NAVIGATING THE ISSUES

Many boat owners will be arriving at their lakes for the start of the summer finding out they will no longer be able to use their boats for their intended use.....wake surfing and wakeboarding.  How did this happen?  

These activist groups had a very effective plan....to get into the lake associations for the communities and prey on their desire to protect their lakes.  WWC absolutely supports and believes in the hard work of these associations.  These groups supporting the bans got onto the agendas of the monthly or quarterly meetings in the winter months to present their cherry-picked data and anecdotes to create fear and emotion.  Some of these associations worked to understand the issue, however many started to work in lockstep to manipulate the public.

Why in the winter? The path of least resistance.  All the seasonal boaters are gone and they can influence the local associations, many times creating die-hard followers that use bullying tactics to gain the submission of other members.  If anyone opposes them, they shout them down or yell "You're biased" without providing any facts.  These are the groups we're dealing with.  To them, the ends justify the means, no matter what.

A question that should be asked of any town board, or even lake association entertaining the idea of an ordinance should be, "What have other states done?"

Great question.  The vast majority of the states have enacted 200-foot setbacks, with Main at 300 feet and Vermont at 500 feet (but no one wants to be like Vermont...tad crazy over there).  So even though several of these studies have recommended 700+ feet, states seem to ignore those recommendations and are deciding 200 ft. is sufficient to attenuate the risks.

Without any sources, these groups cite that the inland lakes in the north are more sensitive than reservoirs, but this isn't true.  An EPA Lakes Assessment performed in 2012 shows that reservoirs are significantly more susceptible to Lakeshore Disturbance and Phosphorous than natural lakes.  Yet, these states that experience boating year-round still chose 200 feet as their setback.

Lakes vs Reservoirs 

Communities are increasingly becoming aware that there is more to the story than what they've been originally told.  WWC is getting more calls from lake associations and even town board members who are curious about the whole story, the real story.

A consistent theme is that very few towns have attempted to educate boaters on proper etiquette on the lake.  This includes wake boat owners and others operating around wake surfing activities.  

WWC is committed to working with communities that choose to educate over bans by customizing educational materials for distribution, social media, and even signage at the boat ramps.  A town or lake just needs to tell us what they want to say.....and we'll create the material and give the town the digital images for them to help meet their educational goals.

Educational Materials for Towns 

Every recreational boat owner or participant has been screaming this point from the rooftops for quite a while.  It isn't rocket science.   These groups have continuously used the term "typical" boats as a comparison when everybody knows that the boat, a ski boat, that is less prevalent than even a wake boat and is designed to "not" make a wake is not "typical".

These studies have done a fantastic job finding the latest wake boats for their studies, but somehow, the boats they decide to compare them to are 10+ years old and, in some studies, up to 30 years old.  

These groups just love to highlight the weight of the wake boats on their websites and their presentations.  Here are a few of the non-wake boats that are on a lake near you today:

As a reference, the Malibu 21' VLX used in the St. Anthony Falls Study has a dry weight of 4200 lbs.

Crownline 22ss 4200lbs.

Four Winns 22 HD3 4170 lbs.

Four Winns H4 4500 lbs.

Cobalt R4 5290 lbs.

Yamaha 252 4600 lbs.

Chris Craft 25 5700 lbs.

Crest Carribean 23' 4300 lbs.

Crest Carribean 25' 5300 lbs.

Ultimately, a boat's wave characteristics are created from it's displacement, and water line length.  Any boat can generate a comparable wave. 

Besides the inability of the researchers to get comparable boats, either by year or size....another concern with the studies is that they fall short on representing other activities and boating operations that generate sizable waves.  Good studies reduce variability to achieve trustworthy results.  However these studies measuring wake surfing characteristics reduced it to an either/or comparison.  Either the wake boat while surfing is loaded with additional weight up to 1600 lbs and set on the max wave, or the boat is cruising at 20-30 mph.  

Activities like tubing, and even general cruising....at speeds around 15-20 mph, aren't considered.  For every boat racing across the water, a person can count a boat that is on the water for a leisurely cruise, at a speed that gets you there but doesn't eliminate talking, etc.   And then there is tubing.  Parents and grandparents doing circles with the kids anywhere from 10-25 mph  (yes...the tube manufacturers recommend 10-20mph) for hours on end using the same size boats as wake boats and large tritoons.

