The Massachusetts Chapter works to pass important environmental bills and the state and local level. To get involved in our legislative program, please contact legislate@sierraclubmass.org.

Local Control of Personal Watercraft (“Jet Skis”) (S)
Formal Title: An Act Relative to Jet Skis, Surf Jets, Wet Bikes, and Other Personal Watercraft in Municipalities.
Sponsor: Rep. Jim O’Day
Contact: Rachel McCook
New/Refile: Refile of H2356
Bill Text: http://www.mass.gov/legis/bills/house/185/ht02pdf/ht02356.pdf

Under current law, if a city/ttown wishes to place some restrictions on Personal Watercraft (so-called “Jet Skis”), such as limiting hours, or curtailing use during sensitive waterfowl migration periods, they are unable to do so. This bill would enable cities/towns to place restrictions on smaller bodies of water that are enclosed within the municipality if they so desire.

Background:

As you may have read, New England Patriots lineman Marquise Hill was killed in a PWC accident recently. Just one week later, a 9-year-old girl was left struggling for her life after she was struck by another PWC on Indian Lake in Worcester. Unfortunately these all too common news stories rarely address the inherent safety problems with these high-speed crafts. This bill provides a small step forward in allowing local communities to address the numerous safety and environmental problems with these crafts.

PWC safety flaws:

PWCs are fundamentally different from traditional motorboats. Unlike motorboats, PWCs move through the water by forcing water through the vessel (jet propulsion). Due to this unique design, the vast majority of PWCs do not have the ability to stop or react quickly to an obstacle in their path. If the rider releases the throttle or experiences a power failure, the vehicle will not be able to avoid a collision. Engineer-inventor Charles Willis concurs: “The product has a big flaw. It can’t stop.” Their operators’ manuals instruct users to allow at least 348 feet -- longer than a football field -- to allow the craft to come to a safe, complete stop.

According to researchers from the University of Michigan, "[PWCs] present several safety hazards resulting from their ability to attain high speeds while having only limited [stopping] capabilities."

A study funded by the U.S. Coast Guard tested a range of PWCs on their ability to avoid a stationary obstacle. The vehicles were operated by an equal number of novice, intermediate, and expert PWC users. They found that even at 20 MPH, the drivers were unable to avoid the obstacle 21% of the time, and at 55 MPH, they were unable to avoid the obstacle 86% of the time. This problem has become exacerbated by the fact that new PWCs have even more horsepower. Three years ago when this bill was before the Public Safety Committee, we expressed concern that manufacturers were producing even more powerful PWCs, going up to 185 horsepower. Just three years later manufacturers have upped the ante, with new models going up to 250 horsepower. That’s more power than many cars on the road today.

Due to the large number of PWC accidents and “the distinctive way in which fatalities occur,” the National Transportation Safety Board conducted an investigation into the crafts. They found steering loss to be the cause of many accidents. They recommended that manufacturers consider implementing design changes, such as off-throttle steering. However, this problem has gone unchecked by the industry. Vice-chairman of the National Transportation Safety Board Mark Rosenker expressed frustration that five years after the board released a safety study recommending the adoption of improved design and controllability standards for PWCs, there is still no comprehensive standard to resolve these issues.

Protecting the health of our waterways:

In addition, PWCs emit toxic chemicals such as benzene (a known carcinogen), MTBE (which has been found to cause cancer in lab animals), and toluene (which affects the nervous system) into our air and water. Several cases of MTBE contamination have been directly linked with PWC use. For example, a researcher with the American Water Works Association discovered that Southern California lakes permitting PWCs contained the highest concentrations of MTBE. Tests conducted by the Center for Environmental Risk Reduction before and after PWC events on Lake Shasta found that MTBE has been measured at 88 parts per billion (PPB) after the events.

At extremely low concentrations, MTBE can render water undrinkable due to its noxious taste and odor. For this reason, the University of California at Davis has warned that to protect all drinking water, MTBE concentrations in water should not exceed 5 PPB.

Once MBTE gets into the water, it is extremely difficult and costly to get it out. This is because it is resistant to traditional methods used to remove other hydrocarbon contamination from water supplies. This problem has left a terrible financial strain on communities across our nation that are grappling with how to clean up their waters. For example, the South Lake Tahoe utility district has already spent $9 million due to MTBE contamination and estimates that it will cost $45 million to remove MTBE from the town’s water supply.

Conclusion:

This bill will not ban PWCs outright. It will simply give local communities the option to enact PWC restrictions, ensuring a more democratic process. Rhode Island and New York, among others, have already passed "home rule" laws regarding PWC use. Other nearby states have already or are in the process of enacting stricter PWC regulations. For example, Vermont has banned PWCs from waterways under 300 acres in size. Maine has banned them from 245 great ponds.

Additional Information on Personal Watercraft (PWCs, aka “Jet-Skis”)

Pollution: PWCs emit high levels of known carcinogens such as benzene into the air that we breathe. The California Air Resource Board estimates that per hour of use, the average PWC pollutes the air at 60 times the rate of an average automobile. Many Massachusetts communities already face a cancer risk more than 100 times the goal set by the Clean Air Act. The Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management Office conducted quality assured ambient monitoring throughout the 1990s and found that even the lowest measured outdoor concentrations of benzene, 1-3, butadiene, acetaldehyde, and formaldehyde in the Northeast region exceeds established health protective guidelines, in most cases by several orders of magnitude.

