Mufflers - Boat Builder's Choice?

[Captain Dan]

I assume that each builder will explain to the customer the new law in California and will offer mufflers as an option.
So which muffler manufacturer will each builder go with? Or will they leave the options to the consumer?
I have a 2004 Ultra 24' Stealth with a 496 HO, and before I plop down the $$, I would like to know which muffler the builder recommends.
PM's are cool here - I'm not trying to make or break anyone, I just want to know what is best for me. :wink:

[PHX ATC]

It looks as though that should be the wave (will be?) of the future.
I'm curious as well.

[Whipped Caliber]

I went with GGB's on my 565 Q-rotor 1,021hp work well
http://www.ggb.ca
:)

[Havasu_Dreamin]

Got a set of the Rex Marine Silencers and they work awesome! They look good as well

[Stealth Marine]

Got a set of the Rex Marine Silencers and they work awesome! They look good as well
We plan on going with the REX MARINE units to begin with on the 2005 Stealths.

[mud duck]

This summer I purchased a set of HPI clamp-on mufflers and they are great! I actually asked John West at Ultra last January while visiting his shop, and a local boat mechanic I use. They both said the same thing, HPI.
www.hpisilencers.com

[rivercrazy]

Got a set of the Rex Marine Silencers and they work awesome! They look good as well
Ditto here as well. They are being installed as we speak. Very nice and well constructed units

[Essex502]

After seeing and hearing the difference before and after I'd only use the new Rex Marine silencers.

[Captain Dan]

How about the Livorsi mufflers? Anyone heard anything about those?

[Stealth Marine]

How about the Livorsi mufflers? Anyone heard anything about those?
Had a pair in my hands at the Maats show in Vegas a couple months ago.
They looked lovely.
But I have no first hand experience how they work.
Would be Very Surprised if they didn't work quite well though given where they are coming from...

[SHAKE-YO-AZZ]

time for a tritoon

[Havasu_Dreamin]

time for a tritoon
If it's one of the Playcraft ones it still won't pass the noise laws.

[SHAKE-YO-AZZ]

If it's one of the Playcraft ones it still won't pass the noise laws.
ooooo come on you are kidding me

[Havasu_Dreamin]

ooooo come on you are kidding me
Nope, any boat with thru-hull exhaust that exits above the waterline will not pass the new CA law that goes into effect on January 1, 2005. The new CA law is 88 db(A) at idle 39" off the transom 4' above the waterline. AZ is 86 db(A) at 50' from the transom.
Edit: Before I get slammed by anyone, the above statement assumes that their is no type of muffling system under the engine hatch. BTW, it's my understanding that Silent Choice is not legal either as it it is not in constant operation.

[SHAKE-YO-AZZ]

Nope, any boat with thru-hull exhaust that exits above the waterline will not pass the new CA law that goes into effect on January 1, 2005. The new CA law is 88 db(A) at idle 39" off the transom 4' above the waterline. AZ is 86 db(A) at 50' from the transom.
mmmm tritoon with mufflers

[Stealth Marine]

Nope, any boat with thru-hull exhaust that exits above the waterline will not pass the new CA law that goes into effect on January 1, 2005. The new CA law is 88 db(A) at idle 39" off the transom 4' above the waterline. AZ is 86 db(A) at 50' from the transom.
Edit: Before I get slammed by anyone, the above statement assumes that their is no type of muffling system under the engine hatch. BTW, it's my understanding that Silent Choice is not legal either as it it is not in constant operation.
We will be offering through hull exhaust with external mufflers above the water line for 2005. I think the 88db target can be obtained in this configuration.
Silent choice will not pass the new terms of the law, UNLESS, the owner dis-ables the choice mechanism so as to render it ALWAYS on....

[Bob Hostetter]

We are currently using and recommending the Rex Marine mufflers.

[Keith E. Sayre]

At present, we've tried the Livorsi, Imco, Gaitlin, GGB. The Gaitlin is an
insertable piece and cut down the noise the least of the 4 but still worked
well. The other 3 are more of a "bolt-on" style and since they are fairly heavy
and large in size, simply bolting them onto an existing exhaust tip doesn't seem like it would work? Maybe a quick brace would be helpful.
All of these mufflers seem to work easily and were legal for California or Arizona according to our decibel meter. Average cost including installation
seemed to be around $1800 to $2,000 per set. OUCH!
Hopefully they won't kill our performance.
Keith Sayre
Conquest Boats
Lake Havasu City
928-680-1400

[Brewzed]

I might be wrong here,
I remember reading the new law (a few months ago), and if I remember correctly it states that all new boats registered in ca for '05 will have to have mufflers installed by the builders if the boat has thru-transom exhaust.
I also remember they listed the lobbiest for the new law, I though it would be the Sierra Club, but it was all of the exhaust companies, Gil, Imco, ETC. They are going to be the guys cashing out.
I'm trying to find the article, it was in a Hot Boat issue earlier this year. I moved into a new house and I can't find shiot.

