California seeks to regulate kite-boarding

[jakemoore]

So would you need to get a Department of Transportation sticker for every board, every kite, or just tattoo your number on the rider?

Tough luck for tourists traveling to CA to surf with a kite.

We already get CA tax refugees. So we will get CA kite refugees.

[marlboroughman]

[madworld]

Reading through existing regulations of Harbors and Navigation Code:
655.2. (a) Every owner, operator, or person in command of any vessel propelled by machinery is guilty of an infraction who uses it, or permits it to be used, at a speed in excess of five miles per hour in any portion of the following areas not otherwise regulated by local rules and regulations:
(1) Within 100 feet of any person who is engaged in the act of bathing. A person engaged in the sport of water skiing shall not be considered as engaged in the act of bathing for the purposes of this section.
(2) Within 200 feet of any of the following:
(A) A beach frequented by bathers.
(B) A swimming float, diving platform, or lifeline.

No more waterstarts within 200ft ?

655.7
(c) Every personal watercraft shall, at all times, be operated in a reasonable and prudent manner. Maneuvers that unreasonably or unnecessarily endanger life, limb, or property, including, but not limited to, jumping or attempting to jump the wake of another vessel within 100 feet of that other vessel, operating the personal watercraft toward any person or vessel in the water and turning sharply at close range so as to spray the vessel or person, or operating at a rate of speed and proximity to another vessel so that either operator is required to swerve at the last minute to avoid collision, is unsafe or reckless operation of a vessel.

I bet any jump past another kiter/windsurfer/paddle boarder can be considered "attempting to jump the wake of another vessel"...

(d) A person shall not operate a personal watercraft at any time between the hours from sunset to sunrise.

658.3. (c) A person on board a personal watercraft or a person being towed behind a vessel on water skis, an aquaplane, or similar device, except for an underwater maneuvering device intended for use by a submerged swimmer, shall wear a United States Coast Guard-approved wearable personal flotation device that is used in accordance with approval labels and manufacturer’s instructions.

So, USCG approved flotation device would be required.

[Da Yoda]

For the record. As of today, under CA law a kiteboard is defined as a "Recreational Vessel". It is NOT defined as a "Personal Watercraft". This proposed amendment would effectively change the definitions to include recreational vessels, motorboats, and personal watercraft to be further defined as a "mechanical" vessel. I'm confident that this proposed amendment is only in place to further define what the "mechanics" of a vessel technically are. By further defining the "machinery" of a vessel it better supports the existing law under CA HNC Section 655(a) and 655.2(a). It also supports CCR 6697(a) under Title 14. However is does disrupt some of the language within other existing laws. These will have to be modified in order to support the new "machinery" definition. At this point in time I don't see this amendment negatively impacting kiteboarding nor any other watersport activity. I'm also confident that this is NOT an attempt to reclassify non-motorized vessels (kiteboarding) as watercraft that would require to be licensed by the State.

[Cab Driver]

Toby, maybe edit the title of this thread as the latest info doesn't seem to jive with the thread heading??

[purdyd]

For the record. As of today, under CA law a kiteboard is defined as a "Recreational Vessel". It is NOT defined as a "Personal Watercraft". This proposed amendment would effectively change the definitions to include recreational vessels, motorboats, and personal watercraft to be further defined as a "mechanical" vessel. I'm confident that this proposed amendment is only in place to further define what the "mechanics" of a vessel technically are. By further defining the "machinery" of a vessel it better supports the existing law under CA HNC Section 655(a) and 655.2(a). It also supports CCR 6697(a) under Title 14. However is does disrupt some of the language within other existing laws. These will have to be modified in order to support the new "machinery" definition. At this point in time I don't see this amendment negatively impacting kiteboarding nor any other watersport activity. I'm also confident that this is NOT an attempt to reclassify non-motorized vessels (kiteboarding) as watercraft that would require to be licensed by the State.

I'm not sure what the intent is but any vessel propelled by some mechanical means becomes a motor boat. I suppose that would include body boards if you used fins.

(l) (1) “Machinery” means any sail, rigging, rudder, oar, paddle, or similar device.

(o) “Motorboat” means any vessel propelled by machinery, whether or not the machinery is the principal source of propulsion, but shall not include a vessel that has a valid marine document issued by the United States Coast Guard or any federal agency successor thereto.

under HNC 658.3 you would be required to wear a life guard approved PFD

It is not clear if that also means that "motorized recreational vessel that is numbered pursuant to Section 9850 of the Vehicle Code" would apply since everything is a motor boat

intent or not, putting these things into the motorboat category is at the least concerning

[Toby]

Toby, maybe edit the title of this thread as the latest info doesn't seem to jive with the thread heading??

