Personal Watercraft: lake lice or a harmless thrill?

By Christina Campbell
Sun staff writer
What do you think of when you hear “Personal Watercraft?” A Jet Ski®? A Sea-Doo®? A Wave Runner®? A shallow-draft, aquatic craft propelled by a water jet drive and capable of achieving planing speeds? Or do you just cover your ears and wait for the whine to dissipate?

Not all PWC are created equal, but neither are their operators. Jet skiers have rescued me from my capsized sailboat. But they have also cut me off, forcing my peaceful sails into sharp turns, and laughed and gone screeching by as I clung to the pontoon of my disabled craft. I’ve seen jet skis chasing families of ducks. This all begs the question: does the machine make the man or the man make the machine?
People either love or hate Personal Watercrafts. PWC are useful and fun and easy to operate. PWC are loud and dirty and dangerous. PWC are just another type of motorboat. PWC are a new breed of obnoxious “thrill craft.” So who’s right and who’s crazy?
Take the two top contenders in the ‘To PWC or Not to PWC” question. On the left we have the Bluewater Network (“Inspiring individuals to protect the earth’s finite and vulnerable ecosystems”). On the right is the billion-dollar PWC industry, represented mainly by the American Watercraft Association (“When your right to ride is threatened, the AWA swings into action!”) and the Personal Watercraft Industry Association (whose acronym PWIA is also forced, rather alarmingly, into “People who love Water Invested in America”).
These groups have been duking it out over the PWC issue for years. Bluewater compiles alarming statistics on the detrimental effects of personal watercrafts. Then the AWA and PWIA disparage these statistics and add some pro-PWC facts of their own. While Bluewater and the PWC industry take turns punching holes in each others’ arguments, every year 100,000 new PWC appear on our nation’s waterways.
The most contentious personal watercraft issues are pollution, wildlife impact, noise and safety. Both Bluewater and the AWA/PWIA team selectively cite studies that support their PWC stances, while ignoring studies that don’t. Bluewater, however, seems able to come up with a wider variety of studies which indicate the dangers of PWC, whereas the AWA and PWIA cling to the same three or four studies that happened to show that PWC have no effect on sea grass, waterfowl flushing or water quality. In general, AWA/PWIA’s arguments are defensive and skirt the real issues — two classic signs of a guilty conscience.
Pollution
Statistics vary, but anti-personal watercraft sources pretty much agree that a two-hour “thrill” ride or a leisurely day ride on a two-stroke, 100-horsepower PWC emits over three gallons of unburned gas and oil directly into the water, enough to cover the surface of a 10-acre pond. According to The California Air Resources Board, one hour on a typical jet ski produces more smog-forming emissions than a modern car emits in one year. This is more than twice as much pollution as a two-stroke outboard motorboat of comparable horsepower.
But here the AWA weighs in. The organization insists that “there is no difference between similarly powered two-cycle engines in PWC or in an outboard.” Bluewater disagrees, but unlike the AWA, Bluewater supports its stance with facts: PWC engines have higher emissions than outboard motorboats with similar two-stroke engines, because they are physically smaller than outboard engines of the same horsepower, so PWC engines must run at a higher speed to achieve said horsepower. PWC also operate at higher average throttle settings.
So what happens to the hydrocarbons once they leave the PWC? According to the AWA, these emissions are not significant because they evaporate relatively quickly from the water into the air, instead of sticking around forming oil films or slicks on the water. However, Bluewater says that “studies from Michigan State University show that two-stroke engine emissions inflict the most damage to the aquatic environment within 24 hours.” This damage window opens most widely in shallow, remote shoreline waters–the areas most frequented by PWC. In shallow areas hydrocarbons from two-stroke engines can more easily destroy wildlife and water quality, by reaching the organisms that form the foundation of our food chain, such as algae, zooplankton and fish eggs.
In 2002, marine engine manufacturers responded to pressure from the Environmental Protection Agency and began to market cleaner four-stroke personal watercrafts and direct-injected (DI) two-stroke PWC. According to the AWA, “By 2006, the recreational watercraft fleet (including PWC) will show a 75 percent reduction in emissions.”
Bluewater, unwilling to give its enemy even the smallest pat on the back, immediately points out that with more than a million older-model PWC already operating in the United States, “even if every new PWC sold were equipped with the new technology (which is clearly not the case) it would take nearly 12 years to replace all the dirty two-stroke PWC.”