[NashvilleBound]

I guess this is a CA thing. That means in TN I will need to put twin stacks up right??? :) :)

[Boatcop]

I might be wrong here,
I remember reading the new law (a few months ago), and if I remember correctly it states that all new boats registered in ca for '05 will have to have mufflers installed by the builders if the boat has thru-transom exhaust.
I also remember they listed the lobbiest for the new law, I though it would be the Sierra Club, but it was all of the exhaust companies, Gil, Imco, ETC. They are going to be the guys cashing out.
I'm trying to find the article, it was in a Hot Boat issue earlier this year. I moved into a new house and I can't find shiot.
There has been a law in California that prohibits selling an engine for use on boats that don't meet noise guidelines since the 1970s. Here is that text:
654.06. No person shall sell or offer for sale at retail any
internal combustion engine for use on any motorized recreational
vessel which, when operated, exceeds the following noise levels:
(a) For engines manufactured on or after January 1, 1974, and
before January 1, 1976, a noise level of 86 dbA measured at a
distance of 50 feet from the motorized recreational vessel.
(b) For engines manufactured on or after January 1, 1976, and
before January 1, 1978, a noise level of 84 dbA measured at a
distance of 50 feet from the motorized recreational vessel.
(c) For engines manufactured on or after January 1, 1978, a noise
level of 82 dbA measured at a distance of 50 feet from the motorized
recreational vessel.
The "new" law regarding sales or manufacture of vessels and engines only incorporates the new testing method, and what to do in case of race only boats:
654.03. (a) A person may not manufacture for sale a motorized
recreational vessel that is not equipped with a muffler or muffler
system, as defined in subdivision (a) of Section 654, that brings the
vessel into compliance with paragraph (2) of subdivision (a) of
Section 654.05, except as authorized under subdivision (b).
(b) A person may manufacture for sale a motorized recreational
vessel that is not equipped as required under subdivision (a) if the
vessel is designed, manufactured, and sold for the sole purpose of
competing in racing events.
(c) A person may not sell a vessel that is exempted under
subdivision (b) unless there is compliance with both of the
following:
(1) The sales agreement includes a statement that the vessel is
designed, manufactured, and sold for the sole purpose of competing in
racing events and may not be operated in or upon the inland waters,
or in or upon ocean waters that are within one mile of the coastline
of the state, except under the conditions described in subdivision
(c) of Section 654.
(2) The statement described in paragraph (1) is signed by both the
buyer and the seller.
(d) Both the buyer and the seller of a vessel exempted under
subdivision (b) shall maintain copies of the sales agreement
described in paragraph (1) of subdivision (c).
(e) A person may not operate a vessel that is exempted under
subdivision (b) unless a copy of the sales agreement described in
paragraph (1) of subdivision (c) is on board the vessel.
(f) A person may not operate a vessel that is exempted under
subdivision (b) in or upon the inland waters, or in or upon ocean
waters within one mile of the coastline of the state, except under
the conditions described in subdivision (c) of Section 654.
(g) This section shall become operative on January 1, 2005.
So the boat manufacturers shouldn't be telling the customers about the noise limitation. They should be selling boats that already meet the noise limitations. At least according to California law, they should.
The law that's been on the books for over 30 years has never been enforced, so there was nothing to make the manufacturers abide by it. If the law had been enforced all along, this would be a moot issue, since mufflers that quiet the engine with no loss of power would have been developed decades ago. As it was, the industry was pimping itself to boaters who believe that loud = fast.
And now those boaters are paying the price.

[Brewzed]

Thanks Alan
I wonder if they will start enforcing section 654.03(a) with the builders?
I guess we'll have to wait till January.
If the builders of boats sold in California follow the new law, mufflers will be a must. They wont even be an option, unless you go through the prop.
Reminds me of when they started using catalyc converters on cars.
It's almost like window tinting. You get cited for having tint on the front windows (California anyway), but you never hear of the tint shops getting cited for doing it.