The Myth about New PWCs: The PWC industry spends a great deal of money telling people that their new models are less polluting. What they don’t reveal is that manufacturers continue to churn out highly polluting 2-stroke engines. In 2-stroke engines, the intake and exhaust valves are open at the same time, so excessive unburned fuel pours straight out of the vehicle before it can be combusted.

Approximately half of the recent models available from the top three PWC manufacturers still use conventional 2-stroke engines, which can dump up to four gallons of unburned oil and gas directly into the water in just two hours. Even the new 2-stroke direct-injection engines (which account for approximately 25% of the 2003 fleet) emit four times greater emissions than 4-stroke engines with equivalent horsepower, according to California Air Resources Board. What’s more, there are approximately 7,000 PWCs currently registered in Massachusetts, the vast majority of which use two-stroke engines.

Even if all manufacturers converted to more fuel-efficient crafts, this would not solve many of the problems that are inherent to these crafts, including safety/design problems, noise pollution, turbidity, and detriment to aquatic creatures, such as dolphins, seal pups, whales, and shoreline birds.

Safety Concerns: The PWC industry has recalled more than 280,000 crafts during the past 10 years because of design problems with the potential to cause fires and explosions. The recalls affect roughly one out of every five PWC manufactured during this time period. Problems in tens of thousands of these crafts have not been corrected.4

Distinguishing PWCs from Traditional Motorboats: PWC lobbyists often claim that there is no difference between a PWC and a motorboat. This claim is erroneous. The federal courts have upheld PWC restrictions in the national parks because there is substantial evidence proving the unique damage that they cause to air and water quality, visitor enjoyment, public safety, and wildlife.5

Even the National Marine Manufacturers Association has admitted that PWCs emit more pollution than equivalent motorboats. According to the association, “this is because personal watercrafts have smaller engines operating at higher speeds -- and generally are operating at closer to full throttle – resulting in higher emissions.”6

Communities both across the US and internationally have singled out PWCs for waterway restrictions because of their unique impacts on swimmers, canoers, kayakers, fishermen; air and water quality; natural soundscapes; and marine animals.

A poll conducted by Colorado State University found that 92% of Americans supported prohibiting or severely restricting PWC use in the National Parks. In the Town of Plymouth, residents overwhelmingly supported a proposed ban of PWCs from local waterways. At town meeting in Harvard, Massachusetts, all but one person voted to keep PWCs off of Bare Hill Pond. On Wequaquet Lake in Barnstable, lake residents voted 199 to 1 to ban PWCs.

Noise Pollution: PWC noise is different than that of conventional motorboats because of constant fluctuations in pitch. Rapidly varying noise is much more disturbing than constant noise, as decades of psycho-acoustic research has established.7

Wildlife Impacts: Fish and wildlife biologists have found that PWCs routinely harass marine mammals such as dolphins, seals, humpback whales, and manatees, as well as waterfowl in their nesting areas. A Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute study described how PWCs, which lack a low-frequency long-distance sound, fail to alert surfacing birds or mammals (including humans) of their approach until it's too late.

Various coastal communities have restricted PWC use after biologists observed that seal pups were becoming separated from adults because of nearby PWC activity. Unfortunately, these young creatures have no protection from PWCs on Massachusetts coastal waters outside of the National Seashore.

Marine biologists have also found that PWC use alters behavior of marine mammals, such as bottlenose dolphins. Biologists at the Mote Research Center in Florida investigated the impacts of both conventional motorboats and PWCs on dolphins and found that regardless of approach speed, PWCs elicited a greater response and evoked greater changes in behavior than conventional motorboats. It is believed that this is due to the unpredictable approach of PWCs, as well as the fact that the machines are not acoustically detectable at the same distance as other watercraft. This lack of predictability translates into greater disturbance and potential danger.

The researchers also found that the water depth at which a disturbance takes place is significant. Disturbances in shallow water produce a higher frequency of directional and inter-animal distance changes. This is particularly troubling considering that PWCs, unlike conventional boats, can access very shallow waters that historically have been used by dolphins as a sanctuary from boat traffic. The scientists warn that if these shallow waters are not safe havens for dolphins “then a dolphin’s ability to sustain itself, avoid boat traffic, or a mother’s ability to safely rear her calf could be compromised.”

PWCs also have a negative impact on sensitive marine habitats because of the vessel's ability to get into areas inaccessible to conventional motorboats. The California Air Resources Board has confirmed that PWCs cause excessive turbulence in the water, causing huge “brown-outs”. Turbidity blocks light penetration, depleted oxygen, and harms both fish and birds. Studies have found that shoreline birds often cannot see their food or prey below the surface when standing in 6 inches of water. PWCs contributed to the decline of water clarity on Lake Tahoe, one of the deepest lakes in the world.

Sources

1 – “Personal Watercraft Safety Hazards” report by the Applied Physics Department at the University of Michigan
2 – Underwriters Laboratory report on Safety of Jet Propelled Watercrafts
3 – National Transportation Safety Board report on PWC safety
4 – U.S. Coast Guard
5 – U.S. District Court civil action documents of Bluewater Network vs. Robert Stanton
6 – Frequently Asked Questions from National Marine Manufacturers Association
7 – Noise Pollution Clearinghouse

Please note: Bill text is based on pre-filing information provided by State legislative personel. In some cases, bills as filed may differ slightly.