Virginia’s Permit by Rule program governs the permitting process for “small renewable energy projects.” Projects that qualify follow regulations established by the Department of Environmental Quality rather than the more cumbersome permitting process at the State Corporation Commission. The Permit by Rule regulations were developed by a working group that brought together representatives from industry, local government, and environmental organizations. The regulations require permit applicants to secure local approvals for projects. Local governing boards can, and do, reject projects for a wide range of reasons. For others, they work with the developer, landowners and the community to resolve issues together.

Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee - The Virginia Association of Soil & Water Conservation Districts, representing our 47 SWCDs across the Commonwealth and over 333 unpaid volunteer Directors, SUPPORTS HB1837. The bill clarifies what had historically been the method for appointing six members to this board based on a list of nominees from the Virginia Association of Soil and Water Conservation Districts in consultation with Virginia Farm Bureau and Virginia Agribusiness Council and approved by the Virginia Soil and Water Conservation Board. The nominees are either farmers or local SWCD district directors. The practice of these groups was to maintain a geographic representation based on the Associations Areas. Governor Northam’s Secretary of Commonwealth chose to interpret the underlying statute differently this summer. As a result of the Governor not utilizing this list of nominees, the Association's Area/Region 2 which encompasses the following Soil and Water Districts - Thomas Jefferson, John Marshall, Loudoun, Northern Virginia, Prince William, Culpeper and the counties they represent - no longer has representation on the Soil and Water Conservation Board. There are also three at-large representatives to represent various other interests on this board and this legislation does not change those appointments. Delegate Plum’s bill seeks to clarify the statute based on how it had been previously interpreted and historically intended - ensuring nomination of six individuals per joint recommendation and per the substitute to be introduced now codifying the historic practice of geographic representation. We urge you to support HB1837 and its critical clarification to the appointments process. Kendall Tyree, PhD Executive Director Virginia Association of Soil & Water Conservation Districts

As a citizen who lives in the state and on the Rappahannock river and has seen the impact of poor stewardship, I ask that the General Assembly support these bills.

I support passage of HB2083. The 200’ rule you are proposing could effectively close some of the smaller creeks where most of the damage is being done while still allowing this really cool sport to thrive in the majority of the lake. The originally proposed distance of 200 feet has passed at other localities across the country. 200 feet is the distance the Water Sports Industry Association reported would be ample enough for boat waves to dissipate. My goodness folks ... even the industry that spawn this sport recommends 200 feet as a safer distance. Education has been tried for several years but unfortunately the wake surfing community at SML has not been interested in voluntarily following the recommendations so it is time to make 200’ a rule and not merely a suggestion. Tempers are running high on this issue. This bill could defuse that issue before it becomes more divisive.

I am writing to ask that you oppose the poorly conceived bill attempting to virtually eliminate wake surfing at Smith Mountain Lake. I am a homeowner at SML and yes I have experienced dock damage from an inconsiderate wake surfing boater, but the vast majority of such boaters are respectful and keep a proper distance. This bill is an overreaction to a few boaters who would best be handled individually through local enforcement for unsafe boating. Denying recreation for 99% of the boaters because of the misdeeds of 1% of inconsiderate jerks is overkill and taking away people's rights of lake enjoyment. This is classic use of a canon to do what a rifle shot could do. Simply put, 200 feet either side of a boat would nearly restrict wake surfing to the main channel, which is even more dangerous as wake surfing boats are going maybe 10 -12 mph while other boats are cruising at much higher speeds in the main channel. Having swimmers (preparing to wake surf or falling) in the middle of the main channel is a recipe for disaster. Multiplying the number of wake surfers in limited areas will not only ruin the recreation, it will make residents' investment in wake surfing boats wasted. This bill targets one lake and one recreational sport. If this was really a safety issue the bill would address all lakes with boating. My 1 and 3 year old grandchildren spent the entire summer with me at the lake, and we live on a busy cove with a number of wake surf boaters. They never were shoved into a dock or the rocks - and enjoyed the small waves. Of course we kept a watchful eye n them all the time. This is not about safety - we have rules at the lake already that would address unsafe boating. This is about a small number of residents wanting the lake to be more of a museum than a recreational lake. There are a number of other boats that cause significant and even greater wake action - is this just the beginning of more and more regulation to the detriment of those who enjoy lake recreation and to the businesses that thrive off of such local recreation? Moreover, how is a wake boat to even know for sure they are 200 feet from any structure either side and also from any swimmer? 200 feet is simply too much and too restrictive. HB 2083 is unfair to the many residents and visitors who love lake recreation or own wake surfing boats.

I oppose HB2083. As a resident of Claytor Lake with over 30 years in water sports, I consider wake surfing to be a safe sport operated at low speed enjoyed by family members of all ages. As with any activity, there are irresponsible individuals. I ask that you reject this bill and do not punish the 98% responsible boaters due to the 2% of irresponsible boaters.

Oppose this bill.

It is my understanding this bill passed through committee with little to no consideration of the public comments - written & oral. This is disappointing to hear from our elected representatives. We implore this group to consider withdrawing this bill before additional study is undertaken to truly understand the impacts. We are putting forth this new law will serve to increase the danger to the entire boating community on Smith Mountain Lake in order to satiate the nimby attitude of a small group of homeowners. Pushing the slow moving wakesurfing boats to the main channels of the lake is a decision that will result in dangerous conditions occuring as boats traveling at a higher rate of speed (11 mph or faster) overtake these boats and their vulnerable surfers. Please study this further rather than hastily pass legislation in this session - we ask that simple request.

Not against this as long as everyone is respectful of others we can all enjoy the lake together. My comment above was just experiences we have had but if we all respect property and those around us on the lake we can all enjoy these beautiful lakes together.

I am against this bill as it would significantly reduce the ability to use my wake surf boat which I have a significant amount of money invested in. My wife and I are retired and wake surfing is one of our principle recreational activities. We responsibly drive our boat where and when our surf wake will not impact others. Many other types of boats create large wakes at high speeds or deep drafts. Surf boats are being single out because it is relatively new and popular but the wakes of all boats can cause damage if not driven responsibly.

Not only should wakeboarding near property or dock not be allowed no should fishing or duck hunting. If you only knew how many times we have had to re ulposter our boat cushions because of some one getting fish hooks caught in them and how many times I have feared for my life living directly on the water during duck hunting season when you see guns pointed within 5 feet of your water wall then maybe you would understand. None of these things I just stated above need to happening in any cove at anytime any where in Virginia period!! My children can't even swim in the water or jump off our dock we pay taxes to live on because of so many boats coming by all the time. This should have been banned years ago.

I feel that wakesurfing should continue to be allowed without restrictions on lakes, such as Smith Mountain Lake. Boat owners and those that live on the lake are usually cautious and careful in regards to other’s property and swimmers. Perhaps improved education on boat rentals that intend to wakesurf would be more beneficial.

