Frustrations at lake bubble to surface

PRIEST LAKE — County residents launched into the county waterways board here Aug. 18 to voice their disappointment with lax law enforcement on Priest Lake. Between endless violations of no-wake zones and incessant noise pollution by visitors, the three dozen Priest Lakers in attendance had plenty to say.

Not one person in attendance disagreed on the central point. Everyone agreed that noise, violations of the no-wake zones, and large wakes were issues on Priest Lake that needed to be addressed.

Where they disagreed was on how best to do it. Some argued that the county should create and enforce additional ordinances. Some asked for more marine patrols to enforce the laws currently on the books. Others called on the state to deal with it. Some called for better, or mandatory, education for boaters.

George Momany was concerned about the dangers posed to swimmers and kayakers by boats violating the no-wake zone restrictions. He had swum two miles that morning, he said. He called for more marine patrols as well as better education of boaters.

Lt. Ed Jochum, who works in the marine division of the Bonner County Sheriff’s Office and serves on the waterways board, said that wake zone violations are the most common violations on the lake. They also are the toughest to enforce, he said. He called on citizens to exercise their right of citizens’ arrest and offered the county’s help to facilitate serving citations to lawbreakers.

Some members of the audience scoffed at the suggestion, while others asked for more details about how to do it. Jochum explained that people did not need to physically stop, or even talk to, violators. But they would need proof that could stand up in court, just like any uniformed law enforcement officer would. Videos, photos, dates, times, and boat information would be best, he said.

Board member Jim Kelly said one of the reasons why people visiting Priest Lake violate the no-wake zone rules is because they came from other counties, states, and countries where the no-wake zone is smaller in size. He also said that many people had a hard time understanding what 200 feet looked like. Additionally, many younger Canadians don’t know at all, he said, because they only use the metric system.

County commissioner Todd Sudick called on the state to require mandatory boater education, which would better ensure that boaters would know how to protect a no-wake zone. About half of the people in attendance agreed with the concept, while others such as Bonner County Drector of Parks and waterways Steve Klatt disagreed with adding more layers of regulation to boating in Idaho.

Bob Bond, who owns a cabin on the lake, said it is wrong for people to force others to listen to their excessively loud music for hours and hours at a time and even into the late night. Some of their onboard parties never leave shore, he said.

Eric Johnson, who represented cabin owners from the western side of the lake, said he knew of a wedding that had to be cancelled because of loud music that boaters simply refused to turn down even when asked to do so. He proposed rules forbidding above-water exhaust from boat engines, and limiting noise on the lake.

Klatt noted that “this is our best-attended waterways meeting in some time.” Mike Nielsen, commander of the Priest Lake Search and Rescue, said he had attended around 50 of the board’s meetings and that this one had the highest turnout of them all. Klatt noted that the board usually does not meet in Priest Lake. Many board members spoke to that issue, offering out hope that they would return to Priest Lake for another meeting in a year’s time.

Klatt said given the board’s familiarity with the county’s other waterways and unfamiliarity with Priest Lake, perhaps the board should form an ad hoc committee to identify hazard areas unique to Priest Lake.

Board member Erin Mader said the board would take all of the residents’ input and try to come up with enforceable rules that county residents would support.

Jochum encouraged Priest Lakers to attend further board meetings elsewhere in the county in order to continue to provide their recommendations, which people in other areas of the county may or may not support.