[Boatcop]

And just for the sake of argument here, why is it that you, the boat owners, are having to shell out $800 bucks per engine to bring a boat into compliance, that should have been that way to begin with?
I know that most boaters are extermely loyal to their brand, but it's not like the manufacturers didn't know these laws existed. They should be the ones installing compliant mufflers for free.
After all. It was they who sold you the illegal boat to begin with. They are expected to know that laws that apply to boat buiders, and abide by them. Did they tell you when you bought the boat to "be careful" since the pipes were illegal? I don't think so. They just smiled, shook your hand and cashed your check.
What if you bought a new car and it didn't have seat belts, emission systems, headlights, air bags, brake lights, mufflers, and all the other things the Government says they're supposed to have, and you got hassled every time you drove it, or it didn't pass inspection. You'd be back at the dealer demanding that they do something about it.
What's so different with a new boat? You, as the consumer, expect to recieve a product that meets all applicable laws and regulations, regarding construction, safety and compliance.
Apparently you aren't getting that product, and to get it into compliance you are expected to dig (further) into your pocket to make it that way.
Has anyone spoke to the manufacturers about these issues? The Consumer division of the California Attorney General's Office? A Lawyer?
You folks are the ones getting tickets, paying fines, hassled at Marinas, being scrutinized by law enforcement, and getting thrown off Lakes. Not to mention having to fork out up to $2,400 to correct what a should be classified as a "manufacturer's defect". While all the while the manufacturers are laughing all the way to the bank.

[Mr.Havasu]

Alan is stiring the pot! But I completely agree with him. Doesn't seem fair that the owner of a stock boat with stock HP should have to fork out even more to be legal to operate the boat.

[roostwear]

Who knows what a CA suit is? I'll bet the builders do.

[Rexone]

I also remember they listed the lobbiest for the new law, I though it would be the Sierra Club, but it was all of the exhaust companies, Gil, Imco, ETC. They are going to be the guys cashing out.
To my knowledge the above is not true. I know the Bluewater Network pushed the bill hard, but I never heard of the Sierra Club's involvement. Nor have I heard about any manufacturers lobbying for it. As a member of the SCMA board of Directors I am aware the SCMA lobbied hard against the bill no no avail. Basically there was no organized countering support from the public or boat manufacturers at all against the bill here on ***boat or anywhere else for that matter, even though I personally posted on the subject several times prior to the bill being passed.
It should be noted however that most other boating associations favored the bill and the implementation of the J2005-J1970 standards including the NMMA (National Marine Manufacturers Association).
People just weren't interested much like many other government issues that end up affecting them after they're passed, including not voting and then complaining about initiatives and elected officials.
And as Alan said, silencers have always been required. Only the test procedure is changing (in Kaleefornia) to make it more easily enforceable by LE. The difficulty of administering the J34 procedure properly is a major reason it's never been enforced much. I've posted extensively on this subject over the past year in HSW (search).
As a side note but related... There are still boat manufacturers out there (mostly the smaller ones) who haven't / hadn't recently heard of our new CA laws that go into effect Jan 05 that affect them. Not sure if this is a government deficiency in proper notification or what exactly or if they're just not interested in anything of a regulatory nature.
:smile:

[Brewzed]

This is the part of the new law that I am curious about. I'm am curious to see the the manufactures are going to handle it.
654.03. (a) A person may not manufacture for sale a motorized
recreational vessel that is not equipped with a muffler or muffler
system, as defined in subdivision (a) of Section 654, that brings the
vessel into compliance with paragraph (2) of subdivision (a) of
Section 654.05, except as authorized under subdivision (b).
I understand that the existing law states that the noise level has to be under a certain db level, but the new law actually states they must have a muffler or muffler system. Do you know if they are going to keep an eye on the builders to see if they comply with the law?
I agree, you need to vote and stay on top of things. It's always easier to bitch about change instead of preventing or creating change.
I was going to punch the exhaust thru the transom this winter, but I think it am going to hold off until the end of next season to see what happens and what works best.
thanks for the info. :rollside:

[Boatcop]

