you have an opportunity to change this law that most people don't even know exists. If you decide not to take action to eliminate this ordinance, Does it mean you support it? Gentlemen, Thank you for your time and attention to this matter

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Supporting Member
Than_Bogan Grand Master

Than_Bogan

Posted
  • Supporting Member
Posted
Interesting. Sounds like the agency in OR approached it with an open mind at least? I think this sort of thing is so hard, because people often choose their location based on what is (and is NOT) available on the lake. So I have some sympathy for folks who use the phrase "the traditional use." I hope somebody is willing to work with you on a suitable location. It's embarrassing in the age of obesity how hard folks fight to avoid having good exercise opportunities available!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nautibynature Collaborator

Nautibynature

Posted
  • Author
Posted

I went back in front of the Board of Supervisors again tonight. After hearing from Mr. Allen at the July work session and watching the local news coverage, I had no problem with speaking for the 3 minutes allowed. Below are my remarks.

 

Board members, the first time I stood here before you I asked Why is skiing illegal on the lake? Tonight I stand here to answer that question. This ordinance is not about fishing, it is not about safety, it is not about noise. This ordinance is about a small group of people that are protecting their own selfish interests, nothing more and nothing less. They are using the reasons I just mentioned in an attempt to manipulate you into maintaining an ordinance that is arbitrary and discriminatory in nature. We learned a lot about this ordinance at the July work session.

1. We learned that the water in the lake is indeed public.

2. We learned that no other county in Virginia has an ordinance like this.

3. We learned that the two boat landings on the lake launch over 150 boats per weekend, but somehow the lake is too small and there is no room for a couple of skiers.

4. We learned that if this ordinance is changed, Mr. Allen is of the opinion that it would hurt his business. If that is true, the logical conclusion is that enacting this ordinance helped his business back in 1979 when he was a member of this board. That is a clear conflict of interest and should be reason enough to end this restriction.

5. We learned from Mr. Allen that he turns away ski boats that have every right to be on the lake. While this perhaps is a heavy handed way for him to support his fishing business, for the county to ban skiing for the same reason just seems plain wrong.

6. We learned that a lawyer has a place on the Charles City side who enjoys waterskiing in the lake, but that doesn't bother either of the landing operators or ruin the fishing. It also demonstrates that there is indeed safe, skiable waters in this lake. It should also be safe to assume that there were people skiing in the lake on a regular basis prior to July 1979 when this ordinance was put into place.

7. Last but not least, We learned that it is perfectly legal for us to ski on the lake as long as we stay in Charles City waters. Are we to completely disregard the Coast Guard rules of navigation that pertain to oncoming boat traffic? Or, are we to follow the Coast Guard rules and be charged with a class 4 misdemeanor because we crossed into New Kent waters while staying to the right of oncoming boat traffic when skiing upriver? The only thing truly making it unsafe to ski in Chickahominy Lake is this ordinance. There is no clear line marking the center of the channel, making this ordinance vague and impossible to enforce. I would agree with Mr. Allen, there are underwater hazards, weeds, and shallow areas in the lake… Just like in every other public body of water in our area. However, this is the only one where skiing is illegal. If safety were truly the reason behind this ordinance, Why weren’t similar restrictions placed on other waters? I am of the opinion that the correct answer is, Mr. Allen did not own a business that catered to fishermen on those other waters. Safety is simply a façade that needs to be removed from this discussion.

 

Once again I have stood before you and offered several reasons why this law doesn’t make sense. I again would like to ask the board to eliminate this restriction on waterskiing in the lake. We have yet to hear one logical reason why this law should not be changed. How in good faith could this board support an ordinance that benefits only a few private interests? Thank you once again for your time and consideration to this matter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Baller
gregy Grand Master

gregy

Posted
  • Baller
Posted

I regularly go to a lake that is about 1200 acres. Its mostly used for fishing so I'm often the only ski boat on the lake. Even on the weekends I'll maybe see a couple of wakeboarder. Its a fairly open lake and mostly 10 to 25 ft deep. Its over on the bad side of town maybe the folks in there 100k wakeboard boats don't want to be seen there.

 

There's another nearby fishing lake that's about 4000 acres and its got stumps and trees all over it. I stay right by the damn there. I've never seen more than 2 other ski/boarding boats there at a time. I've put my portable course out there a few times, almost lost my anchor on a stump.

