Getting personal

In theory, the personal watercraft law passed last year makes sense: If all the neighboring towns sharing the shoreline of a particular lake or pond agree, they can petition the Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife to ban the jet-propelled water bikes. It seems a fair balance between local control and the state’s interest in accommodating all uses.

In practice, it’s causing trouble. While many communities have reached consensus on PWCs, there are rifts. And the result is hardly neighborly.

A case in point would be Megunticook Lake. At recent town meetings, Camden and Lincolnville overwhelmingly voted to ban PWCs. Hope, the third town with shoreline (and the smallest amount of shoreline as well), did not. The proposal lost there by a four-vote margin.

This has led to the suggestion that Hope goofed and should try again. It also has been suggested that IF&W should ignore the Hope vote, with its tiny margin, and approve the petition anyway.

Either approach would be wrong. Hope can vote again if it chooses, but it must not be scolded into doing so. The democratic process will not work if the validity of a vote is gauged by the margin. The IF&W’s moral authority to ban an activity many enjoy rests upon following the established rules and having the consent of the governed.

An approach that might work, or that could at least eliminate the town-vs.-town strife, would be to alter to combine all affected residents into one legislative body, with their cumulative vote approving or rejecting proposals made by a cross-jurisdictional lake authority. This is how multi-town school districts pass budgets, it’s how multi-town solid-waste facilities operate, it could help people who share a lake or pond solve problems that need regional, rather than town-by-town, solutions. At least it would put the focus upon PWCs and not town boundaries.

Rep. Richard Nass of Acton offered an interesting and worthwhile perspective on this situation the other day. Although, he said, most of his constituents probably would prefer to see PWCs restricted, ban proposals have not been placed on town ballots because people don’t want to have to confront their neighbors. Town A would prefer to see how well the state enforces new rules, also enacted last year, on speeding near the shore, wake-jumping and other nuisance behaviors before it pokes its thumb in Town B’s eye.

Ultimately, of course, the entire issue of PWCs comes down to behavior. Most PWC users are thoughtful, considerate types, willing to balance their recreational desires with the desires others have for peace and quiet. But here, as in all things, it only takes a few knuckleheads to spoil the fun for everyone.

A lesson can be learned from snowmobilers, who turned themselves from annoyance to asset by forming clubs, educating members about safety and good manners, engaging in self-policing and performing valuable community service. PWC riders can do the same, they can ensure they’ll have ample opportunities to enjoy their sport, but it won’t happen overnight. In the meantime, the Legislature should revisit this law and keep the neighbors from squabbling.