Personal watercraft, commonly known by the names “Jet Ski” and “Sea-Doo,” have been increasingly controversial in recent years. Most notably, in 1996, San Juan County passed an ordinance that banned the operation of personal watercraft in county waters. In Weden v. San Juan Count, 135 Wn.2d 678 (1998) plaintiffs unsuccessfully challenged the validity of the ordinance on numerous grounds, the most compelling of which was that the ordinance was not a valid exercise of the county’s police power.

Weden v. San Juan County
The Washington Constitution, Article XI, section 11, provides that “[a]ny county, city, town or township may make and enforce within its limits all such local police, sanitary and other regulations as are not in conflict with general laws.” Laws which address public safety, health, or welfare are encompassed by this constitutional grant.

In order for an ordinance to fall within the police power, it must: (1) not conflict with a general law, (2) be a reasonable exercise of the local government’s police power, and (3) cover a subject matter local in nature.

Reasonable Exercise of Police Power?
The Weden plaintiffs contended that the San Juan County ordinance went beyond the county’s police power. The county pointed to the text of the ordinance, which included numerous “legislative findings” detailing the effects of personal watercraft on the San Juan County environment.

Of import, many species of endangered birds and marine mammals inhabit the waters of San Juan County. Tourism is heavily dependent upon a tranquil environment. The manner in which personal watercraft (dubbed “thrill craft” by one court) are often operated--at speeds of up to 60 miles per hour, sharply maneuvered, and close to shore--harms the natural environment. The noise is uneven and louder when personal watercraft are out of the water, which is common when users are “wake jumping.” The county also noted that noise from personal watercraft interferes with the use and enjoyment of the shoreline in a way that is more objectionable than that of other boats.

Based upon these findings, the court concluded that the county ordinance served a legitimate public purpose and was reasonable.

Local Subject Matter?
The scope of a municipality’s police power may not extend beyond its boundaries. This prong of the police power test most divided the Washington Supreme Court in Weden. The majority held that the ordinance was local, as it only regulates activities within the county’s geographical boundaries.

Justice Sanders’ dissent (with which Justice Alexander concurred) maintained that the fact that the county regulated within its geographical boundaries was insufficient to render the legislation local.

May Local Government Prohibit Personal Watercraft?
The Weden case raises the question of whether local governmental units in King County and surrounding areas may restrict or prohibit the use of personal watercraft in bodies of water within their boundaries.

The deleterious effects of personal watercraft on the Puget Sound environment are numerous and severe, although arguably less so here than in the San Juan Islands.

It also seems that, particularly in the case of lakes located entirely within the geographic boundaries of King County, concerns related to whether regulation is local in nature are extinguished. The relatively recent death of a man in Lake Sammamish who was operating a personal watercraft and was struck at high speed by another personal watercraft user also supports the conclusion that personal watercraft are properly regulated by local governments under the police power.

May local governments regulate personal watercraft based upon the sheer annoyance their use causes some residents? Is this a proper basis upon which to severely restrict or prohibit the use of personal watercraft on public bodies of water? The San Juan County ordinance findings likened the sounds of personal watercraft to that of a mosquito. The plaintiffs countered that “[c]ommunity displeasure,’ Ôgeneralized complaints’ or Ôpublic distaste for certain activities’ cannot be the basis for governmental action.” The Weden court did not squarely address this question, as a great deal of support for such a ban may be found in studies related to the detrimental impact personal watercraft use has on the environment.