I oppose this bill for numerous reasons mostly due to a lack of study in to whether it will make a difference at Smith mountain lake, we shouldn't make policies based on peoples opinions it should be based on facts and a study is needed to see if in fact the facts point to one type of activity that is causing these peoples problems that Mrs Byron spoke with and decided to write legislation for, in my opinion we don't need another law especially one aimed at only one type of boat and only one lake in the entire state. I am also not happy that the author of this bill tried to sneak this in quietly last week without talking to anyone who might be opposed to this dangerous bill, safety is the other reason I am against this bill, you can read the bill and see its not safe to approve it as written, keep educating that is what is needed not Bills, Mrs Byron Please do a study and determine facts before you attempt to legislate, do not take what most that I know think are ridiculous ideas blaming one type of boat and run with it on this one, it will cause more issues than you have heard about so far and way worse issues since the legislation the way its written can actually get someone really hurt or possibly killed and you could actually end up with blood on your hands and no-one wants that. one type of boat is not the issue. do a study first, educate! not legislate!

Want to talk to the science of wave energy

I have lived on SML for over 30 years. My family are avid boaters, skiers, wakeboarders, and wake surfers. As lake front property owners, we understand the issues associated with wake surfing and we have addressed those concerns with our friends and family through education. We always take our surfing and wakeboarding to the main channel to reduce issues with large wakes. There needs to be more education about wake surf wakes and where and when it is appropriate to surf rather than legislation. With your proposed legislation, you will eliminate the sport for most that can only get to the lake on weekends as the 200 ft rule from boats and people would be nearly impossible with the amount of traffic on weekends. This legislation targets a single class of boat owner that is unfair considering the size of some of the larger boats on the lake that create just as large or even larger wakes as a wake surf boat. I propose that education for boaters the better solution vs legislation. SML is a beautiful lake that people come from all areas of the country to enjoy. Their experience on the lake is a big part of the economy for the lake and this legislation will only hurt that economy by driving away wake surfers.

Would like to speak to the science behind wave energy.

I DO NOT agree with this bill. People need to just maintain courtesy while on the lakes. My family enjoys the sport. It is no different than any other sport that people may enjoy. I cannot help that my kids chose to wake surf instead of a different water sport. We should not be singled out just because of the things we like doing.

As a veteran with over 10 years service in the Marine Corps, it would be nice to see the ones that need it the most compensated for their service. I honestly think that if you are over 50 percent it should be free for your lifetime. We are the Purple Heart state for a reason. In regulates to the wakesurfing there are a few things that need considered. I agree with a specified distance from docks being a homeowner myself on a lake with a lot of traffic. However, establishing a distance that I have never seen enforced does nothing. If we push all the surf boats to the main channels what are we going to do to accommodate the people that are sailing or pleasure riding? In my opinion it will cause an unsafe situation on the main lake. There is also a concern with all the tournaments that go on and bass boats crossing 4 ft waves all day. Thanks for your time.

We have a house on Claytor Lake for 62 years and in the last few years being on the main channel we have had trouble with wake boats doing damage to our dock and when they go by our grandkids are tossed all over the place when on floats even to the point of crashing into the dock which is very dangerous. Our pontoon when tied to the dock is tossed and land sometimes on our floating dock which could damage the toons or land on whoever is standing near by. When people and us included are riding our pontoon when one of these boats goes by it rocks it so bad that if your standing it could throw you off or on top of something or someone and we have had large amounts of water come on our pontoon which scares the grandkids like we are sinking. Please listen to Claytor Lake home owners when they say we have a real problem and consider looking into this for us. Thank you very much for your help! Valerie Beamer

In response to proposed HB2083. We live in an area of VA where we are fortunate enough to be able to enjoy Smith Mountain Lake. An incredibly beautiful lake that I have been able to enjoy my whole life. I was sickened to read about this proposed bill. Always some new restriction coming down the pipe to destroy fun. What this bill would mean for me and my family is that we would no longer be able to surf in a perfectly large cove where it is safe and away from the heavy boat traffic that is in the main channel. I know a lot of homeowners do not like surf boats but ARE they also negative towards other boats that come into "their" cove and do 360's? Are they against a beautiful cabin cruiser coming into "their" cove going faster than 20? Come on! You are singling out one type of boater and ALL the people I know that own these boats know lake ETIQUETTE because most own lake front property on this lake. If this bill passes I will no longer surf SML on a weekend nor allow my 13 yo daughter to. That in part means I will spend most of my time on the lake during the week only which in part means my money will not be supporting local businesses on the weekend when we come down and stay for a longer period. If this bill passes watch out cabin cruiser boaters and runabout owners. You will be targeted next because your "WAKE" is too large. What's next "lake" signs that state only this type of boat can go into this cove , you can not exceed this speed, red lights and a notification when the lake has the maximum on the water on a certain day? I guess to make the ones that proposed this bill happy I should go out and buy my dinghy now. Amazing that their are so many out there that want to take away any fun that others may be having. Ridiculous.

I am writing today in objection to this bill as it presents major safety concerns . This bill would effectively force people to participate in this sport in the most dangerous and high traffic areas of the lake. It would be wholly irresponsible to place such a high regulation on the sport and would result in a much more dangerous environment for all boaters as it would force people out of protected coves and into much rougher water where other boaters travel at high speeds and are not looking for people in the water. If any of you have been to Smith Mountain Lake, I would like you to imagine teaching a 6 year old how to surf in the main channel. There are fishing boats and speed boats racing around as well as 40 foot cabin cruisers and jet skis. the 6 yr old falls and is now in the middle of the lake that is 175 feet deep in water that is at times as rough as the ocean with other boats going past and the driver of the surfer's boat frantically trying to get back to the child. This is surely a recipe for disaster. To blame wake surfing solely for damage done to docks is simply absurd as well. I live in possibly the most popular cove for surfing and have not had to fix my dock to surfers. There are hundreds of boats that go by our dock every weekend to single out the small percentage of wake boats as the issue is the easy thing to do but not based in truth as all boats create wakes. The even bigger issue we have faced with shore erosion and dock damage this year has been the multiple floods and debris fields. This is a classic case if the squeaky wheel gets the grease. You have heard from the few people who have taken issue with people enjoying this activity but have not heard from the thousands of people who enjoy and participate in this sport at Smith Mountain Lake each year. If you actually took the time to go out and talk to people who live at the lake you would find a majority of the people are more than happy to share the lake with all including wake surfers instead of try to have major restrictions placed on all activities they do not like.

Regarding the restrictions proposed that inhibit wakesurfing within 200’ of a persons dock I would like to comment that if this passes it will cause many more accidents that could involve personal injury or worse. The vast majority of wakesurfing is done in the smaller and less trafficked tributaries to the lake to allow the larger and faster boats to drive with much more speed than is required to wakesurf in the main channel. At an average of 12 miles per hour, any wakesurfing vessel pulling a tower will be quickly overcome and possibly followed closely by boaters that wish to go much faster on the main channel. This will cause a dangerous traffic jam with the wakesurfing children and adults themselves left vulnerable to a “busy highway” of traffic, lest they fall and much worse could happen. It would be similar to suggesting that a bicyclist pedal on the interstate versus the smaller roads. It is our wish as long-standing lake residents with a dock of our own that this bill not pass.

Agree that some regulations are needed, but this bill would kill the sport in the majority of Va lakes. This cannot pass as is.

I oppose this bill. My name is Jeff Thomas and my family and friends enjoy all kinds of activities on SML, one being wake surfing. ALL my friends and family I have on the lake, NEVER put property or any person in danger. This is the slowest most controlled sports there is. This change would limit hundreds of people living in long stretches of the lake that are not 400+ feet wide. You do realize that is TWO Boeing 777 aircraft’s, end to end? This is ridiculous. This would push boats out into the middle of the lake. Think of like this; would you go 10mph in the fast lane of the Interstate? People will get hurt! Please reconsider your thoughts on this subject.

