James M. Brooks, Esq. Town Attorney, North Elba
You ask whether a county which has established a vessel regulation zone under Navigation Law, §
Navigation Law, §
Section 46 derived from former section
Upon the revision of the Navigation Law by chapter 941 of the Laws of 1941, former section 68 was renumbered section 46. Section 46 continued local authority to establish vessel zones, added local authority to adopt regulations applicable in such zones, and also added the requirement that the locality post a sign "with the rate of speed limited in that area". Omitted from section 46 was the specific speed limit of ten miles per hour which had been made applicable in zones by former section 69. The remaining rules of section 69, which generally required that boats within zones be operated in a "careful and prudent manner", were renumbered section 45 and now apply generally to vessels on all navigable waters, not solely those waters within vessel regulation zones (L 1941, ch 941).
We think it is clear that, in omitting a specific speed limit from present section 46 and requiring localities to post the rate of speed, the intent of the Legislature was to permit localities to establish speed limits within vessel zones. There is no indication that the Legislature intended to grant local authorities the power to regulate matters other than speed or that local regulations were to be broader in scope than the regulations previously in effect under former section 69. That is, there is no indication of an intent to permit localities to ban completely vessels or specific activities from vessel zones.*
The language of section 46 also compels the conclusion that localities may not prohibit vessels or specific activities from zones. Section 46 provides that "within the limitations prescribed by this chapter," a county may adopt regulations. This suggests that local regulations adopted under section 46 may not prohibit that which is permitted under other provisions of the Navigation Law. Section
In 1960 Op Atty Gen (Inf) 157, we addressed the question whether a town could adopt a local regulation prohibiting the operation of motor boats on a body of navigable water. In answering that question in the negative, we pointed out that, despite having been made aware over the course of several years of various problems associated with the speed and operation of power boats on navigable waters, the Legislature has refrained from enacting legislation authorizing the complete banning of such boats from those waters. We also noted that, in its resolution creating the Joint Legislative Committee on Boating, which annually had made recommendations to the Legislature, the Legislature specifically recognized the rights of owners of motor boats to use the waters of the State. Sections 45 and 73, in regulating, but not prohibiting, the operation of vessels or the towing of aerial devices, expresses this legislative policy.
In view of the State policy expressed in sections 45 and 73 permitting the use of navigable waters and the absence of a legislative intent that localities may prohibit such use, we are of the opinion that a county may not adopt regulations prohibiting the towing of aerial devices and the operation of "jet skis" or "wet bikes".
We conclude that a county which has established a vessel regulation zone under Navigation Law, §
