Mired and Muddled

Some Virginia lawmakers are trying again to pass legislation that would make the state children's life preserver law mirror the federal law.

On Jan. 21, the Senate voted 30-10 in favor of a bill requiring children ages 12 and under to wear life preservers while aboard a vessel that is underway. The legislation now goes to the House of Delegates, where an identical bill is set to be heard by the Committee on Agriculture, Chesapeake and Natural Resources.

The bills would require compliance only on waterways that are "subject to concurrent state and federal jurisdiction," such as Smith Mountain and Leesville lakes.

Bruce Dungan, a Union Hall resident and chairman of the Virginia Safe Boating Alliance, said passage of the bills would clear up confusion on Smith Mountain Lake and other waterways. At the lake, both the U.S. Coast Guard and the Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries have jurisdiction.

When it comes to children in life preservers, VDGIF upholds the state law, which requires there be a properly sized life preserver for every person on board. The Coast Guard upholds the federal law, which requires all children 12 and under to wear life preservers when the vessel is underway. There are exceptions when the children are below deck or in an enclosed cabin.

"I've taught safe boating for over a dozen years and this is one of the most confusing things to try to tell a class that there's a law and there's not a law," said Ralph Brush, a Huddleston resident and member of various organizations dedicated to lake health, safety and education.

"It's crazy to have two laws on the lake," he said. "It's very hard to explain that to a group of boaters who want to do the right thing when the state law says it's OK and the federal law says it isn't."

The struggle to pass boating legislation

This is not the first time a children's life preserver bill has been proposed. Similar bills have been killed in the General Assembly almost every year for several years. Like most proposed boating legislation, the life preserver bills have rarely made it out of committee.

Mandatory boater education was on the docket regularly for about 10 years before one was passed in 2007. It went into effect last year and will phase in through 2016.

Roy Enslow, a member of the Virginia Safe Boating Alliance and owner of Bridgewater Marina, said boating bills often are too bogged down with multiple items or too narrow of classifications.

For example, a 2006 bill requiring boaters to complete a boating-safety course only applied to Smith Mountain Lake. The bill also included a 25-mph nighttime on-water speed limit, applying to the entire state.

A 2005 Senate bill requiring children age 12 and under to wear life preservers only would have applied to watercraft less than 21 feet long. While it passed the Senate by a landslide 36-4 vote, it was killed in the House by a vote of 35-62-1.

Identical House and Senate bills that would have applied to children age 6 and under aboard watercraft less than 21 feet in length were killed in committee in 2003.

Originally, the two bills being debated this year dealt with children's life preservers in different ways.

Del. Brenda Pogge, R-Yorktown, introduced HB168. It would only affect waterways "subject to concurrent state and federal jurisdiction." Sen. Frederick Quayle, R-Chesapeake, introduced SB93. It would have affected all Virginia waterways.

Pogge's bill would apply to vessels of all lengths. Quayle's would have only applied to vessels "less than 21 feet in length."

Pogge's bill allowed for Type I, II, III or V U.S. Coast Guard-approved life preservers. Quayle's bill did not allow for Type V life preservers.

In each case, the penalty for the vessel's captain would be $100, paid to the Motorboat and Water Safety Fund of the Game Protection Fund. It may be waived if the captain completes a boating safety-education course within six months of the violation.

Dungan said the Virginia Safe Boating Alliance endorsed Pogge's bill, but not Quayle's. The VSBA met with Quayle on Jan. 14 to ask the senator to amend his bill to match Pogge's. Quayle amended his bill on Jan. 20 when it went before the committee, adopting Pogge's language. The VSBA now is endorsing both bills, said Dungan.

Enslow said if bills that didn't use the same age as the federal regulations or that only applied to boats of certain lengths passed, it would only have added to the confusion.

This year's bills are cleaner than previous bills, said Dungan, who said he thinks that might help get the bill to Gov. Bob McDonnell's desk for passage into law.

"It's so short, it's so straight to the point, it doesn't create any new mandates," said Dungan. "It's merely a clean up to avoid confusion."

Views on the proposed legislation

At Bridgewater Marina, the staff tells boat renters about the federal law only to help keep confusion at a minimum, said Enslow. The staff also fits every child with a life preserver before boarding, he added.

Russ Johnson, Franklin County's Gills Creek supervisor, said his family takes things a step further.

"We always wear life jackets when we're on a moving boat, even the adults," he said.

The life preservers came in handy several years ago when his family's boat was swamped. In those few seconds, there's little time to strap on a life preserver, said Johnson.

Chuck Neudorfer, Bedford County's Moneta District supervisor, said he's also in favor of the bills, even though he dislikes the $100 fine issued to the captain for noncompliance.

"It bothers me that we have such large fines to try to correct the activities of people who probably inadvertently, in some places, didn't understand the rules," said Neudorfer.

"It would be more appropriate to warn and educate [about the law] than to fine people," he continued. "It goes not only for that bill; it goes for a variety of things we try to enforce on the lake."

Not everyone at the lake is in favor of the bills, however.

Virgil Naff, a Huddleston resident and boat dealer, said he thinks personal safety issues should be left up to the individual.

"Many SML residents require all children wear a life jacket while outside the house and if that is what they feel is necessary, no one should question that policy," Naff wrote in an e-mail. "However, should it become a law? Certainly not."

Naff said the necessity of such laws comes down to individual situations and factors such as boat type, "water and traffic conditions and of course, the swimming skill of the individual." Additionally, heat and humidity can dampen a child's desire to go boating if he is she is further burdened by a life preserver, he wrote.

"God gave us a brain and I believe family safety is an excellent opportunity to exercise it," he wrote. "The government is always trying to help us in areas we don't need help."

To read the bills and follow their progress through the legal system, visit leg1.state.va.us.