Sirs and Madam, I would like to submit my opposition to the above HB2083. I understand those few that are for it and their reasoning. However, those who are proposing this Bill, are for the most part, people who do not understand or enjoy the sport. I’m sure there are a select few “Wake Surfers” that are not considerate of others who may be near by, but I truly believe that the majority of these Boat Owners, there Drivers and Surfers are very considerate of others in or on the lakes of our Commonwealth. I am a tax paying, waterfront land owner in Pulaski County (Claytor Lake) and I have no problem with these Boats and their Surfers. I think if this is regulated, it will be the first step in regulating ALL water sports on our lakes and water ways. In my Twenty Plus years living on this lake and over 45 years enjoying it, the biggest threat I see are Personal Water Craft (a.k.a. Jet skis) although I do think the mandatory Safe Boating Class being required has helped. But I ask you to reconsider and NOT pass this bill. Thank you for your time.

As a resident of Smith Mountain Lake I wish to say that I am opposed to changing any laws regarding wake surfing. It is a safe recreational sport done at a very low speed, unlike tubing or jet skiing where drivers zigzag all over creating crazy wakes and from what I see out my window on the main channel, often cutting other boats off. SAY YES TO WAKE SURFING! Do not change any laws about surfing on Smith Mountain Lake. Thank you for reading my comment. Respectfully, R. Winzeler

I oppose this bill! I have lived on this lake for over 20 years. I raised my children here and have encouraged them to take part in water sports . I also build lake houses and docks on this lake. It’s has been my experience that when a shore line is protected with properly installed rip rap ( required by the counties surrounding the lake when you build) and a dock built to the current building codes . Suffer very little damage from wake conscious people that enjoy Wakesurfing. I have found 99% of people that participate in Wake sports are aware and respectful of what their sports bring. They are the safest boaters on the lake and teach their children to be responsible and safe as well. The last thing I would tell my children to do is to conduct any water sports in the main channels of this or any lake. I have personally picked up two little girls floating in the main channel mid summer. They fell off a tube and in the time it took for their boat driver to turn around to come pick them up they were in severe danger. They were invisible in the swells created by the boat traffic in the main channel. I believe an educational approach to address the few that are not being responsible for their wakes would be the best coarse of action. Let’s not punish the majority for the actions of a few. I would be very interested in being a part of finding a solution to this problem.

Having rules an guidelines in place and enforcing them will make a huge difference in my opinion if people are worried about “waves”. I see wake surfing as one of the safest water sports to participate in for all ages. Putting a stop to this will not only hurt the people that surf but the local business around. The sport is becoming very popular which brings in tons of tourist. Myself, friends an family all have a blast doing it. One of best places to learn is in a quiet cove not in the middle of the lake with high traffic volume. Even for someone that’s experienced with surfing it’s no fun to surf with choppy waves. Hoping for summer full of surfing!

We oppose this bill as there has never been an extensive study conducted on Smith Mountain Lake that suggests that wake surfing ALONE is detrimental to property located along the shores. How can this bill even be considered without one? There are so many factors contributing to erosion along the shores of SML that have to be taken into consideration before blaming it on wakesurfing boats alone such as; rainfall, yard slope, vegetative cover, driveway runoff, roof drainage, rip rap condition, frequency of lake flooding, etc. These factors are unique for everyone’s property so it is up to them to try and protect their property from the elements. The unwarranted regulation of wakesurfers without a study to even see if they are a contributing factor is absurd. We would find that every single wave that is produced either by strong winds or any type of motor boat is a contributing factor so if the goal is to stop contributing to erosion along the shores then we would need to ban all boats from operating at speeds over idle not just wake surfers because that is not justified. Every property owner is responsible for maintaining their docks. Yes, routine maintenance and dock repairs have to be done every so often. That is part of the privilege and responsibility of being a owner on Smith Mountain Lake. How can anyone solely blame wakesurfers for the maintenance and repairs required on a dock at SML? Wood rots over time just like the wood on a house deck. Docks are unique in that they are always on water. That means they rot faster. Yes, waves cause floating docks to flex which is why they have to be built in order to withstand the abuses they will undergo. If a dock was built 10-20-30 years ago it may need to be repaired, reinforced or even rebuilt and that is part of being on the lake. Regulation of wakesurfers isn’t going to change this fact whatsoever as there are always going to be waves from any vessel operating over idle speeds. The issue or scare of having to get your kids out of the water because of wakesurfer wakes is nonsense. When you are swimming around your boat you tell your kids to stay away from the back of the boat when waves come by. The same is said for swimming around structures, stay away from them when any waves come by. You always have to be vigilant on the water. Regulating wakesurfers isn’t going to change that. There will always be motor boats coming by and they all produce waves that can be dangerous if you are right next to a dock. Forcing wakesurfers to the congested main channels would be a life threatening result. I ask all those in favor of this bill to reconsider and turn down this bill and conduct an extensive study in order to determine what is really contributing to the damage of properties and consider whether this bill will actually decrease safety concerns of the lives of lake goers or whether it increases the likelihood of a death occurring in the main channel. Increasing education of boating etiquette and proper construction and maintenance of docks and shorelines are the steps that need to be taken to resolve this issue. Laying down regulations for wake surfing is not the answer. The lake should be a sanctuary for all. -Brian Angle

I oppose this bill

This bill appears to be pointing a finger at the most visible offender that could be causing shore erosion instead of all the possible contributing factors. Has a study been conducted on lakes linking excessive shore erosion solely to wake surfing? Climate change has brought more frequent and more violent rain storms to the area which has been scientifically proven to contribute to accelerated shore erosion. Additionally consider the fact that over the past year the boating market has been red hot leading to more and more people being on the water further leading to erosion/inflicting more wakes on docks. Beyond the fact this will be more dangerous to individuals in the water seeing as they would be forced into the main channels, it would also create more waves as boats would have to perform ‘power turns’ to go back to their riders to prevent them from being ran over. Language in the bill outlaws wakesurfing within 200 feet of any other person in the water. If this is for personal safety then why doesn’t it outlaw any boat from operating within 200 feet of any other person in the water instead of the slowest moving recreational water sport? Beyond the negative economical ramifications to businesses, this bill should not be passed. If shore erosion is a true concern, a study should be initiated to measure the various factors that cause it to identify the leading contributor.

Limiting wake surfing to the main channel is unsafe for both surfers and boaters. We also have a high percentage of vacationers who aren’t as familiar with the lake and limiting wake surfing to the main channel is asking for an accident.

I oppose this bill.

I oppose this bill.

As a avid wake surfer I would like to express the danger of wake surfing in the middle of the lake. It is dangerous for the surfer and other boaters. That is why we try to find quiet coves and also try the stay as far from docks as possible.

This is a very unfair bill to single out boaters enjoying the lake. It also will promote more unsafe situations by requiring the boat and surfers to interact with fast boats in the middle of a busy lake causing much larger waves and dangerous conditions for all. The current laws on the books should be enforced first before implementing new ones.