Recreational boaters have been bringing up this point at meetings only to be called liars or have a bias.  These comparable waves are on the lake.  A group of recreational boaters on Lake Keesus did a great job of showcasing exactly this (The video is on the webpage).  With multiple views, they showed that a wake boat, without ballast, traveling at 16-17 mph tubing can generate a 13" wave at a 100-foot setback while a boat surfing generated a 9" wave at 200 feet.  Yet these groups insist 700 feet is required for wake surfing or even worse, banning the activity completely.  Make it make sense.

Lake Keesus Video 

"We have nothing against your boats....it's just your ballast!"

We hear this consistently.  This is another perception created from this pro-ban groups stating that the ballast creates an "enhanced" wave.   Both the St. Anthony Falls study and the Australian Maritime Study showed that the wave measured at 100 feet from the boat was statistically the same whether the boat utilized ballast or it didn't.  

The data shows that the ballast makes the difference immediately at the boat.  But from 100 feet on the wave heights were similar.  So when these groups and advocates use the term "enhanced" wave, just understand that after 100 feet, it's a wave...it's just a wave!

"What are we really talking about here!"

Water naturally seeks to be flat. A wake is generated by a boat’s speed and displacement of water, but gravity quickly diminishes the wave’s energy. As the wave travels away from the boat, it disperses into multiple smaller waves. After just 100 feet, the maximum wave height is the same whether or not the boat is using ballast.

MacFarlane and Cox explained in previous studies that for a wave to make an "impact", there needs to be an "order of magnitude" difference in the wave height and energy.   Understanding this, it starts to make sense why studies like St. Anthony Falls decided to measure the wake surf waves against a ski boat's cruising wave starting at 200 feet after it's attenuated.  

If you take your average mobile phone out and place it upright on your desk, it'll measure about 6 inches high.  The ski boat's height was less than your phone's, measured at around 5.3 inches.  What other boat's wave is expected to meet that requirement?  This is exactly why the argument about testing comparable boats is important.  

If the 100-foot setback for the cruising ski boat was used as the target, it would be 8".  At 200 feet, the St. Anthony Fall's VLX wake boat's surf wave measured at 9" *, and the average surf wave height for all the studies was approximately 10.5".  If the wave heights are that close to the ski boat's target, even at 200 feet, why are we discussing an extreme length of 700 feet? 

*The measurements are an average of the mast data for consistency; the ski boat's wave was only measured using the mast sensors

The Studies 

The assertion that wake boats are a primary cause of shoreline erosion is not supported by available research.  It's a tactic as old as time, cherry-pick your data or better yet, use exaggerated numbers from ads to scare people.  These groups then imply these waves are landing on your shorelines.  In fact, at a recent sub-committee, we heard that these waves "grow" as they roll into shore from the pro-ban crowd. This is obviously not true!

Boat wakes and shore erosion has been studied for over 40 years. Research consistently shows that shore erosion is primarily caused by factors such as ice, runoff, changes in lake levels, natural wave action, and development—not by boat wakes. 

It should be noted that there isn't ONE study that links wake boating activities to shoreline erosion.  Studies like the St. Anthony Falls Study explicitly state it does NOT address shoreline erosion.  These groups take cherry-picked data and then imply wake surfing is a shoreline erosion hazard while ignoring all other activities on the lake that happen closer to shore.

A new perception has been created by these pro-ban groups.  The "gotcha" moment for a wake boat operating in our lakes is now if a grain of sand moves.  

These groups like to point to the new Terra Vigilis Waramaug study that utilized underwater streamers and took a photo of a brick at 26 ft deep, supposedly caused by the boat's passage. We classify this self-published piece as lacking scientific rigor for several reasons, like relying on subjective interpretation of the streamers and lacking any quantitative data.  

Sediment resuspension has been studied since the 70's, primarily at shallow depths where the prop wash and velocities can have a greater impact on sediment resuspension. But two separate studies conducted quantitative testing to identify if there are any variations during wake surfing operations.  Daeger tested at 5, 10, and 15 ft.; and found an increase at 5 ft. of depth (a wake boat should never surf at this depth)....but no variations or increases in suspended solids at 10 or 15 ft.  Raymond tested water velocities to a depth of 15 feet after wake surfing passed.  They claim to have achieved 12 cm/sec, enough to move silt at 15 ft....but the actual testing resulted in no variations in suspended solids plus they physically put a diver at that depth and didn't verify any sediment movement.

