Public raises alarm about wake boats and ballast systems; board hears calls for enforcement and decontamination pilot

A series of open‑forum speakers at the April 9 Natural Resources Board meeting pressed the department and board members to address wake‑surfing boats that use large closed ballast systems. Commenters said those ballast systems cannot be fully drained or inspected, retain residual lake water that can contain invasive species (zebra/quagga mussel larvae, spiny water flea, plant fragments), and in some cases are winterized with antifreeze that requires proper disposal.

Why it matters: Public commenters and conservation volunteers said the boats present a practical vector for aquatic invasive species (AIS) to move between lakes. Several local jurisdictions in Wisconsin have enacted ordinances addressing wake boats; speakers urged statewide action and department enforcement of established drainage rules.

What presenters told the board

- Petition and pilot offer (Jim Olsen, Madison): Olsen said he represents 232 petitioners who filed a petition on Feb. 9, 2024 asking the board to act on ballast decontamination. He said the denial of the petition cited lack of decontamination facilities and raised concern that guidelines without facilities are ineffective. He said one-week rental of cleaning equipment can cost about $3,785 and that a hydroblaster unit to decontaminate is roughly $30,000; larger drive-through pool systems cost far more.

- University and industry evidence (Jeff Niesman, Presque Isle): Niesman, a retired mechanical engineer, cited university studies (University of Wisconsin and University of Minnesota) finding wake-boat ballast compartments retain an average of several gallons of residual water — including zooplankton and, in some samples, zebra‑mussel larvae — and that ballast compartments are the most likely compartment to contain larvae compared with other boat compartments. Niesman quoted manufacturers’ manuals acknowledging zebra mussels attach inside ballast tanks and noting instructions that certain winterization or draining steps may risk equipment damage or require antifreeze.

- Volunteer observers (Mary Jung, Newbold): A Clean Boats Clean Waters volunteer and shoreline inspector, Jung said volunteers can inspect live wells and trailers but cannot inspect closed ballast systems and urged state enforcement of NR 19.055 (drain water from boats and ballast systems) or other rules. Jung cited the industry trend toward large ballasted models and said most such boats cost well over $100,000.

- Public-safety and legal gaps (Carol Phillips, Presque Isle): A retired civil engineer, Phillips emphasized that current boating laws (approach/pass and negligent operation) do not effectively address hazardous wakes or persistent wake impacts at distances such as 200 feet; she urged the DNR to articulate a plan to protect other users and enforce public‑trust protections.

Board response and follow-up

- Department and board conversation: Board members pressed for details about the petition and a department pilot. Jim (petition organizer) said a pilot decontamination project had been offered but had not moved forward despite funding commitments from community volunteers. Board members suggested coordination with the Governor’s Council on Invasive Species and with industry; one board member offered to provide contact information to advance discussions.

- Statutory and rule references: Speakers and board members referenced NR 19.055 (the administrative rule requiring drainage of boats and equipment) and asked whether the department could use emergency or other rulemaking authority to address enforcement gaps.

What was not decided: No new regulation or formal enforcement action was adopted at the meeting. The board heard public testimony and received offers for a pilot project; members asked the department to follow up with stakeholders and the Governor’s Council on Invasive Species to explore options, including local decontamination infrastructure, dealer responsibilities, and possible rule or statutory changes.

Ending: Commenters urged quicker action — whether regulation, enforcement, or a funded pilot — and offered to work with the department. The DNR staff and board indicated interest in follow-up, and at least one board member offered to connect petitioners to council contacts for additional coordination.