[Group9]

I always am the bad guy, but I see these discussions and I wonder why transients/boaters/pass-thru people should believe their opinions and views should trump those who have a stake/are permanent residents? Y'all are TOURISTS, ffs

The only people who are "tourists" in the United States, are those people who aren't citizens here.

The idea that someone from another state has less rights in a state than a person who happens to live there is bull ****.

(And, if that was true, and it could be done, most of the people in these large waterfront homes would still be waiting for Florida visas, from their homes in New York and New Jersey, and this wouldn't be a problem in the first place).

 

[Multihullgirl]

The idea that someone from another state has less rights in a state than a person who happens to live there is bull ****.

You are deceived if you don't believe that the local and state governments do not give precedence to taxpaying local residents. As well they should. Most of the money to run things comes from them. This isn't about 'rights' and I never used that word.

 

[Faster]

The only people who are "tourists" in the United States, are those people who aren't citizens here.

.....

I don't think there's any stipulation that a tourist be from an outside country.

If we travel across country to visit/sightsee in Nova Scotia or Newfoundland I'd certainly consider myself to be a 'tourist'. Similarly a WA resident touring FL would 'qualify' as a tourist by definition.

Sorry for the nitpick..

As an aside, in Canada if you want exclusive rights to shore-side waters you must take out a 'water lot lease' from the government. It's helpful, but not necessary, to be the 'uplands owner', though that owner would have some say in whether or not your lease application would succeed if you weren't.

But even if you were the uplands owner AND held the water lot lease you couldn't close off the 'beach' below the High water mark.

 

[Group9]

You are deceived if you don't believe that the local and state governments do not give precedence to taxpaying local residents. As well they should. Most of the money to run things comes from them. This isn't about 'rights' and I never used that word.

Well, you're deceived if you don't think this isn't about people trying to use money to buy rights they don't have. It's not about taxes, it's about someone making payments of money to politicians to something they want, but that they are not entitled to (because if they were entitled to it, they wouldn't have to have the law changed) That's the real world.

I understand the difference between the real world and how things should be. In the real world, some people even go so far as to kill people to get what they want, when they know they don't deserve it. That doesn't mean it's right, or a right.

In any fight, from a Presidential election to a street fight in a gutter, the person who wins in the end, is the always the person who is willing to do anything it takes to win, and who when they do lose, will come back, over and over again, until they do win.

I'm just at the point in my life where although I know how these things usually end, I'm just not ready to be okay with it yet. As I have said earlier, if it makes you feel better, I have no doubt who will win this battle in the end. It will be the same people who always win these battles.

Thank God for hurricanes where I live. They can't be bought off or the same people would be trying to pull the same **** where I live.

 

[DavyJ]

I am not sure why some folks, some boaters here included, want to give up any of their freedoms. You have the right to navigate the waters of the USA. Why should the state of Florida or some municipality like Miami Beach be able to take those rights away.

I'll say it again. The FWC has an agenda and that is to eliminate anchoring in certain places. They have already succeeded in areas where they have implemented the Pilot Program.

Boaters must stand together and at least make an attempt to stop the erosion of those rights.

Here is a link to the FWC Youtube page. You may leave a comment there. Some folks already have.

 

[JonEisberg]

I am not sure why some folks, some boaters here included, want to give up any of their freedoms. You have the right to navigate the waters of the USA. Why should the state of Florida or some municipality like Miami Beach be able to take those rights away.

Hmmm, sounds like you might need to get out more... Why don't you come on up here to the Northeast and New England, and try asserting your right to anchor anywhere you damn well please...

)

I doubt anyone here really wants to "give up their freedoms"... All I've suggested, is that IF - and granted, that's a mighty big "IF" - such a 'concession' like the 150' setback is the sort of compromise that ultimately can result in a statewide policy being implemented, that seems reasonable enough to me, and something worth discussing as a bargaining chip... After all, such a setback would make very little difference in the larger scheme of Florida anchoring, and only eliminate a comparative handful of anchoring spots, mostly entirely within the highly developed and constricted waterways of Broward County... If you think the current status quo is gonna be maintained indefinitely in Florida, without some degree of compromise being reached on both sides of this very contentious issue, well... Dream on... )

I'll say it again. The FWC has an agenda and that is to eliminate anchoring in certain places. They have already succeeded in areas where they have implemented the Pilot Program.

Well, anchoring may no longer be as unrestricted or CONVENIENT as it once was in those venues - but where has it been "eliminated" entirely?

 

[DavyJ]

Well, anchoring may no longer be as unrestricted or CONVENIENT as it once was in those venues - but where has it been "eliminated" entirely?

You obviously have not been cruising in the pilot program areas.......
These places may not mean anything to you, but you may no longer anchor here:
St Petersburg North Yacht basin
St Petersburg South Yacht Basin

All because the city added 13 moorings. BTW, that no one uses.