This is the part of the new law that I am curious about. I'm am curious to see the the manufactures are going to handle it.
654.03. (a) A person may not manufacture for sale a motorized
recreational vessel that is not equipped with a muffler or muffler
system, as defined in subdivision (a) of Section 654, that brings the
vessel into compliance with paragraph (2) of subdivision (a) of
Section 654.05, except as authorized under subdivision (b).
I understand that the existing law states that the noise level has to be under a certain db level, but the new law actually states they must have a muffler or muffler system. Do you know if they are going to keep an eye on the builders to see if they comply with the law?
I agree, you need to vote and stay on top of things. It's always easier to bitch about change instead of preventing or creating change.
I was going to punch the exhaust thru the transom this winter, but I think it am going to hold off until the end of next season to see what happens and what works best.
thanks for the info. :rollside:
The old law required that engine noise be "effectively muffled at all times" as below:
654. (a) The exhaust of every internal combustion engine used on
any motorized recreational vessel shall be effectively muffled at all
times to prevent any excessive or unusual noise and as may be
necessary to comply with Section 654.05.
(b) This section does not apply to motorized recreational vessels
competing under a local public entity or United States Coast Guard
permit in a regatta, in a boat race, while on trial runs, or while on
official trials for speed records during the time and in the
designated area authorized by the permit. In addition, this section
does not apply to motorized recreational vessels preparing for a race
or regatta if authorized by a permit issued by the local entity
having jurisdiction over the area where the preparations occur.
(c) This section shall remain in effect only until January 1,
2005, and as of that date is repealed, unless a later enacted statute
that is enacted before January 1, 2005, deletes or extends that
date.
Everyone is harping on these "new laws" that have been around forever.
Maybe the old laws that required being "muffled" was too ambiguous, so in the new law, they made it more specific. But muffled exhaust has always been the law. And "at all times" has been replaced with "in constant operation". Which means that Silent Choice and other cut-out systems also have always been illegal.
Mike (Rexone) and I have been trying to educate the boaters here for over a year on noise issues, and the fact that they've been around since Jesus was on double skis.
The "new" law just changes the method of measurement, based upon what was established by SAE. What brought about new standards and what prompted SAE to establish them, I don't know. Possibly Law Enforcement, after finding out the J34 test was hard to enforce. Maybe Defense lawyers, demanding the measurement methods be more uniform and specific. Maybe even the environmental movement. I really have no idea.
All I do know is that they are nothing new, and enforcement will continue. For me, we'll be doing things the way we always have. In other areas, you'll probably see it stepped up. I never really had noise enforcement as a high priority, when there's too many people doing stupid things that kill. We do it, but it's not the top concern on my list.

[Rexone]

Do you know if they are going to keep an eye on the builders to see if they comply with the law?
There are many builders that are already in compliance or taking steps in that direction. I'm sure there are some that won't until forced to. I think ultimately the level of noise enforcement may determine if 100% compliance by builders is ever achieved. I doubt the government is going to send muffler compliance squads around to inspect builders unless there are complaints by consumers of someone building boats that are not compliant. (That is just my guess based on speculation, nothing factual).
Now based on the ease of administering the new J2005 test I'd anticipate LE in some locales to step it up where they did not enforce the old J34. Particularly in high traffic areas on weekends where noise complaints are more prevelant (like Havasu ramps for example). But most areas like Alan's for example you probably won't see alot of change unless you're obviously way loud and not running silencers. I think it will depend on where and when you boat not much unlike it always has.

[unleashed]

The old law required that engine noise be "effectively muffled at all times" as below:
Everyone is harping on these "new laws" that have been around forever.
Maybe the old laws that required being "muffled" was too ambiguous, so in the new law, they made it more specific. But muffled exhaust has always been the law. And "at all times" has been replaced with "in constant operation". Which means that Silent Choice and other cut-out systems also have always been illegal.
Mike (Rexone) and I have been trying to educate the boaters here for over a year on noise issues, and the fact that they've been around since Jesus was on double skis.
The "new" law just changes the method of measurement, based upon what was established by SAE. What brought about new standards and what prompted SAE to establish them, I don't know. Possibly Law Enforcement, after finding out the J34 test was hard to enforce. Maybe Defense lawyers, demanding the measurement methods be more uniform and specific. Maybe even the environmental movement. I really have no idea.
All I do know is that they are nothing new, and enforcement will continue. For me, we'll be doing things the way we always have. In other areas, you'll probably see it stepped up. I never really had noise enforcement as a high priority, when there's too many people doing stupid things that kill. We do it, but it's not the top concern on my list.
Its good to see an officer out there with some brains! Good man Alan! :D
Deano
Unleashedclothing (http://www.unleashedclothing.com) :devil:

[77charger]

maybe a stupid response but what about thru hub exhaust?Will defintely quiet boat down.
On my lake boat i have thru hub but then again its only a small block,My boss had a big block with the same exhaust set up a while back on his caliber1 454 mag too his was just as quiet.I am sure it will work for stock power

[Froggystyle]

From the first blank sheet of paper we have been planning mufflers for the Trident. We chose Bassani XHaust to build the downpipes and full muffler system for each boat, and they come stock. Should be quieter than my Corvette.
In any case, the exhaust also exits at the lowest part of the outer sponsons, and runs across the tunnel where there is a 2' section of 5" racing mufflers with water entering at that point.
Should be quieter than through hub exhaust, and with nearly 1000 hp.
I agree that it should come stock.

