RedactedNarrative: On May 29, 2011 Operator was leaving the Toronto Point Boat Ramp on Toronto Lake with his 1998 Cobalt 220 open bow cruiser when it lost power. The vessel went adrift and ran aground between Toronto Cove and Manns Cove.
       While the boat was adrift Operator attempted to deploy the anchors. The anchor did not hold due to rough seas. The vessel drifted northeast in 30 to 50mph winds. While adrift Operator continued to attempt to start the engine without success. When it ran aground the vessel was positioned bow into the waves and wind. It then swamped and rolled to the starboard side where it filled with water to the midline of the boat. The vessel was recovered on May 30th near sunset, and Officer began his first inspection of the vessel at approximately 0630 on May 31.
       During the inspection all points of noticeable damage were documented and attached to the report. Some damage and loss of property occurred to the cab area of the vessel. Significant damage was documented to the hull of the boat, including, punctures through the hull.
       During the inspection Officer was told about the modified motor which produced more than 660 horse power. The Cobalt specifications for that boat and similar models were 385 to 415 horse power.  Operator said that they were taking the boat to the dealership where they purchased the boat for inspection by the mechanics and the insurance company.
       Officer spoke with Crestview Marine in Wichita KS. The representative said that the boat was considered a total loss due to the compromised hull. The representative, said that the motor was not inspected. He did indicate that the boat would be kept at the location and would be available for Kansas Department of Wildlife Parks and Tourism officers to inspect if necessary.
       On June 8, 2011 Officer re-inspected the Cobalt boat at Crestview Marine in Wichita KS. Major also assisted in the inspection. During the inspection Major noticed that some of the previously documented damage was inconsistent with statements. Major noticed that the missing starboard bow seat and the bent front window frame were consistent with a water impact that came directly over the bow of the boat. 
       The description of the wave action was that the waves that came into the boat were primarily from the starboard side. Major recommended another interview, based on this evidence. 
       Later that day Officer contacted the subject at the place of business and spoke with him alone who retold the story of the incident. His statements were consistent, but new details were added. When Officer addressed the damage to the front of the boat, operator could not explain it. OPERATOR said that he never took a wave over the front of the boat. OPERATOR did say while the boat was adrift he attempted to anchor it from the bow without success. OPERATOR said that the anchor would grab the bottom for a moment, but due to the high winds and 4 foot wave action it wouldn''t hold.
       Officer asked OPERATOR if he had any other pictures from that day. OPERATOR had photos on his cell phone from his daughter that was taken from shore where the boat drifted in. Because of the anchor being deployed the boat drifted in stern first. Due to the 40mph and over winds and 4ft swells the bow of the was beaten by waves from the time it ran aground until it filled with water, turned and capsized on the starboard side. 
       The photos that were taken by OPERATOR''S daughter were emailed to Officer and attached to this report. The positioning of the boat and water conditions were consistent with the type of damage and condition that the boat was inspected in.
  
NameOfBodyOfWater: Toronto-15 miles W of Yates Ce
NearestCityTown: Toronto                       