As a resident of smith mountain lake and a wakeboard boat owner I strongly oppose this bill. I feel very little studies have been done to pinpoint how one group of boats/individuals has caused the issues stated. Erosion and wear/tear on docks is caused by every form of boat or activity on the lake. Forcing wakesurf boats to the main channel will cause many safety issues for other boaters along with those surfing. Education and research are important when passing such an important bill. More enforcement of the current laws will reduce the issues presented. Again, I strongly oppose this bill.

Most wake surfers do this sport right in front of their own docks, therefore why would we want to be close to the docks because that would also hurt our own dock. Getting rid of or limiting wake surfing will cause a big hurting to the areas economy because many of us would move so we could continue our sport.

Good Evening, My name is Joy Manning and I am writing to you today with a concern related to the bill (HB0283) that is going to vote tomorrow 1/20/21 regarding adding a restriction to wake surfing at Smith Mountain Lake with a minimum of 200’ from a shoreline or structure. I am an 8X National and 8X World Champion amateur wakeboarder for Women over 40 and although most of my time is spent wakeboarding, my fellow wake surfers are in the same family and we use the same type of boats for our sports. I have been involved with the watersports at SML for nearly 15 years and have had close ties to many of the local watersports community. I was part of the working group several years ago when the Water Safety Council approached us with their initial concerns from the residents. Our working group included local residents and business who worked with many watersports business, national water safety groups as well as boating manufactures/representatives to develop more awareness and education to wakeboarders and wake surfers with a “Wake Responsibly” initiative and try to find compromises for everyone to enjoy the lake together at the same time. As you may or may not know, the lake is a very popular vacation destination and although we provided awareness and education to the local/full time residents, it is challenging at best to provide the same education for out of state visitors/visiting guests. I would hate to see the local community punished for visitors not knowing the rules of the water. I am not sure how much you know about the lake and/or wake surfing. The best wake surfing should be done in +20’ of water and therefore keeping the boats of the shorelines. In addition unlike wakeboarding which is best to ride in clam/flat water, wake surfing can be done when the water is choppy with boat traffic. The proposed bill unfortunately will push the surfers to the center or the lake in the widest areas of the lake, leaving the fallen rider in the middle of the lake unprotected and more exposed to a hazards. Over the many years of living on the like I have seen many different styles or boats and water enthusiast enjoying the lake. Whether it is big boats, little boats, fast boats, PWC, paddle boards, I am sure it you review the statistics of the accidents on the water, wakeboarding and wake surfing is not at the top of the list. I have seen some boats traveling at low rates of speed creating a much larger wake then a wake boat and boat traveling at very high rates of speeds resulting in serious injury/death and we do not target them with restrictions. Particular at this time in the world we are living we should be working together and not be singling out one sport or one use group, to address safety concerns as a whole on the lake. It would be great if there could be more compromises rather 100% restrictions. There must be options open to discuss certain times during the weekend that surfing should be done in certain areas and that way the local community can still use and love the lake we live at. Thank you for your time and feel free to call me if you have any questions or would like to discuss this matter further. Joy Manning 540-425-4714

banishing wake activities to crowded main lake channels with this senseless legislation is not a good idea.

It’s not safe to wake surf in the traffic of the main channel! Why is this law targeting the surfer and not the wake size? So I can drive my yacht, or plow through the water bow high 51 feet from a dock but can’t let my kid surf without ballast 199’ from shore?! If a rule is necessary, it should apply to wake size regardless of whether or not a person is riding the wake. There is already a law that you are responsible for your wake—why is another necessary?

I’m a homeowner on Smith Mountain Lake. I don’t support this bill because it will only lead to further congestion of the main body and create a dangerous surf environment. Anyone who’s ever been to SML knows it’s not safe to surf, ski, or wakeboard on the main channel. Please do not ruin my family time with my kids by creating laws that will make it unsafe for them to participate in this awesome family sport. I do support the enforcement of the current laws. There are so many other boats on this lake that throw big wakes, you can’t single out wakeboard boats. Enforce the current laws and let everyone enjoy this beautiful lake. We all need it, now more than ever. -the Warden Family Wirtz, Va

I do agree that one should practice caution when wake surfing, this Bill will push all wake surfers into the main channels of lakes which is very dangerous. Action is needed to preserve our shorelines. However 200' is too great of a distance to be safe as we enjoy our water areas.

I do agree that one should practice caution when wake surfing, this Bill will push all wake surfers into the main channels of lakes which is very dangerous. Action is needed to preserve our shorelines. However 200' is too great of a distance to be safe as we enjoy our water areas.

We oppose this bill as being unnecessarily restrictive on Smith Mountain Lake and unduly targeting a very narrow group of recreational boaters. Additionally, we believe this legislation will result in an unfortunate rise in boating accidents involving all age groups but especially children. The wakesurfing community will be forced into the main channels / open waters of Smith Mountain Lake. These wider sections of the lake are dominated by larger, less maneuverable craft, more volumes of inexperienced & experienced boaters especially on weekends, and personal watercraft/fishing boats operating at high rates of speed. We ask the committee to reconsider passing this bill until a professional study of wave activity can be completed on Smith Mountain Lake to determine all of the underlying factors causing the reported damage to shorelines and fixed structures. We reject the premise put forth that wakesurfing alone resulted in $48,000 dollars of damage to a correctly constructed dock structure. We also ask said study includes the effects of the increased boat traffic and resulting wave traffic on Smith Mountain Lake year over year due to the current pandemic and create a forecast of future traffic to use in crafting underlying policy/legislation. Current legislation puts the onus of structural damage to a dock or shoreline on the boat operator, includes a 50' distance from all lake structures, and a myriad of safe boating regulations that are more than adequate in addressing the current growth in popularity. Thank you for your consideration.

We oppose this bill as being unnecessarily restrictive on Smith Mountain Lake and unduly targeting a very narrow group of recreational boaters. Additionally, we believe this legislation will result in an unfortunate rise in boating accidents involving all age groups but especially children.  The wakesurfing community will be forced into the main channels / open waters of Smith Mountain Lake. These wider sections of the lake are dominated by larger, less maneuverable craft, more volumes of inexperienced & experienced boaters especially on weekends, and personal watercraft/fishing boats operating at high rates of speed.   We ask the committee to reconsider passing this bill until a professional study of wave activity can be completed on Smith Mountain Lake to determine all of the underlying factors causing the reported damage to shorelines and fixed structures.  We reject the premise put forth that wakesurfing alone resulted in $48,000 dollars of damage to a correctly constructed dock structure. We also ask said study includes the effects of the increased boat traffic and resulting wave traffic on Smith Mountain Lake year over year due to the current pandemic and create a forecast of future traffic to use in crafting underlying policy/legislation. Current legislation puts the onus of structural damage to a dock or shoreline on the boat operator, includes a 50' distance from all lake structures, and a myriad of safe boating regulations that are more than adequate in addressing the current growth in popularity. Thank you for your consideration.