[spectras only]

we don't have to worry about noise law too much here in the GWN yet :yuk: .I'm getting a 25'7 boat this weekend with two 6.2 MPI's with through hub exhaust and it's plenty fast.Have a silent choice system for it [not installed yet,hehe] that I may put on for the cool factor.A stock or mildly built engine won't benefit from a through transom exh at all anyway. Have been in several stock 502 and HP500 equipped boats with captain's call system and the gain of speed was a meer 2 MPH.Hardly worth the hassle you guys going through down there with Db meter happy enforcer folks :rollside: .Wonder if I could ever get rid of the merc silent system after all the exitement :rollside: .

[Bob Hostetter]

A lot of boat manufacturers as still not building their boats with mufflers in spite of being fully aware that they are in violation of the law. They asume if the customer wants them they will request them and the cost will be added to the purchase price. They are also aware that the winter months are slow and retroing fitting all those boats with mufflers will make a nice cash flow in otherwise slow months.
You should also keep in mind that a lot of stern drive boats with external steering (especially twins) are going to cost a lot more to convert then the standard Mercruiser setup. I have looked at several boats that if a bolt on system like Rex Marines is used it is going to require a complete rerigging of the steering rams on the transom.
Additionally what about the over transom systems used by most hydro's, flats, and jet boats? Or for that matter the older classic's? I have a 1977 Hallet 'v' drive cruiser that uses the old style Greenwood thru transom system with the smaller diameter tips. It is going to be a real pain in the you know what to change over. For someone not in the business or knowledgable enough to do it at home, the cost of converting the older boats is going to be close to what they paid for them. Can you imagine buying an older jet boat for a couple of thousand and then finding out you have to put another couple of thousand into converting the exhaust system.
The only ones who are going to profit from this new enforcement of an old exhaust noise law are the shops and manufacturers. Of course they are also the ones that knowingly helped create an enviroment where this became a problem.
On the other hand we, the boaters, helped bring this problem on ourselfs. Not only has the boating community gotten larger but it has gotten more extreme. No one could have imagined 10-15 years ago the current state of affairs in places like Havasu. You now have packs of large boats running very high performance engines wide open, with unrestricted exhaust, up and down the river. To some, me included, this is a pleasant sound. To many however it is not. Add into the that the fact that these same boats (at least in style or type) are the ones involved in many of the mishaps resulting in injuries or deaths, and you have a PR nightmare. When was the last time you heard a bunch of boaters yell at someone revving their motor in the channel to knock it off? Nope, instead everyone cheers and waves their beer cans at them, telling them how cool they are. From an outside perspective, that makes us, as a group, part of the problem. Instead of one guy getting punished, we all get punished.
We went thru this same problem in another hobby that I enjoy and we ended up losing a lot of freedoms as a result. And as Rexone stated, we do very little as a group to generate or provide positive feedback to the nonboating public.
Unless we start doing somthing to change the current image of a "hot boater" (like taking the zoo out of Havasu) this is going to be but the 1st of many new restrictions on what we love to do.
Rant off..................
Hos

[Havasu_Dreamin]

Unless we start doing somthing to change the current image of a "hot boater" (like taking the zoo out of Havasu) this is going to be but the 1st of many new restrictions on what we love to do.
Rant off..................
Hos
I agree, we as a group need to get involved and show that we can be "responsbile".

[spectras only]

We went thru this same problem in another hobby that I enjoy and we ended up losing a lot of freedoms as a result.
Hos . It happened to the radio controlled boat/airplane modellers here . Residences are built up everywhere and no gas powered models allowed in the greater vancouver area . Electrics are the way .Have several models ,including a Hornet heli . My gas models rotting away. :frown: .People in Richmond tried to sue the airport [ was there before houses] because their home values are down ,caused by increased air traffic/noise .

