Nanaimo Anchoring Fees !

[Brent Swain]

The Nananimo Port Authority is now taking applications for permission to anchor there , at a dollar a foot. At the moment it is only for stays of over 14 days, initially , but if unchallenged ,will soon apply to any anchoriing , setting a precedent for the rest of the BC coast. They are stating that they will invite themselves aboard any time they please, to check for compliance with holding tank laws, in violation of section 220 of the Canada shipping act and the Charter of rights.
They are currently cruising the anchorage thru the day with clipboards , taking notes, making the people anchored there feel like they are under constant surveillance.
A friend told me that the visitors dock , usually crammed with visiting boats, this time of year, is virtually empty. I wonder of the merchants, who make $millions per year off visiting boats, are getting a little upset yet.
Keep up the boycott, and save freedom to cruise in BC waters.
Brent

[Rex Delay]

Nanaimo port authority had little choice but to take this action. It is principally aimed at Mark Bay, Newcastle Island Marine Park as it has recently been invaded by a large fleet of derelict boats. Most of these boats show no lights and have made a very desireable anchorage useless to the visiting boater. If you know of a better way to eliminate the proliferation of derelicts taking over prime anchorages, let us know.

[dana-tenacity]

Sorry Rex, I'm with Brent, lots of ways to deal with that one without penalizing the rest of the world.

[Rex Delay]

There seems to some implication that they, the Nanaimo Port Authority, are levelling some sort of penalty or fee for anchoring. This is not the case. If you are a transient boat staying less than 14 days, no issue at all. If you are staying longer, the Port Authority will issue a permit if it is an occupied vessel in compliance with the colregs and local requirements(holding tanks). The area in question, last time I was out there, had about 100 derelict, unlit, unmanned vessels dominating an otherwise desireable anchorage. There is little room for those transient boats that spend money in Nanaimo to stay.

[GeoPowers]

yep, better crack down on them holding tank violaters!!!! Can you say "Victoria"?

[Rex Delay]

I think the main point here is that anchorages should be protected and available to cruising yachts. If you fill all the good anchorages with derelict junk, there will be no room for the cruiser. The boats in Nanaimo could not be given away so they will not pay for moorage. There needs to be a way to dispose of junk in an environmentally friendly way. I am sure the owners of these boats would be glad to be rid of them if there was a way such as an auto wrecker to sell or give them to. What do you do with a boat well beyond it's usefull life? The B.C. coast is littered by them.

[Maggie-K]

The Nanaimo port authority has no jurisdiction over anchoring it is a federal matter. I would suggest calling the coast guard to find if Nanaimo has been granted a variance giving them this authority. My guess is no. The Coast Guard does not want to start a precedent . The province of Ontario was sued over this matter in the past and it was struck down in Ontario Supream Court.
Pat's Boating in Canada: OBF court challenge 1997
BC parks tried to do the same thing and it was recinded when chalenged. That being said there is a problem with derilicts and private mooring balls eating up our best anchorages. I consider it a safety matter when safe harbors are filled with derilicts and mooring balls .

[Rex Delay]

I do not consider this issue to be one of a fee for anchoring, which I strongly oppose, but one of trying to get rid of the junk moored in a prime anchorage, which I strongly support. Been to Silva Bay lately? Also filling with junk. Countless others too.

[captain58sailin]

So why not hunt down the owners of the junk, send them a notice, if they don't remove it in say 30 days, then remove it for them and send them the bill for the cost, salvage the vessel if possible. There is tons of small hardware on any vessel that could be removed and resold to the cost conscious cruiser that is trying to refit their boats.

[Amgine]

It still comes down to a power grab by the city. They simply do not have legal jurisdiction, so far as I'm aware. It's akin to the city requiring cars to apply for a sticker to park anywhere in the city - an illegal tax, though they're welcome to place parking meters on streets where there's a legal justification.

I had not heard they were requiring all boats coming in to anchor there to apply for (and pay for) the right to anchor, only those who stayed beyond 14 days. Can anyone confirm the details of the current program?

