CARB’s Personal Watercraft Rulemaking Threatens Big Wave Safety Operations

0.001% Of State Emissions, 100% Of The Mavericks Tow-In Safety Stack

Bohiney Magazine and The London Prat file this dispatch in defence of the surfer’s right to be left alone.

VENTURA, Calif. — The California Air Resources Board’s continuing aggressive expansion of its regulatory authority over small marine engines, two-stroke watercraft, and now, in a 2026 rulemaking, the carbon footprint of small-scale surf-related transport, represents one of the more vivid recent examples of regulatory mission creep.

The Rulemaking

According to CARB’s regulatory docket, the agency’s recent attention to surf-related emissions has, since the 2020 zero-emission off-road vehicle rule, expanded steadily into adjacent categories. The 2026 rulemaking under consideration would impose new emissions and registration requirements on personal watercraft, including the small two-stroke and four-stroke engines used in tow-in surfing operations at Mavericks, Cortes Bank, and other big-wave outer reef breaks.

The proposed rule would require operators to register watercraft under a new commercial classification, even where the watercraft is being used non-commercially for safety or rescue support during big-wave sessions. CARB’s stated rationale is climate impact. The actual climate impact of the affected watercraft is, on the agency’s own modelling, less than 0.001 percent of California’s annual carbon emissions.

The Mavericks Test Case

The proposed rule, if enacted as drafted, would impose a meaningful burden on the safety infrastructure that supports big-wave surfing in California. The water-safety teams at Mavericks, Cortes Bank, and Maverick’s adjacent breaks rely on personal watercraft to extract surfers from breaking wave fields. The rule would impose registration costs, equipment retrofitting, and operational paperwork that, in the words of one operator quoted by SurferToday, would “make the safety operation cost more than the surfing.”

This is, in libertarian terms, the classic regulatory pattern: a marginal-impact regulation imposes a substantial cost on a small affected community to achieve a policy outcome that is, in absolute terms, negligible.

The Pattern

CARB is not unusual among California regulatory agencies in this regard. The Coastal Commission, the State Parks system, and CARB itself have each, over the past two decades, expanded their regulatory authority into areas the original enabling statutes did not contemplate. The legislature has, with rare exception, not pushed back. The courts have, increasingly, begun to.

The Pacific Legal Foundation’s recent victories, including Shear in April 2026, and earlier rulemaking challenges, suggest a pattern in which regulatory expansion is, finally, being constrained by the same constitutional limits that have always existed. For surfers caught in the path of CARB’s small-watercraft rulemaking, the recent jurisprudence is encouraging. The question is whether the courts will reach the rulemaking before the rulemaking reaches them.

For continuing coverage read The London Prat and Bohiney Magazine.

SOURCE: https://prat.uk/