We oppose this bill as being unnecessarily restrictive on Smith Mountain Lake and unduly targeting a very narrow group of recreational boaters. Additionally, we believe this legislation will result in an unfortunate rise in boating accidents involving all age groups but especially children. The wakesurfing community will be forced into the main channels / open waters of Smith Mountain Lake. These wider sections of the lake are dominated by larger, less maneuverable craft, more volumes of inexperienced & experienced boaters especially on weekends, and personal watercraft/fishing boats operating at high rates of speed. We ask the committee to reconsider passing this bill until a professional study of wave activity can be completed on Smith Mountain Lake to determine all of the underlying factors causing the reported damage to shorelines and fixed structures. We reject the premise put forth that wakesurfing alone resulted in $48,000 dollars of damage to a correctly constructed dock structure. We also ask said study includes the effects of the increased boat traffic and resulting wave traffic on Smith Mountain Lake year over year due to the current pandemic and create a forecast of future traffic to use in crafting underlying policy/legislation. Current legislation puts the onus of structural damage to a dock or shoreline on the boat operator, includes a 50' distance from all lake structures, and a myriad of safe boating regulations that are more than adequate in addressing the current growth in popularity. Thank you for your consideration.

We oppose this bill as being unnecessarily restrictive on Smith Mountain Lake and unduly targeting a very narrow group of recreational boaters. Additionally, we believe this legislation will result in an unfortunate rise in boating accidents involving all age groups but especially children. The wakesurfing community will be forced into the main channels / open waters of Smith Mountain Lake. These wider sections of the lake are dominated by larger, less maneuverable craft, more volumes of inexperienced & experienced boaters especially on weekends, and personal watercraft/fishing boats operating at high rates of speed. We ask the committee to reconsider passing this bill until a professional study of wave activity can be completed on Smith Mountain Lake to determine all of the underlying factors causing the reported damage to shorelines and fixed structures. We reject the premise put forth that wakesurfing alone resulted in $48,000 dollars of damage to a correctly constructed dock structure. We also ask said study includes the effects of the increased boat traffic and resulting wave traffic on Smith Mountain Lake year over year due to the current pandemic and create a forecast of future traffic to use in crafting underlying policy/legislation. Current legislation puts the onus of structural damage to a dock or shoreline on the boat operator, includes a 50' distance from all lake structures, and a myriad of safe boating regulations that are more than adequate in addressing the current growth in popularity. Thank you for your consideration.

Please support this bill. As a homeowner on Smith Mountain Lake, we see first the safety issues caused by these overly large wakes. Most wake surfers we see already adhere to these guidelines, and 200' gives them plenty of room to enjoy their sport, while protecting the swimmers, kayakers, and paddle boarders who also want to enjoy the lake. This bill offers a reasonable compromise.

The dock and erosion problems around the lake can not be pin pointed to the wake of a boat or more specifically of just the wakeboard boats. The problem also happens when they allow the lake to be over filled multiple times a year. We who use the lake for water sports go out to be as safe as possible by not being in open water in the middle of the main channel to make sure our rider stays safe.

As full time residents and homeowners at Smith Mountain Lake, we are opposed to the proposed legislation as it targets one segment of the boating community and applies only to Smith Mountain Lake. As written, the proposed bill would force wake surfers into the main channels resulting in more harm, danger and obstacles. This is not the solution for keeping our lake safe for all those who enjoy it. A study should be conducted to fully understand the impact of wake surfing and how it affects wave activity as compared to other pursuits such as wakeboarding, waterskiing, tubing and general boating. Thank you for your consideration.

Good afternoon. I apologize for not giving my remarks virtually, but I am unable to be in attendance. I not only urge you to listen to my reservations of the bill, but I beg you to hear me. A family friend of mine contacted me about the bill and quite frankly I am outraged. The biggest concern that should stop this bill immediately is safety. I have witnessed on this lake countless occurrences of boaters driving too close behind riders, especially surfers since they are harder to see. This is deadly. You do not know fear until you are watching your cousin surf with no rope or lifeline and a boater coming right up behind him able to kill him with one false move at any second. This is dramatically different when surfing in creeks and less congested areas of the lake for the safety of everyone on the lake. I beg you to consider which circumstances you would like to see your child enjoying a sport he/she loves. You can choose either main lake which is chaotic enough without surfers or creeks where there is fewer traffic and fewer dangers. Another big part of this debate is traffic in general. With surf boats more prevalent on the lake this will undoubtedly result in more congestion on the lake and more risk of boating accidents. This is not about surfing, that is not going anywhere anytime soon, this is about the safety of the riders. With too much congestion on the lake, I am personally willing to bet you each that if this bill shall pass, a rider WILL be killed in summer 2021. I guarantee you it will happen so please vote consciously for children, teens, and adults of Smith Mountain Lake.

It will cause congestion to the main part of the lake

Wake surfing is a completely safe and positive sport when done in a correct manner. From my experience more dangers occurred in the main body of the lake. My father was almost run over by a jet ski in the main body of the lake as the jet ski was jumping our boats waves. This change would in turn promote more dangerous habits and result in greater injury.

I strongly oppose this bill for reasons formerly stated, “this bill unfairly singles out one segment of the recreational boating population on the lake.” I have been a resident of SML for over 40 years. My husband and I were among some of the early adopters of wakeboarding and wake surfing. Over the years, we have supported numerous wakeboarding and surfing events at the lake. In recent years, we’ve experienced the great joy of teaching our daughter and her friends to wake board and wake surf. These activities get them off their phones and on the lake, exercising! You are targeting a specific audience versus identifying the root cause of the problem, which is irresponsible boating. The issues are not isolated to people who own wakeboard boats. Your stated issues could apply to anyone who operates a boat at a slow speed in close proximity to a dock (tubers, fisherman, skiers, owners of large cabin cruisers). To single out one audience, wake surfers, is biased and unfair. Bills like this will encourage life long residents such as ourselves to sell our residence on SML and look for a new lake in a different state. We’ll be taking our expensive wakeboard boat, for which the county charges a premium for personal property tax, with us.

Just here to oppose you wake surfing bill. Different boats put out different size wakes. People wake surf all sizes of wakes. How can you classify them all the same. Just because we are wake surfing doesn’t mean my wave is bigger then a passing by boat. Why would you want to force me to take my children out into the main channel people use to navigate the lake and now having me constantly making turns to go back and pick up a fallen rider? That would be like trying to skateboard on a major interstate. Doesn’t make much sense. Hope you take time to educate yourself on the activity before making decisions.

I live on Claytor Lake and do not believe there is a problem that requires a law to prohibit / restrict boaters. I feel that the overwhelming majority of boaters across the board respect property owners. We also have a great team of people from the state park and game wardens.

I am completely against this bill. This will further push more traffic into main bodies on all lakes leaving those that do enjoy the sport to only partake in it in highly congested/trafficked areas. This is very unsafe not only for the people who are actually surfing, but also for those in the boat that has to stop and turn around to pick a rider up when they fall, as well as other boaters who may have trouble seeing the downed rider or the other boat turning around. FYI, I own waterfront property on such a lake so I do understand the concerns from those who own or enjoy the shoreline. However I feel the best course of action is to further educate boaters safety and etiquette. More research and discussion definitely needs to take place before such a bill is passed.