150' Set back will eliminate more than half the anchorages now in use.
And that's exactly what they want.

 

[JonEisberg]

You obviously have not been cruising in the pilot program areas.......
These places may not mean anything to you, but you may no longer anchor here:
St Petersburg North Yacht basin
St Petersburg South Yacht Basin

All because the city added 13 moorings. BTW, that no one uses.

You're right, St Pete is the one pilot program venue I haven't seen since it was instituted...

Last time I was there, Vinoy Basin contained a surprising number of what appeared to be derelict boats, considering the surroundings...

Gee, what a shocker, that a mooring field wound up taking their place...

150' Set back will eliminate more than half the anchorages now in use.
And that's exactly what they want.

Seriously ??? "Half of the anchorages in use" WHERE, exactly? Even in Vinoy Basin as pictured above, to my eye only a few of those anchored boats might be within a 150' setback... My apologies for not being as familiar with the Gulf coast, but along the East coast between Fernandina and Key West, the number of anchorages "eliminated" by a 150' setback would be miniscule...

Surely, you're not referring to anchorages statewide, right?

 

[RTB]

Cape Haze. Lake Sylvia. Delray Beach - (Just north of Linton Blvd. Bridge).

I Really can't recall other places where the new regs (150' setback) would be an issue for us. At least for the anchorages we've been using, and these are pretty much shown in Skipper Bob's and Waterway Guide.

We've cruised from Texas to Georgia and back, so both coasts of Florida. As a visitor, I appreciate the opportunity to use moorings now and then. Places like Ft. Meyers Beach, Boot Key, St. Augustine, and Fernandina. It is nice to have a good dinghy dock with access to water, showers, and easy access to transportation for provisioning or to get boat parts. I'm not saying we could afford that all the time, but nice to have occasionally. Seems to me, it takes a pretty big budget to install moorings and amenities to go along with it.

Ralph

 

[capta]

So now the FMP and local leo's will be running around the anchorages with a yardstick measuring the 150'? Perfect. With all the serious crime in Fla, let's send the leo's out for a day on the water, at taxpayer expense, to hassle the oh so dangerous yachties. Yep, that's a great use of available resources. And of course they will have to raise taxes to pay for the officers and equipment necessary for keeping all these dangerous yachties in check. You gotta love Florida!

 

[DavyJ]

Last time I was there, Vinoy Basin contained a surprising number of what appeared to be derelict boats, considering the surroundings...

Gee, what a shocker, that a mooring field wound up taking their place

Thank you for your comments. They demonstrate exactly what local officials want you to think.

Because a derelict boat might anchor here, because an abandoned boat might anchor there, because someone might anchor too close to something. Let us eliminate all anchoring in this area. It's for your safety after all......

As they say, you've taken the bait, hook, line and sinker....

 

[Group9]

If derelict boats are the problem, then remove derelict boats.

See how simple that is.

But, it's not about that. And, pissing down our backs, and telling us it's raining, doesn't always work.

 

[SVAuspicious]

Seriously ??? "Half of the anchorages in use" WHERE, exactly?

Lots of places on the Southeast coast. Mike Ahart at the Waterway Guide has been keeping track and has some great graphics.

It is a problem, and could get worse.

So now the FMP and local leo's will be running around the anchorages with a yardstick measuring the 150'?

I don't know what FMP and the local's will use, but I carry a tennis ball, some pool chalk, and a bunch of light line (some tiny kevlar stuff I also use for hauling HF antennas up). I have this stuff from when I lived aboard in a slip with 75' stand-offs. If I could leave a blue mark on the hull of a boat they were too close. *grin* Tennis ball and a string works pretty well.

I know I can throw 75'. I'm not sure I can through 300'. I may need to add a potato gun. *grin*

 

[Minnewaska]

I would love to see the emotional argument, that navigable waters are free for all to use, cited in a legal reference.

As I understand it, the federal govt owns the water out to 12 miles. They gave all the State's the right to regulate their water out to 3 miles (which is why no-discharge areas are set there, not science). Some States then delegate that authority to local municipalities.

Restrictions already exist (ie NDZ laws). The argument should be for appropriate compromise.

 

[Group9]

I would love to see the emotional argument, that navigable waters are free for all to use, cited in a legal reference.

As I understand it, the federal govt owns the water out to 12 miles. They gave all the State's the right to regulate their water out to 3 miles (which is why no-discharge areas are set there, not science). Some States then delegate that authority to local municipalities.

Restrictions already exist (ie NDZ laws). The argument should be for appropriate compromise.

Not exactly. There is no doubt that navigable waters can be regulated. The issue is what are navigable waters and by whom may they be regulated.

This is the basic hornbook law on the subject: (with the cites you are looking for).