Finally, historical trophic state data on individual lakes from the Wisconsin's DNR website shows that there is no variation in the health of the lakes resulting from the 15+ years these boats have been present on the lakes.

Sediment Resuspension Studies 

These groups are at it again and working overtime to spread misinformation and move the fear campaign to another unproven level.   Lakes at Stakes has posted a video with ominous music highlighting several lakes in the southeast region of Wisconsin.

The video highlights Lake Beulah, Pewaukee, and Big Cedar Lake. When referring to Lake Beulah and Big Cedar Lake, they attempt to reference bare areas or what they call "sand traps" that supposedly weren't present in 2023....with no side-by-side comparison or proof.  

Two different studies conducted quantitative testing to identify if there are any variations during wake surfing operations.  Daeger tested at 5, 10, and 15 ft.; and found an increase at 5 ft. of depth (a wake boat should never surf at this depth)....but no variations or increases in suspended solids at 10 or 15 ft.  Raymond tested water velocities to a depth of 15 feet after wake surfing passed.  They claim to have achieved 12 cm/sec, enough to move silt at 15 ft....but the actual testing resulted in no variations in suspended solids plus they physically put a diver at that depth and didn't verify any sediment movement.

Ultimately, if we can’t detect an increase in suspended solids, at the location where the boat passes, immediately after the boat passes, at a depth of 10 to 15 ft….then how is a significant area of vegetation getting “blown out completely" at 22 ft? 

Also read: "Lake Health: The Data is Nothing But Positive"

(Link to Analysis -sediment)

These groups have had an agenda, starting with sediment resuspension and phosphorus levels in the lakes.  One of their main examples when presenting is to highlight an area of Big Cedar Lake near West Bend, that appears to have lost vegetation growth in an area greater than 15 feet in depth.  They attempt to classify any areas where plant growth patterns have evolved or the lack of any vegetation is a direct result of wake boat activity.

The one thing these groups lack?  Actual data.  They lack any real data.  Notice that in any presentation they don't show lakes where the suspended solids (turbidity) or phosphorus has changed as a result of boating, let alone wake boating activities over the years.  If a lake or town participates with the DNR in the data collection, it's easy to get a report on the overall health of the lake.  WWC has yet to see a single example of a lake with a definitive impact from wake boating activities.

This spring, Big Cedar Lake had its 5-year Aquatic Plant Management Plan conducted by SWRPC (Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission).  The results were reported as:

• The Lake has good biodiversity with an SDI of 0.85 in 2018 and 2023.

• The Lake’s FQI in 2018 was 29.0 while the 2023 FQI was 29.8. Both surveys had higher FQI values than the 20.0 average FQI for the Southeastern Wisconsin Till Plains ecoregion, indicating that the Lake supports species that are more sensitive to ecological disturbance than the average lake in the Region.

• In Big Cedar Lake, aquatic plants were observed to a maximum depth of 22 feet in 2018 and to a maximum depth of 27 feet in 2023.

• Most of the lake bottom in the photic zone continues to be covered by aquatic vegetation, with the only large expanses of unvegetated sediment in the very shallow nearshore areas (up to three feet deep).  As also noted in the 2019 aquatic plant management plan, these areas are predominantly sand and gravel bottom and may not provide enough nutrients for a more abundant plant community. 

For a lake that these groups claim is in trouble from wake boating activity, in the last 5 years, it has maintained its good biodiversity, supports sensitive species, and increased its maximum depth for plants to 27 feet.  Conclusion - the lake health has improved. 

These groups like to attack wake boats due to the ballast tanks and the risk of AIS.  It's well known that wake boats do not traverse lakes often.  A statement from the DNR at the Natural Resources Board included, “While ballast tanks in wake boats can serve as a pathway for AIS to spread, AIS was already established in hundreds of inland lakes in Wisconsin prior to the rise in wake boat popularity…..To fully understand the impact of wake boats on the spread of AIS, more information is needed,....and the frequency with which wake boats move amongst bodies of water.”  Additionally, it's state law for a boat owner to clean and take the necessary precautions to ensure they are not transporting AIS. Several studies concluded the following:

• Identified that ballast, sterndrive engine, outboard motor, live well, foot well (kayaks), splash well, bilge, and jet can all transport invasive species. 

• From Doll's study, there was a total of 11,123 boats sampled…fishing and runabout boats comprised 85.7% of the samples taken, while wake boats only made up 3.7% of the boats.