[Rex Delay]

http://www.npa.ca/PandPmay72009.pdf

See section 10.3. It is designed to remove the "junk" boats.

[highseas]

There has been a "junk " boat anchored there a very long time,why is it still there?HAha! One man's junk is another man's jewel.

[Amgine]

Thanks Rex Delay for the link! that let me follow up on a number of questions and ascertain that, indeed, the Nanaimo Port Authority is acting outside it's legal authority. The authority they cite is Canada Marine Act, S.C. 1998, c. 10, paragraph 56(1)(b), which references Traffic control zones, specifically "for the purpose of promoting safe and efficient navigation or environmental protection in the waters of the port".

In addition to the fact this applies to the anchorage, rather than the traffic zones, there's paragraph 49(1)(c) which is the proper authority in this case (fees.) I suspect, however, they chose not to use that authority because para. 50 prevents exactly such discrimination as this set of procedures and rules cause.

On the other hand, it would seem para. 61 (1), as regards the order and safety, would be a perfect fit to support this. Except, of course, nothing in the CMA provides a support for creating a permitting protocol which is discriminatory in nature.

The only reason I can find for using 56(1)(b) as authority, in fact, is it allows the Port Authority to create officers to enforce the rules. In fact, it can sell certifications to do so.

And those officers would have authority to accuse and convict landowners as well as boatowners, without recourse to court. If you don't believe me, read 58(1) and 58(2).

[Rex Delay]

I am not a laywer and cannot be bothered to research "authorities". Most of these boats showed up after Vancouver forced them out of False Creek by some similar means. Nanaimo is just trying to preserve a good anchorage for transients rather than let the entire anchorage be filled with derelict boats which are a hazard to navigation. It would seem that existing maritime law would be sufficient to cover this but the colregs do not seem to be enforced by any federal authority (anchor lights, private moorings etc.) I am in agreement with the spirit of this move to regualte one of the best anchorages for supplies and other diversions in B.C. Have you tried to anchor in Tsehum Harbour in Sidney lately? Same problem.

[Maggie-K]

Rex I totally agree with you . I was told a few years ago by Coast Guard Anchored vessels and mooring balls deemed a hazard to navigation can be removed but no one knows who has the authority to do so or the financing and facilities . There is becoming a shortage of good safe anchorage anywhere on the south coast. Mooring balls are even a worse issue as vessels tied to them don't swing with the other boats at anchor. Almost all of them don't meet current CG requirements . The plethora of false mooring balls off the shore of private property to prevent anchoring is out of control.The existing regs are not enforced because there is nobody to do it, I don't believe this is the case in the USA where for instance in Gig Harbor there are almost no Mooring Balls. Here is a reply from CG in 2007

Thank you for your comments regarding private mooring buoys.
The placement of private buoys in coastal, and interior waters has grown
exponentially over the last few years. In the past placement of buoys was based
on voluntary compliance with the provisions of Private Buoy Regulations, and
subject to over-lapping jurisdictions. As a result these buoys went largely
unregulated.
This office is concerned primarily with the impact of these buoys on marine
navigation. If a buoy is found to be obstructing navigation, or otherwise not
in compliance with the Private Buoy Regulations the owner is contacted and
directed to correct the situation. Often this proves difficult as the buoy may
not display any contact information. In such cases the buoy may be removed.
Recently, this department has been confirmed as federal government's lead
agency for the administration and enforcement of the Private Buoy Regulations.
Accordingly, we will be conducting
field assessments in order to determine levels of compliance in relation to
existing buoys, and identifying areas where enforcement action may be required.
Any assistance that you can provide regarding over utilized sites would be
greatly appreciated.
Over the next few months we will be nvestigating such options as buoy
registration, public education and amendments to the existing regulations.
Again, thank you for bringing this importatnt issue to our attention.
Jim Naylor
Manager/Gestionnaire
Navigable Waters Protection/ Protection des eaux navigables
Transport Canada/Transports Canada