My name is Rachel McClure. I live directly on Smith Mountain Lake and our house has a dock that is daily hit by waves from every type of boat. I have never seen any dock damaged as a result of a boat, regardless of size or type. It appears to me that this bill is being passed because of an isolated incident that probably has nothing to do with a wakeboard boat. After reading the proposed bill, there are many things about it that do not make any sense. By requiring wakeboard boats to be 200 feet from the shoreline, you’re basically asking for more accidents to happen. It doesn’t seem like the people voting on the bill are very familiar with lake, especially the main channel that they are encouraging the wake boats to move to. The main channel, specifically on the weekends, is incredibly dangerous for any tow sports. Tubing, waterskiing, wakeboarding, wake surfing, etc. are all very unsafe to do in the main channel or wider areas of the lake. Those area are very busy with boat traffic. Visitors are allowed to rent boats and jet skis with zero experience and whip around the lake however they please. Now, imagine you own a boat designed for wakesurfing and you decide to take your child out on the lake to learn how to get up behind the boat. Imagine you work a 9-5 job and can only do this on the weekends. You finally have some time to go out to teach your child how to do this and your only option is now to go out to the dead center of the lake, surrounded by dozens of boats driven by renters and unexperienced drivers. What happens when the child falls? What happens if someone doesn’t see the child fall before its too late? We all know what the result would be. Now, imagine you have literally any other boat that isn’t specifically designed for wakesurfing. You’re allowed to teach your children to waterski ski or tube safely in a more isolated part of the lake? Also, by taking away the ability to wakesurf on the lake, you will be negatively impacting the economy of the lake. The boat dealerships that sell wakeboard boats will be hurt. The shops on the lake that sell wakesurf boards will be hurt. The places that hire summer employees to work there and to give wakesurf lessons will be hurt. Last year was rough on enough people, so why are you trying to cause more negative impacts in our area? In addition to all that, there is absolutely no way that anyone could put sole blame on wakeboard boats. The lake has hundreds of large yachts and cabin cruisers that put out wakes larger than that in the wakeboard boats in question. There are also pontoon boats, deck boats, fishing boats, jet skis, and many many other boats that combine to make nonstop wakes during the summer. You cannot blame one specific style of boat. This year, the lake experienced three pretty intense floods that caused water to go above and stay over most docks for several days. These floods caused damage to docks. These floods are more responsible for damaging shorelines and property than any boats I have ever seen. I would strongly encourage you to do more research before passing this bill. Thank you, Rachel McClure

I adamantly oppose hb2083. Being a Smith mountain lake resident and business owner for over 15 years I have seen the positive financial impact water sports which includes the rising popularity of wake surfing has brought to the lake. Wake surfing is a true family sport that all ages can enjoy. Smith mountain lake is very popular with young professionals who came to this lake to enjoy sports such as wake surfing. The economic impact is immeasurable. Banning such sports will drive them away. As a property owner who purchased property on the lake knowing how busy the lake is I feel it is my responsibility to build my dock and other structures to withstand the wakes. Wake surfing has an entire industry built around the sport. Effectively banning it would destroy this.

Respectfully, I oppose HB 2083. My property is at the point of one of the coves in question. I never witnessed or experienced any of the allegations asserted. I have never witnessed a safety issue for swimmers. I have children and have never feared their safety. I have not experienced any shoreline damage that could be attributed solely to these boats. I would argue that the cabin cruisers and cigar boats going 100 miles (literally the speed they travel) an hour should be regulated before these boats. Either way, people of invested 100’s of thousands of dollars in these boats and to implement restrictions such as these with no study seems to be not responsible. I would also argue that a number of property owners that are arguing for this bill don’t have docks that are compliant with AEP’s shore line management nor is their shore line properly maintained with rip rap. In addition, these people also have beaches which are no longer permitted by AEP. If these individuals maintained their property consistent with AEP requirement, this bill would not be necessary. I should not be penalized because I have invested properly in my property which is compliant. Respectfully, I request that this bill not be enacted. I request that a study be conducted regarding boat traffic, the affects of the pandemic and the affects of wake surfing on the shore line. I appreciate your consideration in delaying enacting this very harmful bill. I make this request as a land owner at Smith Mountain Lake. I make this request as an owner of property that is has been impacted by massive flooding this year as well as one that experiences the affects of ALL types of boats on his shoreline.

Ms. Kathy Byron, We are the Mais family and just literally closed less than an hour ago on a property at SML. We joined the SML FB community and shocked to learn about HB 2083 being introduced without much fact-finding. The only reason we invested in this property and wonderful place is so we can use our boat and new home for recreational uses and enjoying the Vistas. The arguments against a small, targeted type of boat owners is completely unfounded and wrong. Like everything, including guns.. it's how and when we use these tools. We have been boaters for 20+ years and our children enjoy water sports of all kind including wakesurfing at Lake Anna Virginia without a single incident or complaints. Some facts to bring forward. 1. Wakeboard boats are for the most part same as any other boats but with a tower and balast bags to add weight, thus producing a larger wave. But we ONLY do this when we arrive to a location suitable for surfing . While in transit we "dump" the blasts or not fill it until we get to the designated area. Thus the boat creates no larger wakes than any other boats of the same size. 2. Wakesurf boats do not go near shore as claimed, waves cannot form well in those conditions near shore. 3. By design and characteristics of wave shaping and hydro dynamics, the optimum speed for surfing is only 10.5-10.7 MPH! that's it. So claims of people speeding is outrageously false. 4. If anything, by being slower on the lake with a rider in the back and forced out to open water will inevitably pose a very dangerous situation for riders. Especially with high volume of fast running boats in the main channels. Imagine pulling little ones on tubes at 10MP on a busy channel and not being able to use the safer lanes for pulling them. It's the same concept. I see significant risks and lawsuits 5. There are 40+ foot boats, barges, and commercial boats on the water that's causing much more damages and safety hazards. Those types of boats should be addressed first if we are concerned about dock damages? 6. Personally, it all comes down to the captain and personal responsibilities and common sense + etiquette like all the boats on the lake. Please consider not punishing these boats or the families but rather treat them as equal like the rest of the vehicles on the water. Sincerely, The Mais family Lakeside Farms, Wirtz, VA

Urge passage of this bill. Wake boats are a menace to property , other boaters and cause shoreline erosion. Surf boards are appropriate on the ocean, not an inland lake.

Hi I'm writing to express my huge concern over the bill regarding wake surfing, specifically at Smith Mountain Lake Virginia. I live here full time and the main reason we left Northern Virginia to live down here was the lake. We participate in many water sports with our young children including wake surfing and I can tell you wake surfers do the least amount of damage to people's property compared to other water sports (ie tubing and fishermen). In order to to the sport you have to be going 9-11 mph otherwise it won't work. I don't see how damage would be done to anyones property going that speed. Especially when people already illegally place red buoys in the water that they think are 50 feet from their dock but are in fact more like 100-150 feet from their dock. I live here all year and I see damage done from tubers going a million miles an hour and doing circles creating much larger wakes than anyone else, zig zagging and endangering everyone, from AEP not controlling the water as they should or storms, and fishermen who leave hooks in my boat seats, dock, and pop $300 plus dollar multiperson floats in one weekend. Additionally they fish right next to my dock but then threaten to shoot my dog when she is barking at him and leave hooks on my shoreline that thankfully my child hasn't stepped on yet but my dog has and it resulted in a trip to the vet. I'm not mentioning these things to complain but I see it as part of living here. I chose to live on the lake and like anywhere there are down sides. I think if this bill is approved it will be a slippery slope. The majority of people here want to live here because it's a laid back fun lifestyle and a great place to raise kids. There is a small group of retirees who like to complain about literally everything here and wake surfers are just the first target. If it were up to them I'm sure everything would be outlawed and no one would ever be able to disturb the water. The whole point is to share the lake and I believe some people think they own it. I know if this passes we will probably move to Charlotte because my 5 year old loves surfing with her whole heart and it's the first water sport she was able to do since she could ride with us and it's done at such a slow speed. I believe others will follow which will hurt the economy here in an area that is just starting to recover from the market crash several years ago. I also own a business here and I know it will hurt me on that side as well because alot of people own a second house and vacation here for the watersports. There are also wake boat suppliers here that would get crushed if this bill passes destroying our small job market. Please don't let this bill pass. It will be devastating on many different levels and would just be the beginning of many more regulations from a group of people that are bitter and unhappy. If you have any questions about living here full time or wake surfing please let me know I'd be happy to answer them. Thanks for your time. Kristen Toth 703-403-0168

