No action on water-ski ordinance in New Kent, more research to be conducted

Debate over an ordinance that prevents water-skiing on Chickahominy Lake will be subjected to a lot of research, according to New Kent supervisors.

What started in July as an inquiry by Jonathan Edmonds and Daniel Moore on why the recreational activity could not be performed on New Kent’s portion of the lake has become a difficult issue to tackle by county leaders. And at the August 10 monthly meeting, progress towards a solution seemed no closer than it was a month ago.

At July’s regular monthly meeting, the duo addressed the board on the existence of the 36-year old ordinance that prevented the activity on the lake. According to Moore, more than 1,000 acres of the lake consist of skiable conditions.

Opposition to repealing the ordinance came at the board’s July 28 work session. Ed Allen Jr., who was a county supervisor in 1979 when the ordinance was enacted, explained to current county leaders the lake’s conditions were dangerous for the activity. He presented a petition with 377 names listed, saying that safety concerns and the low water level remain today, prompting his opposition for the ordinance to be removed.

Edmonds and Moore returned at the August monthly meeting, reporting on independent research they conducted since the July 28 meeting.

“We have learned a lot about this ordinance since the July work session,” said Edmonds. “We learned that the water in the lake is public, that no other county in Virginia has an ordinance like this, and that two boat landings on the lake launch 150 boats on the weekend, but somehow the lake is too small and there is no room for a couple of skiers.

“We learned that if this ordinance is changed, Mr. Allen is of the opinion that it would hurt his business,” Edmonds continued. “If that is true, the logical conclusion is that enacting this ordinance helped his business back in 1979, which is a clear conflict of interest and should be reason enough to end this restriction.”

While both skiers agreed that Allen was correct on possible underwater hazards, Moore addressed the petition presented as well as the legality of the ordinance itself that restrains the activity.

“The petition in support of the ordinance, while impressive, did not have addresses and it did not have phone numbers,” Moore said. “Even with the number of signatures, none of these people pay taxes on the land under the water on the upper Chickahominy or any other public body of water. The water is public and if I understand it correctly, it is the Public Trust Doctrine which secures the public’s freedom and right to use the public property like the Chickahominy.

“On the Charles City side of the lake, I recently skied its entire length without dropping,” Moore continued. “We are not here asking for favors or money, we just want the board to add this topic to the next board meeting, invite the public to comment, and bring it to vote.”

Other points addressed by the duo include that violating the ordinance is a class 4 misdemeanor, questioning if rules implemented by the Coast Guard should be followed pertaining to oncoming boat traffic in case they crossed into New Kent waters, and questioning the reasons why the ordinance remained in place.

District 3 supervisor James Burrell commented that the board should allow others to speak on the issue.

“I would like to see a public hearing on the possible repeal of the issue,” he said. “We have heard from the two gentlemen [Moore and Edmonds] and heard from Mr. Allen as well. I would like to see how others feel about it”

Burrell made a motion to send the ordinance to public hearing for a possible repeal of it. The motion, however, failed 2-3, with opposing supervisors opting for county staff to receive the opportunity to discover more about the ordinance.

“I just want to see some more research done by staff,” said District 1 representative Thomas Evelyn. “I want to get some more background and history on the ordinance, as well as the impact it would have.”

No timetable has been set for the ordinance to appear on the supervisors’ agenda in the future.