Death of an Anchorage

[wingssail]

Originally Posted by quackedo

States and Municipalities can have all the meetings and write all the laws they want, but, Jurisdiction over Navigable Waterways belongs solely to the Federal Government. Florida has already been taught that lesson.

I'm really happy to see this stated by you so definitively because it was always something I believe is true based on the Commerce clause of the US Constitution but I could not substantiate that court cases against state or municipalities have been won on that basis.

Can you cite court cases in Florida or elsewhere where local laws restricting use of navigable waterways have been struck down?

[motion30]

I have a friend who is currently anchored in Tampa Bay at Fort Myers the local police have been by two or three times to tell him to move on. he has a copy of the law and the friend who is a retired lawyer. It will be interesting to see what happens

[senormechanico]

Originally Posted by hpeer

This isn’t just a problem with boats but all kinds of things, as has been noted above.

One way to address this is to essentially put a deposit in the item be it can, bottle. Washing machine, TV, or boat. So that just like a soda bottle deposit, the cost of disposal is paid for at purchase. Then when the bottle is returned you get your money back. That outs some munimum value on the item. Say $100 for a TV, $200 for a washer or dryer. If someone dumps it on the side of the road then someone else in need of money will pick it up.

For a boat make it some percent of the new purchase price. For argument let’s say it is 5%. A $200k boat would have a $10k refund attached. That’s enough “intrinsic value” for the item to be retrieved. If the state has to do the retrieval then the state gets the $10k.

Of course the problem is hownto initially fund the program. That would likely have to come from the general fund. And this would take some long term planning, the program would not be self supporting for a long time. Eventually it would be.

Getting such a program passed would be very tough. We are much more interested in blame than sollutions.

That is a good idea but unfortunately, the fund money which would be built up would probably be raided by the government just like what happened to the USA Social Security fund back in the '60's. They "borrowed" the money and it got replaced by IOU's. That is why the SS fund is in such trouble now.

[senormechanico]

Originally Posted by quackedo

States and Municipalities can have all the meetings and write all the laws they want, but, Jurisdiction over Navigable Waterways belongs solely to the Federal Government. Florida has already been taught that lesson.
In any event, how do you determine if a sailboat has propulsion. Does it have a sail?
I once asked a Federal Agent why Municipalities aren't allowed to govern the Waterways.. His answer was "Because they have no experience doing it and end up writing laws that are ridiculous and usually harmful to the spirit of US Navigable Waters." These meetings seem to reinforce his point.
Again, if the laws already on the books regarding unregistered boats were enforced and these derelict or sunken boats were impounded. They would be automatically removed from our anchorages.
Writing more laws that will only be enforced on and further restrict regular Cruisers is another colossal socialist mistake.

If you are right (and I hope you are) about the Federal Government having sole control of navigable waterways, does that mean that the Washington State Dept of Ecology can't shove the Salish Sea NDZ law down our throats?

[Kolchac]

Originally Posted by Viking Sailor

My son and grandson live near a small harbor where anchoring is allowed. There is no other place to anchor within 20 miles of them. Thus, according to your rules, if I wanted to spend a couple of months at anchor visiting them, I couldn't.

20 miles is not a big distance to drive for your son. But if you are exhausted and try to get breath overnight – it is a different story. It is not fair when 10 – 20 people occupy an area, which does not belong to them, instead of 100-200 people, who must look somewhere else to just take some nap after several days of hard work.

[sailorboy1]

Doesn’t it seem that anchoring rules are only unfair if they inconvenience “you”

[CFS Klopas]

Originally Posted by senormechanico

If you are right (and I hope you are) about the Federal Government having sole control of navigable waterways, does that mean that the Washington State Dept of Ecology can't shove the Salish Sea NDZ law down our throats?

Maybe. Looks like to get an NDZ, the locals have to prove to the feds that the area needs more than normal level of protection. They're not picky, the State of Michigan got an NDZ for the entire state. https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/40/1700.9

[senormechanico]

According to #5 in your link, the armed forces can poop at will in a NDZ.
I admire the military, but with their budget I would think if an NDZ was indeed a good idea for the Salish Sea (which I don't) they could put in a holding tank, or at least an ElectroScan.

[CaptTom]

Originally Posted by CFS Klopas

Maybe. Looks like to get an NDZ, the locals have to prove to the feds that the area needs more than normal level of protection. They're not picky, the State of Michigan got an NDZ for the entire state. https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/40/1700.9

Yeah, they're all doing it. They also have to prove that there are sufficient pump-out stations. But nobody ever verifies that those stations really exist, that they work, and that they're maintained and available to the public.

Many states have heavily subsidized or outright paid for pump-out stations to be installed, just to get the NDZ designation. After that, they never give any money for maintenance or operation, so the equipment sits in the far corner of the marina, unused. But it still counts!

Go to any state-produced list of pump-out stations and see how many are actually available for use.

No, I don't trust states to deal with anchorages or mooring fields any more than NDZs. Cruisers are not the constituency they work for.

[rsn48]

So I thought I'd make myself really unpopular here, but to me the only solution is to slap a tax on boats bought, all boats larger than lets say 23 feet. This tax would go to derelict boat removal.

