Florida Mooring and Anchoring Pilot Program Survey

[denverd0n]

Originally Posted by sailorboy1

There are already lots of places in other states that the local govt etc have banned anchoring...

Yes, there are. But my understanding is that this is the first time anyone has taken a case like this to federal court. Hence, while they may lose, it is still an interesting development and will at least clarify the issue.

[sailorboy1]

Is there really a Federal law that says the States don't have the right to restrict passage in navigable waters? And is there a federal definition of "navigable waters" because I don't really feel a mooring field in a harbor restricts navigation as long as there is a channel if one applies to the location?

I don't know the answers, but in my years of reading threads about this "issue" I have never seen answers to these. Near as I can tell the things that everyone is complaining about down in FL have been common practice up North for a long time.

I believe the FL issue is purely based on one of their own State laws and has nothing to do with the Federal Gov't.

[hellosailor]

"Is there really a Federal law that says the States don't have the right to restrict passage in navigable waters? And is there a federal definition of "navigable waters""

Ah, yeah, that and lots more and don't take it personally if I say "Do your homework" it is SO easy to find all the federal statutes online these days, and draw your own conclusions instead of trusting some dog on the internet. (Woof!)

I had to do it the old fashioned way because in the NY/NE area there is LOTS of privately owned bottom land. Hell, there's even a fairly large privately owned island with a Crown Deed from England that predates the revolution and gets even more complicated. Beach access laws, public rights of way, federally navigable waters, oh, and if you want a good laugh, by order of the USSC NY's Long Island was declared to be a peninsula, not an island, because there are so many permanently fixed connections to the mainland now.

Those parts of the United States that predate the current Federal Republic, and predate the first Confederation of the United States (not to be confused with the Confederacy) have longer histories of prior law and ownerships which often are not modified by newer federal policies. Those forlorn and godless places we acquired as war prizes (like Puerto Rico) or voluntary union (like California and Texas) or bought (like the Louisiana Purchase) all come with their own baggage and the former Spanish lands sometimes have very alien backgrounds, compared to the "English" colonies that started the nation.

Florida? Well, as the newest RC ArchBishop said in his welcoming speech after his appointment, he was delighted to be appointed to a diocese that was SO close to the continental United States. (The highly Cubano expat crowd loved it.)

So yeah, plenty of laws. Plenty of old laws. Not much new to be found about them, but in America, anyone can pay the filing fee and bring a case before a court. Sometimes, the courts even throw out the old law and say "in the interest of public policy" they are throwing it out and reversing it. Florida? Doesn't seem like there's any federal conflict, to me. Just a cities-vs-state uniform laws issue, a local matter that the good ole boys and the moneyed sect have gotten upset about.

But then again, last time I played an admiralty lawyer on TV, we only lasted a half season, so what do I know about it?

Go, do homework, it can be fun to explore.

[sailorboy1]

I have no reason to do "research" on a Florida law! So that was a lot of wasted trashing.

[tomfl]

Originally Posted by hellosailor

SNIP

But then again, last time I played an admiralty lawyer on TV, we only lasted a half season, so what do I know about it?

Go, do homework, it can be fun to explore.

That is the nice thing about the internet, anyone can play a lawyer, even a real lawyer.

Anyone who cut class the day they taught 1YL might want to start their homework by checking out the

Rivers and Harbors Appropriation Act of 1899

[Blue Crab]

Is there an app for that?

[tamicatana]

BoatUS on Florida anchoring laws, including a definition of 'live-aboard':

http://www.boatus.com/Assets/www.boa...nformation.pdf

sorry if it's been posted

[EveningBreeze]

Lake Champlain is considered a "navigable body of water" because it connects to the St. Lawrence and the Hudson, and so could conceivably have civil defense applications. As a result, lakefront property owners are forbidden by federal law to build permanent docks. I just mention this to illustrate that the federal government is indeed involved in these issues.

[hellosailor]

It isn't quite that simple. Case in point, private owners can and have built docks big enough to berth an ocean liner in the navigable waters of the Hudson River. Among the differences are that they are building these inside of "the bulkhead line" as clearly delineated in charts. That's considered private property, including private bottom rights, despite being adjacent to public waters. Florida's anchoring and mooring laws are concerned with obstructions [sic] and navigation in the pubic waters themselves.
Something similar to the difference between a flock of chickens, and chicken soup.

[Boatguy30]

I have been doing some work on this lately and encouraging all that live in FL to call their state reps.

I have no idea now much specific pressure lawmakers are feeling on this issue, but my guess is they choose to punt on it and the old law goes back in force. This allows anchoring everywhere except within mooring fields. No fake protected areas or too close to channels or whatever.

I have further suggested to my rep that I personally would prefer mandatory watercraft insurance as opposed to more restrictive anchoring laws. This may not be popular with some, but I believe a better long term solution to satisfy the demand of waterfront owners, keep our freedoms and help reduce the number of derelict boats on the waterways.

[BandB]

Ok, a harsh reality. Those who think you should be able to do anything you want on any water you want are going to lose. Those who think they should have the right to restrict anything they want based on their personal wishes and keep everything to themselves are going to lose.

So, it behooves both sides to try to work together to find solutions. There are legitimate issues and views from many perspectives. There are derelict abandoned boats that no one has the authority in some places to remove and are a hazard to other boaters in addition to being an eyesore for both landowners and boaters. There are those with homes on the water who want to pass regulations to keep anyone from ever anchoring within their view. If all people were reasonable we'd need no laws. But all aren't.

To those who want the freedom to anchor, the abusers of that freedom are your worst enemies, far more than the landowners or governments because they are the ones who make people want restrictions. To those who want to restrict anchoring, those who want no anchoring and try to eliminate everything are your worst enemies because their unreasonableness may prevent anything being accomplished.

I state this as someone who has no personal stake because I've never personally had a problem anchoring or with someone anchoring near my home. But I do see the need for some clarity.

[Sondor]

Originally Posted by Boatguy30

I have further suggested to my rep that I personally would prefer mandatory watercraft insurance as opposed to more restrictive anchoring laws. This may not be popular with some, but I believe a better long term solution to satisfy the demand of waterfront owners, keep our freedoms and help reduce the number of derelict boats on the waterways.

As much as it pains me to agree with further potential mandates or regulations, damn if that's not the sensible lesser of two evils...

[forsailbyowner]

[QUOTE=Boatguy30;

I have further suggested to my rep that I personally would prefer mandatory watercraft insurance]

You have just become a pariah to me. I paid auto insurance mandatory for 30 years without a claim. When I had health insurance my credit was damaged because claims were not paid that should have been. Once this in place it is forever. Incrementally our freedoms are being lost and you are partof the reason. What comes after mandatory insurance is Insurance companies constantly lobbying for more laws that will make their bottom line look better. I can see in 10 years you sitting in your boat with seatbelt on wearing a helmet and life preserver.

[Boatguy30]

Well if you want future anchoring in Florida, a price will have to be paid.

I can purchase liability insurance for my boat for under $200 a year. 6 months on transient moorings would cost around $3600 if paying by the night.

In 10 years I can foresee all towns installing and forcing the use of moorings if this thing goes the wrong way.

[Boatguy30]

And quick clarification, I am only proposing insurance as a last resort.