This commentary is by David Kaminsky of Hinesburg, an avid boater on Lake Iroquois and a professor of medicine at University of Vermont Larner College of Medicine.
Right now, the state is taking up the question of whether and how to regulate wake boats in Vermont. It is crucial that citizens speak out in support of strict regulation.
Wake boats are coming to Vermont. Visit lakes in other states, and you will find they are already there in large numbers. Why does it matter? Wake boats damage shorelines, degrade water quality, contribute to the spread of invasive species, and create unsafe and unpleasant conditions for others.
Responsible Wakes for Vermont Lakes, a statewide Vermont citizens action group, worked for two years to develop a proposed statewide rule to regulate wake boats and petitioned the state in March 2022 to enact this rule for all inland lakes. The state is currently working to develop its own version of the rule.
I am writing to contribute my perspective as a physician-scientist at UVM College of Medicine. One of my jobs as a researcher is to critically review scientific papers and grant applications. I read the original Responsible Wakes for Vermont Lakes petition in the same way I conduct these reviews, looking for clear writing, strong evidence, and compelling arguments. I find the original petition convincing in all respects.
I support strong and lasting regulation that will truly protect our lakes not only now, but also in the future, when wake boats become larger, more powerful, and more numerous.
Two important ideas guide my thinking on this issue: The precautionary principle and risk-benefit analysis.
The precautionary principle says, “When there is substantial scientific uncertainty about the risks and benefits of a proposed activity, policy decisions should be made in a way that errs on the side of caution with respect to the environment and the health of the public” (Kriebel et al. Environ Health Persp 2001).
Risk-benefit analysis is a comparison of risks and benefits within a particular situation and is used to evaluate whether the benefits outweigh the risks.
By analogy, these principles are followed in the establishment of safe limits for toxic drugs or environmental exposures in humans based on limited animal data. Precaution is taken to set human limits that are far more protective than the animal limits indicated by observed animal study results.
The precautionary principle requires those responsible for human health to account for the uncertainty inherent in moving from animal studies to actual toxic exposure levels in people in the real world. The level of precaution is determined not only by the degree of uncertainty, but also by considering the benefits — for example, improved agriculture or cures for a disease— in relation to the risks of toxic exposure.
With respect to wake boats, the benefit, in the form of recreational enjoyment, accrues only to tiny segments of the lake-using public. Meanwhile, the risks are substantial, and apply to entire lake communities.
As would be expected, these risks, while widely recognized, are uncertain due to the limited scientific data available on the impact of wake sports. Nevertheless, the relevant data all point in the same direction: Wake boats are more powerful and more destructive than other types of boats. The state therefore has a clear obligation to err on the side of caution in setting limits for their use.
The Vermont Use of Public Waters Rules must speak to the interests of both current and future generations of lake users. Therefore, the state must take the most protective approach possible, and adopt strict regulations to account for future growth of the sport.
I support a strong rule, as proposed in the original Responsible Wakes for Vermont Lakes petition. For more details: http://responsiblewakes.org.