In greater Vancouver, Sewell's marina to be precise, I sold my boat for a dollar and I was ever so happy and felt I had ripped the guy off. You see it was a semi-derelict boat, it had issues that I threw thousands of dollars to fix with no good result. I knew the correct thing to do was get rid of it. The solution had I paid for it was either to have it boat towed to an area in Richmond (greater Vancouver) to be put out of its misery, or have it trailered to the same area then pay to have it broken down. As you can imagine, I'm talking a number of thousand dollars. I asked them if they'd like to use my phone.

And just as I was resigned to my fate, a guy much like the guy posting in the above, hoping to score something for free, phoned and asked if I'd sell the boat for $1, I couldn't drive there fast enough.

My philosophy is simple, if you have a law but don't have police, then you don't have a law. You can make any policy, rule, law but without enforcement, its not worth the paper its printed on.

And in Canada, specifically BC, the ocean is owned by the Federal government. The Federal government gives permission to the BC provincial government to manage it. So if I moored in front of some guys home and he told me to leave, I'd tell him by what authority.

Occasionally, living in Deep Cove and Dollarton area in Greater Vancouver, I would take my dog for a walk along a beach where home owners were allowed to own jetties, this was best done at low tide. This meant I had to walk under their jetties. Every once in a blue moon, one of the home owners would come out and tell me to leave, and I'd say - "by what authority." I'd tell them the Federal government owns the oceans and intertidal area and I was walking on intertidal sand. I told them to go call the RCMP or Coast Guard on me, and get back to me to so I could know how it went. I offered to let them use my phone.

[wingssail]

Originally Posted by senormechanico

That is a good idea but unfortunately, the fund money which would be built up would probably be raided by the government just like what happened to the USA Social Security fund back in the '60's. They "borrowed" the money and it got replaced by IOU's. That is why the SS fund is in such trouble now.

You are quite wrong about this (S.S. issue). You can read it for yourself, but the law establishing the SS system requires the excess proceeds to be invested largely in US treasury bonds. Yes these are in effect loans to the US government, but they earn interest, and are repaid when the bonds mature. So no money is lost. What would you have the S.S. Admin do put it under mattresses? The SS fund is not yet in trouble but will be, because the demographics have changed and the rate of taxation will nor keep up with the withdrawals.

[wingssail]

Originally Posted by rsn48

So I thought I'd make myself really unpopular here, but to me the only solution is to slap a tax on boats bought, all boats larger than lets say 23 feet. This tax would go to derelict boat removal.

That tax might be pretty high, and there would be issues about interstate travel and etc.

I'd rather see states or municipalities get authorized but the feds to manage the waterways near their jurisdiction and start issuing permits to anchor. Yes you need an office and a person. So make the permit cost enough to offset the administrative costs, no more.

To get a permit you need, among other things, to show you are financially responsible for your boat. Liability insurance or a bond would be a good start. Acknowledging the rules of the anchorage would also be required. The permit would be hung on a lifeline. The local water police would patrol and ticket (and ultimately seize) boats without permits.

OK, it's another governmental intrusion and bureaucracy but frankly I'm tired of derelict boats and absent owners who take no responsibility. It often falls on someone else to clean up the mess.

[CaptTom]

Originally Posted by wingssail

I'd rather see states or municipalities get authorized but the feds to manage the waterways near their jurisdiction and start issuing permits to anchor. Yes you need an office and a person. So make the permit cost enough to offset the administrative costs, no more.

I wouldn't have a problem with that, if it could be enforced.

My fear is that, once the governments see that all those rich boaters are getting their permits for a pittance, while so many worthy municipal and state programs remain underfunded, the pressure to crank up the fees would be irresistible.

How do you enforce some level of fiscal responsibility, without making boating a sport exclusively for the wealthy?

The best answer I could come up with, and it's unlikely to happen, is to set limits to distinguish anchoring as part of the right of navigation, from anchoring as a gypsy homeless camp. Then enforce those limits.

[wingssail]

Originally Posted by CaptTom

How do you enforce some level of fiscal responsibility, without making boating a sport exclusively for the wealthy?

The best answer I could come up with, and it's unlikely to happen, is to set limits to distinguish anchoring as part of the right of navigation, from anchoring as a gypsy homeless camp. Then enforce those limits.

However you manage the problem with regulations, permits, etc, you are stuck how to enforce it. A marine police boat cruising through the anchorage occasionally could do it but a police boat is not cheap, nor trained operators/police officers, so many small municipalities or counties might not be willing to fund such a patrol.

That's why it is easier to just eliminate the anchorage, and therefore why the rights for the use of navigable waterways needs federal protection, which by law, they already do, although often this fact is often ignored by local authorities.

So legal research is needed to determine what limitations to local usurpation actually exist based on the constitution and federal law and how to roll them back when they have been over extended.

In the end municipalities, counties, and states will have to step up and clean up anchorages without infringing on the rights based on the federal laws.

This will be a long haul.

[motion30]

the problem here is you have a handful of dump a boards I'd have no means to support themselves or fix their boats. The local Waterfront homeowners are screaming and the local law enforcement agent although a very nice guy it's not enforcing what laws we do have