Navigable Waters

Waters that provide a channel for commerce and transportation of people and goods.

Under U.S. law, bodies of water are distinguished according to their use. The distinction is particularly important in the case of so-called navigable waters, which are used for business or transportation. Jurisdiction over navigable waters belongs to the federal government rather than states or municipalities. The federal government can determine how the waters are used, by whom, and under what conditions. It also has the power to alter the waters, such as by dredging or building dams. Generally a state or private property owner who is inconvenienced by such work has no remedy against the federal government unless state or private property itself is taken; if such property is taken, the laws of Eminent Domain would apply, which may lead to compensation for the landowner.

The basis for federal jurisdiction over navigable waters lies in the U.S. Constitution. Since the early nineteenth century, the U.S. Supreme Court has held that the Commerce Clause (Article 1, Section 8) gives the federal government extensive authority to regulate interstate commerce. This view originated in 1824 in the landmark case of gibbons v. ogden, 22 U.S. (9 Wheat.) 1, 6 L. Ed. 23. In Gibbons, the Court was faced with deciding whether to give precedence to a state or federal law for the licensing of vessels. It ruled that navigation of vessels in and out of the ports of the nation is a form of interstate commerce and thus federal law must take precedence. This decision led to the contemporary exercise of broad federal power over navigable waters, and in countless other areas of interstate commerce.

In practical terms federal regulation of navigable waters takes many forms. One area of this regulation covers matters of transportation and commerce: for example, rules governing the licensing of ships and the dumping of waste. A second area applies to the alteration of the navigable waters, which is strictly controlled by federal law. The Rivers and Harbors Appropriation Act of 1899 forbids building any unauthorized obstruction to the nation's navigable waters and gives enforcement powers to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. A third area of regulation involves Workers' Compensation claims. The concept of navigable waters is important in claims made under the Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act of 1988 (33 U.S.C.A. §§ 901-950). The act provides that employers are liable for injuries to sailors that occur upon navigable waters of the United States.

The vast body of federal regulation concerning navigable waters frequently gives rise to litigation, and in many cases the courts have the difficult job of determining whether particular bodies of water are navigable (and thus subject to the law or regulation in question). Lakes and rivers are generally considered navigable waters, but smaller bodies of water may also be navigable. Attempting to address years of problematic litigation, the U.S. Supreme Court in 1979 created four tests for determining what constitutes navigable waters. Established in Kaiser Aetna v. United States, 444 U.S. 164, 100 S. Ct. 383, 62 L. Ed. 2d 332, the tests ask whether the body of water (1) is subject to the ebb and flow of the tide, (2) connects with a continuous interstate waterway, (3) has navigable capacity, and (4) is actually navigable. Using these tests, courts have held that bodies of water much smaller than lakes and rivers also constitute navigable waters. Even shallow streams that are traversable only by canoe have met the test.

 

[JonEisberg]

Thank you for your comments. They demonstrate exactly what local officials want you to think.

Because a derelict boat might anchor here, because an abandoned boat might anchor there, because someone might anchor too close to something. Let us eliminate all anchoring in this area. It's for your safety after all......

As they say, you've taken the bait, hook, line and sinker....

No, not at all... I'm simply accepting the reality of the situation, and how things are done in Florida... Certainly, the derelict boat issue is often being used as the 'excuse' here, as a means to restrict anchoring. It serves no one's argument to try to deny that...

Another related issue in Florida is the proliferation of NO WAKE ZONES along the ICW... Not an issue for most of us here, but as one who often winds up running large, fast boats thru certain stretches of the Ditch, it is for me... Gets more annoying with each passing year, how much more my "freedom" to run as fast as I can past waterfront homes is being lost... )

Here's how it works... As soon as a previously undeveloped stretch of the ICW becomes developed, it becomes designated as a MANATEE ZONE... Apparently, manatees are strongly attracted to expensive real estate, and their migration patterns are influenced by new waterfront McMansion construction But, that's how such stretches become designated as NO WAKE ZONES, with all the ridiculous, convoluted speed restrictions that apply to Manatee Zones (30 MPH in Channel, 25 MPH at Night, for example)... Manatees are being used as the rationale for speed limits, just as derelicts are are re anchoring... Of course, they're not the REAL reason, we all know that...

Simply pointing out how this happens, doesn't mean I've fallen for it "hook, line & sinker"

 

[SVAuspicious]

I would love to see the emotional argument, that navigable waters are free for all to use, cited in a legal reference.

Some cool stuff above. There is also the Public Trust Doctrine but my understanding is that the courts support has been iffy.

As I understand it, the federal govt owns the water out to 12 miles. They gave all the State's the right to regulate their water out to 3 miles (which is why no-discharge areas are set there, not science). Some States then delegate that authority to local municipalities.

