Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Wake Surfing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Pickerel Lake residents press county for wake-surf limits; board declines proposed ban, suggests 300-foot compromise
Summary
Residents described repeated safety incidents, erosion and property damage from wake-enhanced boats and asked Becker County to adopt a DNR-aligned restriction; the board did not support the Lake Association’s proposed ban as written but said it would consider a 300-foot setback and asked the association to submit a revised proposal to staff.
A steady stream of Pickerel Lake residents told the Becker County Board on Tuesday that wake-enhancement surfing is making the lake unsafe for swimmers, paddlers and pontoons and worsening shoreline erosion.
"The majority of residents of Picker Lake are seeking an ordinance to prohibit wake enhancement wake surfing on the lake," said Sandy Stallmo, who gave the board a packet with maps and a petition. Stallmo told commissioners the lake is narrow and that University of Minnesota research shows enhanced wakes need more than 500 feet to dissipate. Several other residents described pontoons swamped by wakes and children pulled from the water.
Opponents of a county ban urged caution and better local communication. "Pickerel Lake is a public body of water and it should be there for everyone to share and enjoy," said Joel Waje, who said he and his family moved to the lake and would prefer compromise and education over outright prohibition. Several speakers disputed claims about the association’s petition and circulated materials; one resident told the board he had forwarded a questioned DNR-style list to DNR staff to verify its provenance.
Commissioners weighed enforcement and scope. One board member said they were not in favor of the Lake Association’s current draft and would not support a ban in its present form but would consider a 300-foot setback as an alternative. Staff warned that if the county adopts an ordinance and forwards it to the Minnesota DNR for review, the DNR could deny an application if it lacks required information.
The board’s immediate action was to decline support for the association’s proposed ordinance as submitted and invite the lake group to work with county planning staff on a revised, narrower proposal (for example, a 300-foot setback) and provide the documentation the DNR requires. The county asked the association to coordinate edits with staff and return with a revised submission.
