Let the people play

Boating on the Spokane River is a way of life for generations of families, and something so many of us look forward to every summer. Unfortunately, there are a handful of wealthy riverfront owners who want to restrict the river as their own private Idaho. If the commissioners force new laws to limit boating, it will negatively impact everyone who lives in Post Falls, everyone who lives on Lake Coeur d’Alene, and everyone who drives in from surrounding areas to utilize the river. This is not their right.

These landowners would like to restrict the river’s use so the public cannot enjoy it to its fullest, and that is not OK. They have forgotten that their docks are encroaching on the public’s waterway and that the river is for the benefit of the public, all of the public – not just the few people whose homes align it.

As our economy has improved, more people can afford boats and more people have moved onto the shoreline, creating more activity on the river. It is the public’s right to use a public waterway. If this is not an acceptable atmosphere for someone living on the river, it is within that person’s power to move.

Unfortunately, this vocal group of homeowners are putting a lot of pressure on elected officials like Bill Brooks to help them keep the public off “their river.” Comically, Jim and Avis Stafford, some of the more vocal owners, and the author of a recent My Turn asking for boat traffic to be rerouted to the lake, moved onto the river fairly recently. He bought knowing full well that the public enjoys the river, and he bought while wake boats were already in use on the river, and now he is on a rampage to get every elected official to believe that he is somehow being wronged.

He posted a picture of himself building a seawall in front of his house and makes the argument that the surfboats are reducing his shoreline. His claim is unproven and more likely, the loss of his land is from AVISTA’s control of the water flow from a slowly moving river flow at 1,000 CFS (cubic feet per second) to rapidly moving water flow at 22,500 CFS (2018 reported figures). It is important to note that the river flow has increased significantly over the years (approximately 3,000 CFS) as the wooden pylons and other debris have been removed from the river.

The water level adjusts many feet throughout each year and flows at different rates. Sediment is picked up and deposited along the river in a natural state, based on the current and the curves and depths of the river. Based on satellite pictures, the banks of the river as a whole are not dramatically changed.

If his assertion that the loss of land was due to wake boats, then the river would be widening all the way down since boats travel the length of the river. This is not the case, and pictures don’t lie.

Nevertheless, if this landowner feels that his lot is decreasing, the sensible thing is for him to install rip rap. If you live on a cliff at the ocean, you will need to protect the cliff from erosion. This is not a new idea, and is, in fact, the reason that rip rap and seawalls exist and are in use. They solve the problem.

Some of these landowners are trying to kick the public users off the river by making a dishonest argument that the boat wakes are a safety issue. This argument is deceitful for several reasons.

First, if these people were truly concerned about water and boating safety, they would try to limit jet skis, which cause significantly more injuries than wakeboats. Secondly, if they were truly concerned about dock safety, they would upgrade their docks to fixed docks or boat lifts rather than a floating dock that moves with the river.

Stafford and his wealthy friends should take the time to read the existing rules on wake size and safety — because they already exist. He should spend his time helping authorities enforce existing rules. He should encourage others to upgrade their docks and barriers to current technologies.

Instead, he spends his time lobbying every elected official that will listen to create new laws that restrict public rights even further, and force boaters to avoid Post Falls altogether, pushing his issues to Coeur d’Alene and forcing people in Post Falls, Spokane, and surrounding areas to have to travel farther to utilize their boats on public waterways. He and his friends are ignoring the fact that the Spokane River is a public waterway that they are choosing to live on.

Another thing the anti-boaters are forgetting, if they made the river No Wake as they are shooting for, it will dramatically hurt many businesses in Post Falls as boaters from other communities will drive past Post Falls to launch their boats in Coeur d’Alene or Liberty Lake. This means they will not stop in Post Falls for gas for their cars and boats, or to buy snacks or visit restaurants.

No wakeboard or recreational boats will want to dock in the Templin’s or Water’s Edge Marina because it takes too long to boat to Coeur d’Alene to use these boats for recreation. People who move to Post Falls in order to have a convenient place to launch their boats and use the river will consider moving somewhere less restrictive. This will impact home values, especially those along and near the river.

Just look at the value difference between a home above the dam (motorized boats are currently allowed) and below the dam (no motorized boating is allowed). All of this plays a large role in the Post Falls economy and its ability to grow and improve the area. To force new restrictive laws on the river negatively impacts the public all year, in order to make these few folks along the river happy for 10 weeks a year.

Before trying to help the landowners who do not want to invest in rip rap and a fixed dock on their multi-million dollar properties, our commissioners and other elected officials should surely take the financial impact of the public, and their rights, into account. These homeowners have remedies for their complaints and if they are unwilling to invest in these remedies they should move.

Boater education and enforcement of current regulations are key to success. Creating additional regulations is a short-term solution. For example, if we keep highway speed limits in place but no one ever gets a ticket for speeding or receives education about the hazards, speeding violations would increase. As we all know, with no enforcement there is less compliance.

The solution is simple: Educate and enforce our existing waterway laws; do not create new ones. Our free market should remain free and not be manipulated for the benefit of the few over the many, period.