Nope. NDZ designation is a Federal matter.

On the other hand, where State and Federal authorities overlap my understanding is that the courts tend to rule with the State unless there is a clearly overriding Federal issue.

 

[Group9]

Some cool stuff above. There is also the Public Trust Doctrine but my understanding is that the courts support has been iffy.

Nope. NDZ designation is a Federal matter.

On the other hand, where State and Federal authorities overlap my understanding is that the courts tend to rule with the State unless there is a clearly overriding Federal issue.

Exactly. It's interesting that a lot of the waterfront land owners in favor of anchoring restrictions seem to be operating under the notion that it is the state or county that is regulating their building of piers on their property. It's not. That is regulated under the authority of the U.S. Corp of Engineers under the Rivers and Harbors Appropriation Act of 1899, Section 9 of this Act, Rivers and Harbors Appropriation Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 403; Chapter 425, March 3, 1899; 30 Stat. 1151), commonly known as the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899, which prohibits the construction of any bridge, dam, dike or causeway over or in navigable waterways of the U.S. without Congressional approval.

Administration of section 9 has been delegated to the Coast Guard. Structures authorized by State legislatures may be built if the affected navigable waters are totally within one State, provided that the plan is approved by the Chief of Engineers and the Secretary of Army (33 U.S.C. 401).

You see this kind of thing happen all the time without thinking about what is going on. When the State of Mississippi decided to build a non-opening bridge over Biloxi Bay, to replace the opening bridge destroyed by hurricane Katrina, they just arbitrarily decided they would make it 85 feet high.

Trinity Marine, which builds boats taller than than on the up side of that bridge, filed a protest with the Coast Guard, who enjoined the State from building the bridge at that height. In the end, it was redesigned and built with a clearance of 95 feet as authorized by the Coast Guard, but during the entire debate, the State of Mississippi was basically making the same arguments that the landowners are making in Florida; namely, that it was a state issue because the state had decided it was state issue.

 

[JonEisberg]

Lots of places on the Southeast coast. Mike Ahart at the Waterway Guide has been keeping track and has some great graphics.

It is a problem, and could get worse.

Again, just to be clear, I'm not IN FAVOR of a mandated 150' standoff... I'm simply arguing that if it comes to that eventually, I just don't see it being all that onerous a restriction throughout Florida - at least in the waters of the East coast with which I'm most familiar...

In trying to recall all the times I might have anchored within 150' of private property in FL over the years, I can only come up with 3...

Once in Lake Sylvia, when a strong W wind preceeding a frontal passage probably swung me within that distance of the docks on the E shore...

Another time in Miami Beach, where I usually anchor much farther out in the general vicinity of Monument Island... Again, with the passage of a very strong front, I tucked up into the corner afforded by the lee of the Venetian Causeway, and the first island to the west for a day or so...

Third, I sometimes anchor just inside Ft Pierce Inlet... There's a small little patch that lies outside of the strongest current just to the NE of the Pelican Yacht Club, close to the dock of a nice little pub/restaurant with an open wifi Not the most comfortable spot to be, and requires an anchor watch with each swing of the tide, but probably within about 150' of the shore... OK, I've anchored there a few times, so that ups my total number to more than 3... But if I simply went further to the west, a couple of hundred yards past the CG station, there's all kinds of room outside of the channel there, well away from shore... No wifi signal that I can pick up, however

The tightest spot I've anchored in recently, was last summer when I went up into the head of Lake Tashmoo on the Vineyard to ride out Hurricane Arthur. I was probably just about 150' from either shore there, but it sure felt a lot closer that night

Passing back thru there in September, I once again went into Tashmoo at the end of my passage back from Nova Scotia... I was pretty tired and was looking forward to a nice quiet night, so once again I headed for that spot...

When I got back in there, however, it just seemed too close to the beautiful home I'd anchored in front of during the storm... The conditions were benign, there was no need for me to be seeking that level of protection, and I simply felt I was an intruder in that situation, seemed like I was anchoring right in that guy's front yard... So, I moved back out to the middle of the lake, outside of the mooring field, and everything was fine...

I don't know, 150' is really not all that far... Twice the width of my lagoon, to be precise...

)

 

[Group9]

I'm not saying that anchoring restrictions are never warranted or a good idea.

I'm saying that it ought to be the marine professionals, the Coast Guard, not the "for sale to the highest bidder" local politicians, making those decisions. If for nothing else, for some uniformity and certainty (although I can certainly understand why those wanting and able to buy those politicians would want them to be the deciding authority).

Again, bridge heights are a good example. A lot of these communities could rid themselves of anchored vessels spoiling their view by just building really low bridges, or stringing steel cables across waterways like fences. Ask yourself, why aren't they allowed to do that?

There are practical as well as legal reasons.