State and local rules in conflict with colregs

[JohnHutchins]

Originally Posted by jmschmidt

State waters, if you are talking about lakes within the boundaries of a state are not considered the navigable waters of the United States, therefor ColRegs do not apply. They only apply to certain lakes like the Great Lakes and certain large rivers where nav aids are installed and maintained by the US Coast Guard or the US Army Corps of Engineers and where the USCG has jurisdiction.

If you are unsure, if there are no USCG or Army Corps installed and maintained nav aides then local and/or state rules, if any, may apply. Be advised, even if ColRegs don't technically apply, a court of law may entertain the application of such rules in its deliberations, the idea being everyone on the water should know basic seamanship.

It's not really true that lakes within the boundaries of a state are not inland waters of the United States. They might be but then again they may not and it's not necessarily possible to tell from observable features since historic or potential use may be relevant There is a definition iin 33 CFR 329 but even that isn't of ironclad reliability. This is why if you are really determined to know it's better to talk to a local lawyer.

[NevisDog]

Thanks for the explanatory diagram, Jammer.

Yes those local rules have to be read through several times to notice the all-important difference from standard COLREGs - how stupidly confusing for some City Hall moron to re-write perfectly clear rules and stand them on their head for sailboats!

[hellosailor]

John-
IIRC last time I heard it, the question is not "inland" waters but "navigable" waters. If you can take a canoe or raft from anyplace to the ocean, or vice versa, that's navigable waters and the federal rules apply. Which does not in any way prevent the states from applying additional *non*conflicting rules. (i.e. additionally mandating more life preservers, or that more youths have to wear them, or a BWI blood alcohol limit, or licensing rules, etc.)

I suppose by that definition, large parts of the NYC sewer system would qualify as under federal regulation, too.(G)

[Jammer]

There is little question that the Mississippi is navigable waters most the way to its headwaters. There is ongoing interstate commercial traffic at least as far as the confluence with the Minnesota River, and there has historically been commercial traffic much farther up, with regular steamboat service as far as Ft. Ripley and logs being floated down from near the headwaters. The Corps of Engineers operates a dam where Big Sandy Reservoir dumps into the Mississippi, a few hundred miles upstream of Minneapolis. The lock is still there but has been closed to navigation for decades. There's a portage.


There are people who take a canoe from the headwaters to the Gulf. The headwaters are unremarkable to look at, just another stream going through the woods with culverts where roads cross it.


Anyway, I was in part of the Mississippi last weekend where I had my bow in Minneapolis and Hennepin County, stern in St. Paul and Ramsey county, and with those four plus the state and the federal government, six entities that could claim jurisdiction. Fortunately there was no other traffic.

[JohnHutchins]

Originally Posted by hellosailor

John-
IIRC last time I heard it, the question is not "inland" waters but "navigable" waters. If you can take a canoe or raft from anyplace to the ocean, or vice versa, that's navigable waters and the federal rules apply. Which does not in any way prevent the states from applying additional *non*conflicting rules. (i.e. additionally mandating more life preservers, or that more youths have to wear them, or a BWI blood alcohol limit, or licensing rules, etc.)

I suppose by that definition, large parts of the NYC sewer system would qualify as under federal regulation, too.(G)

It USED to be the case that state and local governments could make non-conflicting regulations but that changed recently (2014 I think) when the coast guard promulgated new regulations (33 CFR 329) entirely preempting state and local laws where the colregs apply.

And by their own terms, the colregs apply to the "inland waters of the United States" but that is defined as navigable waters shoreward of the demarcation lines so it's a distinction without a difference. But navigability doesn't mean actual navigability at a particular time and also doesn't mean connected to the ocean since interstate commerce is as relevant as international commerce.

Here's the primary definition though there is additional clarifying/modifying language in other parts:

"Navigable waters of the United States are those waters that are subject to the ebb and flow of the tide and/or are presently used, or have been used in the past, or may be susceptible for use to transport interstate or foreign commerce. A determination of navigability, once made, applies laterally over the entire surface of the waterbody, and is not extinguished by later actions or events which impede or destroy navigable capacity."

Which means, that some pond or brook that once had a ferry on it, now gone, that served a road once used in interstate commerce stands a chance of being navigable. Which may sound silly but there are definitely bitter state/federal fights over navigability.

[Jammer]

Here's a list of the water in my area (Minnesota) that the ACOE considers navigable. It includes quite a few ditches and mud puddles.


http://www.mvp.usace.army.mil/Portal...nav_waters.pdf