In the meantime, the PWC technology race becomes a game of Pick Your Poison. Even the new DI two-stroke engines still emit at least seven times more hydrocarbons than do four-stroke engines. These DI two-strokes also emit more formaldehyde than both standard two-strokes and four-strokes. But then, four-strokes emit more carbon monoxide than do DI engines. What’s an environmentally conscientious thrill seeker to do?
Wildlife Impact
Regarding wildlife impact, the AWA declares, “The most recent studies show that there is no difference between PWC and other boats. . .” But Bluewater names biologists who have, in fact, documented destructive impacts specific to personal watercrafts. Because PWC have shallow drafts and no rudders, they can speed about in remote, shallow areas that are inaccessible to conventional boats. It is to these sensitive areas that wildlife often retreat to escape the deeper-water vessels. Moreover, unlike traditional craft that move linearly from point to point, personal watercraft tend to circle in one area–inhibiting flushed wildlife from returning to their feeding or nesting areas. Buffer zones are a nice idea but can be difficult to enforce. Slippery and persistent, PWC are known in some circles as “lake lice.”
Noise
Depending on speed, distance and engine strokes, personal watercrafts can be as loud as garbage trucks, air compressors or rock concerts. Their engine noise may reach 102 decibels (dB) — the American Hospital Association recommends hearing protection for sounds above 85 dB.
You can almost feel a foot stamping as the AWA stubbornly declares, “Sound testing shows that PWC are not, in fact, louder than other conventional motorboats.” But later on the same web page, the AWA concedes to noise critics by saying that “[New technologies make PWC] probably anywhere from 60 to 75 percent quieter than they were just a few years ago.” Yet according to Bluewater, the PWC industry has yet to show data that support this claim.
In another concession that contradicts its claim that PWCs are not inordinately loud, the AWA supports 100-foot buffer zones from the shore. But the Noise Pollution Clearinghouse has shown that a PWC heard at 80 dB from 20 feet distant can move to 160 feet away and still be heard at 65 dB.
And decibels don’t address the varying pitch of personal watercrafts. Engine noise increases each time the jet drive emerges from the water, as happens when a PWC goes over a wave or makes a sharp turn. This pitch fluxes are more distracting than the constant hum of a conventional motorboat whose engine never leaves the water.
Furthermore, PWC noise lacks low-frequency sounds that can be heard by underwater wildlife, which often can’t detect the approach of a PWC until it is too late.
Safety
A San Francisco Marine Patrol officer describes personal watercrafts as, “very easy to purchase and very dangerous to operate.” Only about 15 percent of all registered boats in the U.S. are PWC. Yet they are involved in almost 40 percent of all boating accidents.
The PWIA explains these numbers away with hopeful and vague statements like, “the industry believes that most PWC owners operate their craft in a responsible, environmentally friendly manner. . .” The AWA uses an apples-to-oranges logic when addressing PWC’s dubious safety record: “Despite their reputation, PWC are not the deadliest boats in the water. According to United States Coast Guard (USCG) statistics, “In 1998 alone, 115 people died in canoe or kayak accidents, as compared with 78 PWC deaths in the same year.”
However, the leading cause of canoe/kayak accidents is capsizing, while the leading cause of personal watercraft accidents is collision with another vessel. PWC operation obviously threatens the safety of other people in addition to the operator. Even the new, cleaner PWC models still lack certain features that would increase personal watercraft maneuverability and safety: brakes, a clutch, or off-throttle steering. If a PWC rider instinctively releases the throttle to avert a collision, steering the machine becomes impossible, and death comes not by drowning (easily mitigable with life jackets) but by “violent blunt force trauma.”
Nevertheless, the AWA publicizes personal watercrafts as ideal for water search and rescue, touting their maneuverability and shallow draft. However, park rangers note that PWC have an unstable platform and limited storage space, and they lose engine thrust in white water; these attributes greatly limit their effectiveness in rescue operations.
So maybe PWC don’t have much to recommend them. However, because it’s impractical and possibly unfair to dismiss PWC entirely, outright personal watercraft bans are extremely rare. Special watercraft rules (speed limits, no-wake zones, and boat launch restrictions) are more common. For instance, The Michigan Marine Safety Act prohibits operating a PWC at higher than “no wake” speed within 100 feet of any dock, raft, swimmer, skier or anchored boat, or within 150 feet of another vessel underway (other than another jet ski).
If you witness irresponsible PWC operation, contact your local law enforcement. You can further ensure the safety and cleanliness of your waterways by only renting or buying jet skis with four-stroke engines. Or better yet, redefine Personal Watercraft to mean your sailboat, kayak or any vessel that puts you on equal terms with the elements.