What do you suggest?

[purdyd]

Toby, maybe edit the title of this thread as the latest info doesn't seem to jive with the thread heading??

What do you suggest?

I think I would wait to change this.

[madworld]

First up, here is a link to all the info on the bill:
http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces ... 0180SB1247
At this link you can find the bill text, votes, history, any analyses of the bill, and you can compare bill language with current law. You can also write comments to the author of the bill from this link. But all of that may not be necessary at this point due to the info below.

I called Senator Gaines’ Capitol office, and his staffer, Peter, told me that their phones are blowing up thanks to all of you. 

Peter also let me know that the bill language that’s there now is in “spot” form, which means that there’s just some language in there to establish some sort of intent, but that the bill will be amended to clarify the intent as soon as they’re able, which is after March 18th.
Here’s info on what a spot bill is: http://www.legintent.com/what-does-it-m ... spot-bill/

Peter also told me that the bill, once amended, will be a public safety bill which will allow police officers to do breathalyzer tests on operators of sailboats WITHOUT motors. Apparently as the law stands now, they can only do breathalyzers on sailboats WITH motors. Peter stated that the bill will not affect wind sport equipment or your use of the waterways.
Peter will have the staffer who’s working on the bill send me the Fact Sheet for the bill as soon as it’s ready.

It’s pretty common for bills to be introduced in bare bones form, and it’s not shocking that the current bill language would raise red flags for the wind sport community, since right now it appears to call for greater regulation of your use of the waterways.

So, there you have it for now. If, for some reason, what Peter told me was not accurate, and I have no reason to believe it wasn’t, y’all can mobilize.

I’ve written a bit more info on the legislative process below, in case anyone is interested.

This is the second year of a two-year Legislative Session. The deadline to introduce bills was in mid-February.
From the info on the link above for SB 1247, the earliest the bill will be heard in the Natural Resources and Water Committee is March 18th. At that point, I assume the author will amend the bill to clarify the intent.
Once a bill passes the committee(s) it’s been scheduled to be heard in, it goes to the full house that it was introduced in, in this case, the State Senate. The deadline for passage through the Senate (the House of Origin in legislative terms) is June 1st. If the bill passes the Senate, it will move over to the Assembly, and will go through a similar process, and will likely be heard in the Assembly Water, Parks and Wildlife Committee. If it passes through that committee, it will then likely go to the Assembly for a vote. The deadline for both houses of the legislature to pass bills is August 31st, and the Governor has 30 days to either veto the bill, or to sign it into law, or to ignore it, which also has the effect of approving the bill.

[Da Yoda]

I'm not sure what the intent is but any vessel propelled by some mechanical means becomes a motor boat. I suppose that would include body boards if you used fins.

(l) (1) “Machinery” means any sail, rigging, rudder, oar, paddle, or similar device.

(o) “Motorboat” means any vessel propelled by machinery, whether or not the machinery is the principal source of propulsion, but shall not include a vessel that has a valid marine document issued by the United States Coast Guard or any federal agency successor thereto.

under HNC 658.3 you would be required to wear a life guard approved PFD

It is not clear if that also means that "motorized recreational vessel that is numbered pursuant to Section 9850 of the Vehicle Code" would apply since everything is a motor boat

intent or not, putting these things into the motorboat category is at the least concerning

Under the CA Code of Regulations 6552(h), “machinery” is currently defined as such:

“Machinery” includes an inboard or outboard engine and any other type of motor or mechanical device capable of propelling a vessel.

In this context the last portion (underlined) can be applied to devices such as a sail, rigging, rudder, oar, paddle, or similar device.

However in the current context, “machinery” under CA law seems to primarily pertain to motorized mechanisms of propulsion. A good example of this is under the definition of a “sailing vessel” under CCR Section 6552(m):

“Sailing vessel” means any vessel under sail provided that propelling machinery, if fitted, is not being used.

If a vessel is “under sail” and the “propelling machinery” is NOT being used then obviously a “sail” is not a form of “machinery” in this context.

Under CA vehicle law, the following non-motorized vessels utilizing "machinery" do NOT have to be registered with the State:

Vessels propelled solely by oars or paddles. (e.g. paddleboards)
Non-motorized sailboats that are eight feet, or less, in length.
Non-motorized surfboards propelled by a sail and with a mast that the operator must hold upright. (e.g. kiteboards)
https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/dmv/detai ... fo/boatreg

Regarding lifejacket carriage requirements, technically kiteboarding has been in violation of both CA and Federal law since it was deemed as a "vessel" by the CG. However most States regard kiteboarding as a form of sailboarding, which is exempt from both CA and Federal lifejacket carriage requirements. As of right now CA is not enforcing this law.