 

Good luck.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nautibynature Collaborator

Nautibynature

Posted
  • Author
Posted
I don't think Virginia has an association. @rodb may know the answer to that. How would AWSA be willing to help? I am of the opinion that New Kent County overstepped it's bounds when it enacted this ordinance on a lake it does not own, would they offer legal assistance to challenge this in court? @MattP We have skiied in the lake several times since the July work session when the county attorney said it was legal to ski in the lake as long as we do not cross into New Kent waters. The lake is a boundary between New Kent and Charles City County. Back in 1979 Ed Allen Jr. (owner of Ed Allen's Boats and Baits on the lake)was on the Board of Supervisors and got this ordinance passed. He rents fishing boats on the lake and doesn't think skiers belong in "his lake" It's basically small town politics I'm going up against on this. The funny thing is someone has called the law every time we have been skiing, state game wardens say it's a county ordinance and they aren't going to enforce it. County Sherriff says the state owns the water and they aren't going to enforce it either.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Baller
LeonL Grand Master

LeonL

Posted
  • Baller
Posted
@Bill22 I don't have a name, but go to usawaterski.org and scan down the left banner. You will find a listing for "waterways advocacy". Click on it and see what they have for you. Once upon a time a Cincinnati area attorney (Bill ?) was the guy who was (at that time AWSA) the legal eagle who advocated for waterski rights for the association and individuals. As far as a name, Leon Larson is the guy you want to contact. He's not on usawaterski staff, just a volunteer who heads up that program. llarsonusaws at aol dot com
Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Baller
Bill22 Veteran

Bill22

Posted
  • Baller
Posted

This is building up to a great episode.

 

@Nautibynature I'll drive and you get to shoot the dynamite arrows! Corey Vaughn and @robb can ride jumpers with a pump shotgun. In the A Team boat we have @BlueSki with a grenade launcher and "BA" behind the wheel. April Eller is just down the road maybe she can bring Daisy Duke. Who wants to ride with Murdock in the seaplane?

 

There is no way we could lose or no end to how far we could run with this....

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nautibynature Collaborator

Nautibynature

Posted
  • Author
Posted

I forgot to post what I said at the last meeting.

 

Board members, I am here once again to speak against a county ordinance that prohibits water skiing on Chickahominy Lake. An ordinance that was brought forth by a member of the Board of Supervisors that had a business operating on the lake. An ordinance that would have never been enacted had he not been a Supervisor. A conflict of interest by definition is: A situation in which someone who has to make a decision in an official capacity stands to profit personally from the decision. Another definition is: a conflict between the private interests and the official responsibilities of a person in a position of trusts. This is a clear violation of the Virginia Conflict of Interests Act. I would like to point out that as recently as September 14 of this year this very topic came up when Mr. Stiers disqualified himself from participating and voting on a New Kent Chamber of Commerce Lease Agreement. This was the right thing to do in 2015, and I would like to think we would all agree it was also the right thing to do in 1979. You have an opportunity to correct this error in judgement that ocurred many years ago.

 

Last month we heard complaints about the placement of a duck blind in a marsh from some homeowners on the Chickahominy River. It should come as no surprise that someone would suggest an ordinance be enacted to prevent this perfectly legal activity, afterall this county seems to support an ordinance that prevents water skiing in a public lake? Why wouldn’t it support preventing duck hunting in the river? After the October work session The Chronicle story reported that Mr. Hathaway advised board members there were two ways to resolve the issue. However, those resolutions have major drawbacks and were more than likely impossible to consider. In the article he was quoted as saying,

“The first thing we can do is enact an ordinance that prevents discharging a weapon within a certain distance of a home, But you can’t limit that to just this one area. This would have to be enacted for the entire county.

“The second thing you can do is make it a no hunting zone,” But if you do that, the landowner can say he is in compliance with state law. Under those conditions, he could legally challenge us because the state law would trump our local law."

I maintain my position that state law regarding skiing would also trump this local law.

 

I would also like to remind the Board of an ordinance that you changed in January, 2014. The ordinance was 46-221 Discharge of firearms in residential subdivisions. The Board found that it is in the interests of the County and it's citizens to amend the county code to reflect the Code of Virginia. It was an easy decision for you to remove a law that prevented people from shooting guns in neighborhoods. Why is it so difficult to change a law that prevents people from waterskiing on a public lake? We have come before you 4 times now. We have given you 24 minutes of content with hardly a minute of discussion or feedback from you. All we are asking is a vote from you to put this to a public hearing. I would like to hear what the citizens that support keeping this ordinance in place have to say. When you consider the entire content of what we have said, Is a public hearing an unreasonable requests?

 

I have brought some examples of recent actions taken by the current board that set a clear standard. I ask this board to be consistent with your decisions and vote to bring this to a public hearing. Thank you once again for your consideration to this matter.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...