[DaveA]

Alan,
I was wondering, does Part 654.06 mean that my 1973 Raysoncraft with the 1972 Chev 454 is exempt from these noise laws, or did 654.03 preempt 654.06???
To wit:
"654.06. No person shall sell or offer for sale at retail any
internal combustion engine for use on any motorized recreational
vessel which, when operated, exceeds the following noise levels:
(a) For engines manufactured on or after January 1, 1974, and
before January 1, 1976, a noise level of 86 dbA measured at a
distance of 50 feet from the motorized recreational vessel.
(b) For engines manufactured on or after January 1, 1976, and
before January 1, 1978, a noise level of 84 dbA measured at a
distance of 50 feet from the motorized recreational vessel.
(c) For engines manufactured on or after January 1, 1978, a noise
level of 82 dbA measured at a distance of 50 feet from the motorized
recreational vessel. "
Just wondering for the rest of us...
DaveA

[Thunderbutt]

I might be wrong here,
I remember reading the new law (a few months ago), and if I remember correctly it states that all new boats registered in ca for '05 will have to have mufflers installed by the builders if the boat has thru-transom exhaust.
I also remember they listed the lobbiest for the new law, I though it would be the Sierra Club, but it was all of the exhaust companies, Gil, Imco, ETC. They are going to be the guys cashing out.
I'm trying to find the article, it was in a Hot Boat issue earlier this year. I moved into a new house and I can't find shiot.
Yes and in two years they will be back up there lobbying for 84D

[Thunderbutt]

I have the same question as Dave. Will a 1972 boat with a 1971 motor be exempt. I no longer live in Ca. but my boat will be back there next year. The water patrol check me here and it was in the 90's. Boatcop have you given tickets on this law?

[Essex502]

There aren't going to be any exemptions from the new California law - AB1555. The section that will apply is 654.05 that will superceded the previous standard:
654.05. (a) A person may not operate a motorized recreational
vessel in or upon the inland waters, or in or upon ocean waters that are
within one mile of the coastline of the state, in a manner that exceeds the
following noise levels:
(1) For engines manufactured before January 1, 1993, a noise level
of 90 dB(A) when subjected to the Society of Automotive Engineers
Recommended Practice SAE J2005 (Stationary Sound Level
Measurement Procedure for Pleasure Motorboats).
(2) For engines manufactured on or after January 1, 1993, a noise
level of 88 dB(A) when subjected to the Society of Automotive
Engineers Recommended Practice SAE J2005 (Stationary Sound Level
Measurement Procedure for Pleasure Motorboats).
(3) A noise level of 75 dB(A) measured as specified in the Society of
Automotive Engineers Recommended Practice SAE J1970 (Shoreline
Sound Level Measurement Procedure). However, a measurement of
noise level that is in compliance with this paragraph does not preclude
the conducting of a test of noise levels under paragraph (1) or (2).

[Thunder 1]

The problem is that Calif. has a 3 mile radius past the state line. This is why they can site you on Lake Havasu. Where the rub is , is that all AZ. boats could be legal as far as AZ. mandates, but CA. can still site you under their law. I think if you get a citation I would fight it just because of the mass confusion on who will have juristiction. Ed

[Essex502]

The problem is that Calif. has a 3 mile radius past the state line. This is why they can site you on Lake Havasu. Where the rub is , is that all AZ. boats could be legal as far as AZ. mandates, but CA. can still site you under their law. I think if you get a citation I would fight it just because of the mass confusion on who will have juristiction. Ed
Thunder...that's not quite true...the 3 mile issue is for coastal waters. The Havasu and Colorado River are "shared" waterways and both states can enforce their laws on them separately. BoatCop can give you a better, more technical rendition of the law here but it's not due to the 3 mile limit.

[DaveA]

There aren't going to be any exemptions from the new California law - AB1555. The section that will apply is 654.05 that will superceded the previous standard.[/b][/i]
Hmm...Doesn't 654.06 (pre 1973 standards) come after 654.05 (1993 standards)? I guess they can put it in any order they want to.
Is there any specific statements that show that 654.06 is either superceded or deleted altogether? Or is it just assumed? I ain't no lawyer, but I was just wondering...since I was out on Lake Norman Sunday evening with open dry headers just truckin' along shakin' th' trees. :cool: :cool:
Sure hope this doesn't happen here, but, hey, it sure could. Us Tarheels better listen closely to anything that happens with these little marine commissions they've got set up at all these lakes around here.
DaveA