RedactedNarrative: Operator2 stated that he was operating upriver on the Arizona side of the Colorado River on V2. Operator2 stated that he had left Malows, having just rented V2 5 minutes prior. Operator2 reported to have V2 occupant, a juvenile, on board as passenger. V2 occupant was on scene and denied medical herself. Operator2 reported that he was traveling at a speed no greater than 20 miles per hour while traveling upriver because V2 occupant was afraid. Upon reaching the Laughlin Bridge Operator2 operated between the Arizona shoreline and the first pillar of the bridge while continuing upriver. Due to wind and waves pushing V2, Operator2 slowed V2 to approximately 8 miles per hour as he operated upriver of the bridge. At this point Operator2 reports being struck by V1 and V2 occupant was ejected. Operator2 stopped V2 and assisted V2 occupant back on to the vessel.
  
  Operator1 reported to have been operating V1 upriver near the middle of the river. Operator1 reported to have had a passenger on V1. V1 occupant was on scene and denied injury. V1 occupant agreed with the following statement offered by Operator1. While traveling upriver Operator1 reported to have been informed and knew that above the bridge on the Arizona side of the river the water level became shallow and there were rocks. Operator1 reported to have operated V1 under the bridge and upon operating North of the bridge she realized she was on a collision path that was unavoidable with V2. Operator1 reports to have been operating between 10 and 15 miles per hour at the time of the collision.
  
  Based upon damage and statements obtained, V1 struck V2 coming from a rearward trajectory. The collision was likely at a slow rate of speed as both parties attested in their personal speed estimates. The fiberglass damage extends along the outside of the port foot well of V2 as well as the stern foot bed. The majority of fiberglass damage to V2 is likely from compression as V1 rode on to V2. There is no damage to the seating area and no injury to the occupants of V2, showing that neither a sharp trajectory path between the vessels or high speed between the vessels was involved. The transfer marks on V2''s port side are in two directions perpendicular to each other. The first lies directly in line with the outside of the port foot well. The remainder are perpendicular and are likely from V1 sliding off the port side of V2 following the collision and V1 coming to a stop. The damage on V1 is insignificant except for minimal transfer marks on the starboard side and bow. All of this is consistent with V1 striking V2 from the rear, riding on to the side of V2 and then sliding off.
  
  Based upon statements and damage noted I placed both parties at fault in this collision. Operator2 was at minimal fault due to his failure to be aware of vessel around him as his vessel was turning or moving due to wind, waves and the slow speed at which he traveled. Operator1 was at majority fault as she operated V1 from behind V2 and into the side of V2. Operator1 stated in her written statement that V2 turned prior to collision, during the remainder of the investigation Operator1 only verbally stated that V2 appeared in front of her and the collision was imminent.