• Doll referenced MN Statute § 84D.10 which requires the removal of drain plugs and draining of remaining water.  However, it's been determined that this method still isn't 100% effective because “residual” water often remains trapped inside the watercraft after all drain plugs are removed. 

• Boaters who moved between unconnected lakes often (more than once every 5 days) were categorized to be at a greater risk of transmitting AIS, with the greatest risk being traversing lakes within a 6 hour time period.

• A Notre Dame study found that about 30% of fishing boats move among lakes, even visiting multiple lakes in a single day.

• Only 56% of boaters and approximately 80% of trained professionals successfully removed all AIS during a controlled study.

Aquatic Invasive Species 

Who is responsible for lake frontage erosion mitigation, piers, and other shoreline equipment?

Answer: The responsibility lies with the riparian (waterfront) property owner. 

Unfortunately many property owners believe that waves from  boaters are primarily responsible for shoreline erosion and therefore should be accountable for any resulting damage. In reality, this is not the case. Yet you are being told the boat waves are creating all the erosion on your property.  All waves cause erosion, boat of all types, wind and reflective waves cause damage., However ice of frozen lakes can expand shoreward with a force of many tons per square foot, moving most obstacles in its path.

If a property owner believes a boater has caused specific damage—such as erosion or harm to a pier or boat due to wakes—they must report the incident to the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) and pursue any claims through civil litigation. Which means you would have to prove that specific boat caused all of the erosion on your property.

Wisconsin law (Section 60.68) outlines several Prohibited Boating Operations, including negligent operation. A reportable boating incident includes any event—whether involving one or more boats—that results in: Loss of life, Injuries requiring professional medical attention beyond first aid, Property or boat damage exceeding $2,000, or The total loss of a vessel. 

Merely operating a boat that produces a wake—if done lawfully—is not, in itself, considered negligence or recklessness.

At the end of the day - Riparian's are responsible for their shore. 

Check out comments on the WDNR web site on erosion and erosion control.

• What Causes Erosion? - WDNR Erosion Control

• What is the threshold for reporting incidents on Wisconsin lakes ?   Incident Reporting WDNR

Local Ordinances and Boating Regulations

Local governments have the authority to create ordinances in the interest of public health, safety, or welfare—including the public’s interest in preserving the state’s natural resources. However, when it comes to boating ordinances, they must be based on specific, evidence-based criteria. These include:

1. The type, size, shape, and depth of the body of water, as well as any features of special environmental significance.

2. The amount, type, and speed of boating traffic, along with considerations of boating safety and congestion.

3. The impact of boating traffic on other recreational uses, and how it affects public health, safety, welfare, and natural resources.
   
   

Why Is This Important?

Recreational activities on Wisconsin’s waters are governed under the Public Trust Doctrine, which protects public access and use. Restrictive ordinances on boating must be justified by factual, local evidence—not anecdotal claims. Without this, ordinances may be challenged in court.

Unfortunately, many local boards—often made up of part-time members with limited resources—do not have the capacity to hire specialized experts to conduct the required studies. This lack of evidence can lead to lawsuits.

The Cost of Legal Action

Towns, Sanitary Districts, and Lake Rehabilitation Districts can all be sued. These lawsuits are expensive—especially those that require expert testimony. Worse, if damages can be proven, the cost multiplies.

Example: A town restricts ballast use on wake boats. If a $500,000 wake boat is effectively reduced in value to that of a $100,000 ski boat, the town could be liable for the $400,000 difference in damages.

Bottom line: Defending a lawsuit is expensive. Losing one is far more expensive.

Enforcement Challenges

All local ordinances must have an enforceable mechanism. The Wisconsin DNR does not enforce local ordinances. Local sheriff departments can enforce them, but only if a formal agreement is in place—and even then, enforcement is rarely a priority.

If a town enacts an ordinance but does not actively enforce it, it opens itself up to legal liability. In the event of an incident, the town could be held responsible for failing to enforce its own regulations. Moreover, lack of enforcement can fuel vigilantism, especially in today’s climate of hostility and misinformation surrounding wake boats.

County Sheriffs’ Position

Sheriffs in Vilas and Oneida Counties have publicly stated that they will not enforce local ordinances without a formal contract—and even then, such issues are low priority.

Sheriff Harman put it bluntly:

“I really don’t want anything to do with it.”