I am writing to oppose this bill as it will do more harm to the SML community than benefit. This bill would unfairly single out one segment of the recreational boating population on the lake. There are many boaters who don't take others into consideration and operate to closely to docks and swimmers. We are lake front property owners and routinely have boats come inside of 40 feet of our dock and in one instance had a PWC hit our dock. Large center console fishing boats and cuddy cabin cruisers throw wakes just as large as wake surf boats. Restricting wake surfing to 200’ of docks will result in everyone wake surfing in the middle of the main channel. This will create congestion, and a safety issue as you concentrate a large number of boaters into one area. I own property at SML and a wakeboard boat. This group contributes significantly to the local economy, spending 150-200k on their boats and supporting local business through fuel, services, equipment, dining etc. Wake surfing is a safe and growing sport on the lake. I ask that you not single out one recreational boating segment when other boats cause many of the same issues.

I am writing today to ask you to withdraw House Bill 2083 and will provide my justification. My greatest concern is the consequences of Bill 2083 being implemented has to do with overall boater safety. Smith mountain lake is fed by primarily three bodies of water with short coves off the main body of water. Unfortunately, these rivers can be narrow the further away from the damn you travel. Under Bill 2083 while surfing, boats will have to travel closer down the middle of the narrower bodies of water, this sounds like a win for everyone. But if a boat is anchored anywhere along that body of water with swimmers in the water, the Surf boat would have to come off plain to avoid breaking the 200’ rule. Now this could effectively close the narrower water ways because they are not 400’ across with other boats and swimmers present. This would push surfing to the main channel. You might wonder why Surfers stay off the larger and busier sections off the lake. There are one primary reasons and let me explain. Surfing is done at speeds between 10-12mph. On the main channel speeds are from 20-55mph+. One question I hear is why do surfers stay closer to shore than other boats? The reason is we are following basic boating etiquette, it has nothing to do with improving the size of the wake. Boats when traveling in the same direction follow basic traffic rules. Slower traffic stays to the right allowing faster boats to pass more to the center of the lake. This is for the safety of the surfers and for other boats on the lake. Smith Mountains Lake is very busy and can get very crowded on the weekends along the main areas of the lake. Now if surfers have to move 200’ from shore, this would be equivalent to a vehicle going 40mph on interstate 64 or 95 with 4-5 lanes of traffic. This would put all boats at risk, especially the surfer when they fall and the boat has to turn around and pick them up. Now you would have boats traveling in the wrong direction on a busy body of water. Another consequence with Surf boats being further away from shore, is it would have a negative result in faster boats being forced to pass on the right side closer to shore. It appears to me that this Bill is to address a problem of inconsiderate boaters who don’t follow basic boater etiquette. This bill might help a few property owners but at what cost. I’ve been surfing for almost 10yrs and its irresponsible boaters that are the cause of this problem. It’s not unreasonable to see how someone could get severely injured or killed with the implementation of this bill. The pushing of very slow-moving boats onto an already busy body of water with much faster traffic is a recipe for disaster. We wouldn’t legislate someone drive a moped in the middle of interstate 581. We shouldn’t do the same with boats There has got to be a better way. Thank you for your time and consideration Jereme Greer

I am in opposition of HB 2083. - a 200ft minimum Law forces Wake Surfing out to the main channel where a lot of inexperienced boaters are (much more dangerous!) These inexperienced boaters now have to deal with all the boat traffic in a main channel and also dodging fallen surfers. - Determent of tourist to the lake hurting the tourism industry that is already hurting because of the COVID-19 pandemic - Potential tax loss from citizens and boat dealers deterring people from buying wake surf boats that are not cheap! - NOTE: A 50ft law already exist, just needs to be enforced. Janet Ferguson. 540 984 8777. Edinburg, VA 22824

I encourage that this bill not be passed. My family enjoys water sports on Smith mountain lake. We have lives here for over 20 years. We own a lot and house on the lake. We bought the lot and built the house because it was located in a creek that we enjoy. I built my dock and shoreline to withstand wakes from boats. This is a public lake and Its my responsibility to build a structure that will with stand boat wakes. If this rule passes it will eliminate about 5 miles of creek that we will not be able to use. There are enough current regulations in place. They just need to be enforced. If the 200 feet from a dock or person rule is implemented the only body of water left to wake surf will be the main body. The main body of the lake is so busy that I will not be able safely pull my 6 and 9 year old safely. This will likely result in more accidents and deaths at the lake. I encourage you to look at the true injury numbers. Many more people are hurt each year tubing or riding a jet ski than from wakes or wake surfing.Also many large boats that are non surf or wakeboard boats produce the same wake. Will these be banned? Many young professionals now live at the lake full time. This is one of our sports of choice. If this regulation passes I plan on moving away from smith mountain to another lake that does not have these regulation. If this bill is passed it will have a significant impact on our economy around the lake. This will also impact my voting decision and many of the young professionals that i wake surf with. The average wake surfing boat costs around $150,000. People that can afford these boats are individuals that have significant disposable income and are professionals. Why would you encourage you them to move away ? Please vote no on this bill! Sincerely Thomas Warden

We oppose this bill as being unnecessarily restrictive on Smith Mountain Lake and unduly targeting a very narrow group of recreational boaters. Additionally, we believe this legislation will result in an unfortunate rise in boating accidents involving all age groups but especially children. The wakesurfing community will be forced into the main channels / open waters of Smith Mountain Lake. These wider sections of the lake are dominated by larger, less maneuverable craft, more volumes of inexperienced & experienced boaters especially on weekends, and personal watercraft/fishing boats operating at high rates of speed. We ask the committee to reconsider passing this bill until a professional study of wave activity can be completed on Smith Mountain Lake to determine all of the underlying factors causing the reported damage to shorelines and fixed structures. We reject the premise put forth that wakesurfing alone resulted in $48,000 dollars of damage to a correctly constructed dock structure. We also ask said study includes the effects of the increased boat traffic and resulting wave traffic on Smith Mountain Lake year over year due to the current pandemic and create a forecast of future traffic to use in crafting underlying policy/legislation. Current legislation puts the onus of structural damage to a dock or shoreline on the boat operator, includes a 50' distance from all lake structures, and a myriad of safe boating regulations that are more than adequate in addressing the current growth in popularity. Thank you for your consideration.

