WATER SKIING – Amends existing law to provide an exception for water skiing.
House Bill 569 amends Idaho’s water skiing statute to create a new exception to the general requirement that a vessel towing a skier or similar device must carry a separate observer. Under the bill, certain vessels operating on a legal slalom course and equipped with a rearview mirror would be exempt from the observer requirement. The bill also adds a broader exemption for specified vessels that meet several equipment, operator, timing, and towing conditions, including a large mirror, a stern platform, a recessed propeller, operation during defined hours, continuous tow-rope contact, and an operator who is at least 18 years old and holds a valid driver’s license.
The bill retains the existing safety framework for water skiing in other respects. It continues to prohibit towing after dark except as specifically allowed, requires careful and prudent operation at a reasonable distance from people and property, prohibits dangerous manipulation of tow ropes, and requires a warning flag to be displayed when a skier falls into the water. It also includes technical corrections to the statute and declares an emergency, meaning it would have taken effect immediately upon passage and approval.
In terms of impact on state law, the bill would have narrowed the observer requirement in Idaho Code section 67-7024 by allowing certain boats to tow skiers without a dedicated observer if they meet the bill’s equipment and operating standards. That would have affected boat operators, water ski participants, and enforcement of boating safety rules on Idaho waters, particularly for slalom-course skiing and for vessels designed to allow the operator to monitor the skier directly from the helm.
The general sentiment reflected in the vote was negative overall, as the bill failed on third reading in the House by a vote of 31-38-1. The floor vote suggests there was meaningful support for the proposal, but not enough to pass it. No committee transcript was provided, so the available record does not show detailed debate, but the final vote indicates the measure was contested.
The main point of contention appears to have been whether the safety tradeoff of removing the observer requirement was justified by the added equipment and operating restrictions. Supporters likely viewed the bill as a modernization or practical exception for certain water ski setups, while opponents appear to have been concerned about preserving the existing two-person safety rule and limiting risks to skiers and other boaters. The bill’s narrow technical exemptions and age/licensing requirements suggest an attempt to balance convenience with safety, but the House vote shows that balance did not command majority support.
The bill would amend Idaho Code section 67-7024 governing water skiing by creating exceptions to the requirement that a towing vessel carry an additional competent observer. It would also codify detailed equipment and operating conditions for those exceptions, including mirror size, stern platform, recessed propeller, time-of-day limits, and operator age/licensing requirements. Existing restrictions on nighttime towing, prudent operation, tow-rope conduct, and warning-flag use would remain in place. Because the bill declares an emergency, it would have become effective immediately if enacted.
The overall sentiment appears mixed but ultimately unfavorable, as reflected by the bill’s failure on House third reading by a 31-38 vote. The vote shows a substantial minority in support, suggesting some interest in modernizing the water skiing statute, but a larger bloc opposed the change. No committee discussion transcript is available, so the record does not provide detailed statements of support or opposition.
The central controversy is the safety policy choice of allowing certain vessels to tow skiers without a separate observer. Supporters likely favored the exception for slalom-course and mirror-equipped boats as a practical update to boating law, while opponents likely worried that removing the observer requirement could reduce safety and make enforcement more difficult. The bill’s detailed conditions indicate an effort to limit the exception to specialized equipment and experienced operators, but the House vote suggests those safeguards did not fully resolve concerns.