We oppose this bill as being unnecessarily restrictive on Smith Mountain Lake and unduly targeting a very narrow group of recreational boaters. Additionally, we believe this legislation will result in an unfortunate rise in boating accidents involving all age groups but especially children. The wakesurfing community will be forced into the main channels / open waters of Smith Mountain Lake. These wider sections of the lake are dominated by larger, less maneuverable craft, more volumes of inexperienced & experienced boaters especially on weekends, and personal watercraft/fishing boats capable of operating at very high rates of speed. We ask the committee to reconsider passing this bill until a professional study of wave activity can be completed on Smith Mountain Lake to determine all of the underlying factors causing the reported damage to shorelines and fixed structures. We reject the premise put forth that wakesurfing alone resulted in $48,000 dollars of damage to a correctly constructed dock structure. We also ask that said study includes the effects of the increased boat traffic and resulting wave traffic on Smith Mountain Lake year over year due to the current pandemic and create a forecast of future traffic to use in crafting underlying policy/legislation. Current legislation puts the onus of structural damage to a dock or shoreline on the boat operator, includes a 50' distance from all lake structures, and a myriad of safe boating regulations that are more than adequate in addressing the current growth in popularity. Thank you for your consideration. Troy & Kim Rech

Dear Agriculture Chesapeake and Natural Resources Member, My name is Wyatt Hitt and I am writing today as a wake surf boat owner and property owner at Smith Mountain Lake in opposition to the Wake Surf bill being introduced at Smith Mountain Lake. Please take into consideration what this will do to tourism at Smith Mountain as wake surfing has become a very safe, popular, and family friendly sport around the world. Another point that should be taken into consideration is the fact that there is already a 50ft law that a boat must be from a dock when traveling in the water. I believe this law is great it just need to be enforced more to unexperienced boaters that may not know the law. Pushing the law to 200ft actually becomes much more dangerous as it will force us to do wake surfing in the main channel of the lake where you get a lot of your unexperienced boaters or boat renters that have never driven a boat and are in the main channel to site see. These unexperienced boaters now have to deal with dodging fallen surfers and the fallen surfers boat circling around to fetch the rider that has fallen. Outlined below are my main points as to why I am writing in opposition to the Wake Surf Bill: -Will hurt the tourism industry that is already hurting from the COVID-19 pandemic -Law forces Wake Surfing out to the main channel where a lot of unexperienced boaters are (much more dangerous!) -Potential tax loss from citizens and boat dealers deterring people from buying wake surf boats that are not cheap! Feel free to contact me with any questions. Thank you for your time and service to Virginia Wyatt Hitt 540-325-8873 wyatthitt@gmail.com

Please support bill to reduce impact of wakeboating. Our dock has been subject to large waves and swimming has become dangerous, particularly for young children. We want to protect shoreline, property, and - most importantly- human life and safety, and hope to restrict those making huge waves to enjoy their activity on a larger area of the lake than in our narrow cove. Thank you for your support.

This bill will do more harm to the SML community than benefit. Yes, there are those who don't take others into consideration and wake surf too close to others and cause damage however this is the minority. Restricting wake surfing to only areas that are at a minimum of 400' across will result in everyone wake surfing in the middle of the main channel. While wake surfing the boat travels at 10-11 mph, all other boats in the main channel are traveling 3-4 times that speed, it will be like driving down the interstate at 20 mph. Accidents will happen, congestion in the main channel will happen, confrontations will happen. I own property at SML and own a wakeboard boat, I am part of a community that spend 150-200k on their boats and support local business with hundreds to thousands weekly in boards, lifejackets, boat service, fuel... this restriction will virtually eliminate a sport from SML along with the positive economic impact. Unfortunately docks are not meant to last forever. Wakes from all types of boats overtime will damage every dock and every dock will eventually need to be serviced or replaced. We all sign up for that when we purchase a home on SML. If we restrict wakeboard boats today what will be next? Cabin cruising leave just as big of a wake, renters cause more damage than virtually anyone else, bass fisherman go up and down the lake at 60-70 mph at all hours of the night... We have a great place, lets not ruin it with more laws and restrictions.

Speaking on behalf for all wake surfers, this is very outrageous. This is a sport that brings families together and is a fun activity to do with groups of people. We need to be close to shoreline. We can't do this fun sport 200 feet away. This is very risky because surfing out in the open is very dangerous. It also causes the likely hood of getting run over by another boat. On a summer day there is boat traffic and can't hold any room for surfers out in the open. We need to be in coves to keep us safe. If you want to ban this sport you are a bunch of Karen's that have nothing better to do. Keep the sport on the lake or you are going to find that we are going to bring this sport somewhere else and there is going to be less business on the lake. It's not me that will be ticked off, but the whole water sports community. Thank you for the consideration. # bringbacksurfing2021

HB 2083 is over reaching and creating rules and regulations to only one group identified on smith mountain lake. 1. 99% of wake boaters limit surfing to lake areas that will not damage property or the shoreline. 2. Wake surfing is a significant contributor to the SML economy. 3. Limiting wake surfing will impact real estate prices and lake commerce.

The damage the wake surfing boats have done to Smith Mountain Lake's shoreline is significant. Our personal shoreline was undamaged for 50 years with no rip-rap. Within two years of the wake surfing boats being introduced to the lake, we lost 6 - 10 feet of our shoreline. The erosion was so great, the ramp to the dock was about to collapse. It cost us $25,000 to protect the shore with rip-rap. Islands on the lake are disappearing due to the erosion caused by these boats' enormous wake. Along the mountain, the trees near the water are being undercut and are starting to fall. The mountain is literally being eaten away. The floating dock at a rental property near the dam taht my husband manages was destroyed by 3-foot waves battering it. This is just one example of property damage. Many other Smith Mountain Lake homeowners have their own horror stories to tell. These boats cause severe damage to the environment and to personal property, and are dangerous when operated too close to swimmers, water skiers, and other people in the water. Thank you, Catriona and Jim Erler 109 Bay Terrace Huddleston, VA 24104

As a citizen who lives in the state and on the Rappahannock river and has seen the impact of poor stewardship, I ask that the General Assembly support these bills.

As climate change wreaks havoc on our world, it is increasingly obvious that our own actions and lifestyles have highly impacted and worsened the natural phenomenon of climate shifting. As a citizen of Springfield, it is utterly imperative that we seek alternate sources of energy, continue recycling, and provide healthy climate actions for future generations of all economic, racial, and other marginalized communities. The churches of Virginia have joined to raise our prayers and our voices to see that we treat our planet with the respect it deserves, and ensure a healthy life for all those to come. Please vote YES on HB 2074 and other initiatives that work to preserve our community so that many may enjoy it for decades of our future. Dixie Ross 7704C Lexton Place Springfield, VA 22152

In favor of programs to better facilitate the development and progress of my community.

In favor of programs to better facilitate the development and progress of my community.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on HB 2188. Friends of the Rappahannock SUPPORTS this legislation. This bill requires the Department of Health and Department of Environmental Quality, in partnership with the Middle Peninsula Planning District Commission and a participating institution of Virginia Sea Grant, to initiate a three-year pilot program designed to study the use of engineered septic systems that house and treat sewage effluent in an elevated, self-contained unit suitable for areas with high water tables and susceptible to flooding in Coastal Virginia. The pilot study septic unit will be installed in an upland location outside of any designated RPA or floodplain. The unit will be designed to meet pollution removal standards of the Department of Health and the Department of Environmental Quality. Thank you for your consideration of this bill and we hope you will support it.