FLA Anchoring and Mooring Pilot Program Survey

[Gadagirl]

Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission - Boating in Florida

Here's a survey for what it might be worth. I am a little skeptical about the first question on the second page. Correct me if I'm wrong. Don't Federal guidelines, laws, and rules for waterways supersede state and local laws? Yet there's no option for federal laws in the question. Admittedly, I'm not totally up to speed on all of the new programs being enacted in FLA. I do hope to be a resident one day so I am becoming more concerned as to these new regulations.

[Snore]

Your question about state vs. federal comes back to an issue from a few years ago regarding "waters of the state". You may want to do a Google search of that term.


Sent from my iPhone- please forgive autocorrect errors.

[Gadagirl]

https://www.google.com/search?q=wate...utf-8&oe=utf-8

Under that search i turned up many drinking water regulations. I was more looking for federal water way rights for boat transit, anchoring rights, etc.

It's my opinion that land owners do not have rights on the use of the water adjoining their property. If they never wanted a boat anchored near their property than they should have done due diligence and realized that they don't own the the water or view. It's why draw bridges can stop cars; because waterway has the right of way. Why should they be able to extend their control beyond the boundary of their property line? Personally I think the idea ridiculous.

[DotDun]

Originally Posted by Gadagirl

https://www.google.com/search?q=wate...utf-8&oe=utf-8

Under that search i turned up many drinking water regulations. I was more looking for federal water way rights for boat transit, anchoring rights, etc.

It's my opinion that land owners do not have rights on the use of the water adjoining their property. If they never wanted a boat anchored near their property than they should have done due diligence and realized that they don't own the the water or view. It's why draw bridges can stop cars; because waterway has the right of way. Why should they be able to extend their control beyond the boundary of their property line? Personally I think the idea ridiculous.

IMO, it's good that your opinion doesn't match law. I control the water adjoining my property out to the limit of either local ordinance or USCG rules over which I build a dock/slip. My dock and slip are private property and, yes, they extend beyond the boundary of my dirt property.

[crabcake]

Originally Posted by DotDun

IMO, it's good that your opinion doesn't match law. I control the water adjoining my property out to the limit of either local ordinance or USCG rules over which I build a dock/slip. My dock and slip are private property and, yes, they extend beyond the boundary of my dirt property.

In essence for anchoring, just about all the inshore land under the waters of Florida are the property of the State of Florida. That goes out to, I believe, 3 nautical miles, then the Feds apply. As a homeowner, you have your riparian rights, which goes to either the high or low water mark, I have forgotten which one.

"Riparian rights are those incident to land bordering upon navigable waters. They are rights of ingress, egress, boating, bathing, and fishing and such others as may be or have been defined by law."

Then there are littoral rights for owners of beachfront property, and those are a unique subset.

However, the State of Florida, being the owner of the land under the waters is pretty much free to do what they want as far as limiting anchoring by passing the appropriate laws in Tallahassee.

And they have shown this, much to the consternation of many cruisers, especially in Miami Beach.

In essence, they can do what they want, and you are powerless to stop it - typical gubernment stuff.

[DotDun]

My point is that water front property owners are granted what amounts to a submerged land lease for the water that abuts their property. Any structure they build on the submerged land is private property. Along with that, they are granted access from the water to that structure, hence, it is illegal to anchor in a manner that is blocking access to their dock. Beyond that, anchor as you wish (unless other ordinances apply).

[FSMike]

1) Some property owners actually have title to the submerged land in front of their house.
2) The state can pass whatever laws they please until the feds say they can't. The Federal government has final say so over navigable waterways.

[Seighlor]

The survey is a tedious exercise. It appears to me that the computers that have been set up to record ones answers are not up to the task. The delays from the input on one question to the next are onerous.

[Kita]

These laws have recently been changing,there was a time that each community had there own rules but then that changed to a federal law saying that they can't do that..& that you had a certain amount of time as long as you were not in the way of navigation, ...then there was another adjustment for certain areas that I really don't know much about. But I believe it says something about a time limit,so what happens is you stop in a hot spot like Miami Beach and then you have the Coast Guard checking you consistently to make sure that you comply but I believe all you really need to do it's just up anchor and move over a couple hundred yards then anchor again..then the coasties will just mess with you again till you get tired of it....bottom line-- laws changed not long ago do the research, call marine patrol & get it straight from the horse's mouth!

[Kita]

Originally Posted by DotDun

IMO, it's good that your opinion doesn't match law. I control the water adjoining my property out to the limit of either local ordinance or USCG rules over which I build a dock/slip. My dock and slip are private property and, yes, they extend beyond the boundary of my dirt property.

I am a waterfront owner myself, someone can pull up on a boat right next to the shore & stop & fish.as long as they are floating they are good,they can't get out of the boat & wade fish but nothing you can do if they are floating unless somehow they are stopping you from getting to your dock.even if your property line runs out into the water as mine does they still have the right because they are floating I don't have the exact quote but the law says something about wet foot or dry. Bottom line if they're floating ain't nothing you can do about it pal sometimes that's a pain but that's the way the law is in Florida look into it

[DotDun]

Originally Posted by Kita

I am a waterfront owner myself, someone can pull up on a boat right next to the shore & stop & fish.as long as they are floating they are good,they can't get out of the boat & wade fish but nothing you can do if they are floating unless somehow they are stopping you from getting to your dock.even if your property line runs out into the water as mine does they still have the right because they are floating I don't have the exact quote but the law says something about wet foot or dry. Bottom line if they're floating ain't nothing you can do about it pal sometimes that's a pain but that's the way the law is in Florida look into it

Yes, please look into it, I already have.

I never stated someone can't "float". I stated that the structure I build on the submerged land is private property. That means no one can use it without my permission, which includes touching it, tying up to it, and also includes not blocking access to my dock from the water.

If I chose to not build a structure, then yes, someone can 'float' up to the property line.

[Captain Bill]

Originally Posted by DotDun

IMO, it's good that your opinion doesn't match law. I control the water adjoining my property out to the limit of either local ordinance or USCG rules over which I build a dock/slip. My dock and slip are private property and, yes, they extend beyond the boundary of my dirt property.

Actually you don't control the water, you have certain riparian rights to the use of state waters and bottom with permission of the state. You did get the proper permits and approvals from the USCG, state DEP, etc before you built your dock didn't you? The dock may indeed be private property, but the water isn't. Even the water under the dock isn't. That being said, it is possible that you have an old deed that does include ownership of the bottom below Mean High Water. These were issued before the modern law where the state claimed ownership of submerged lands.

Interestingly riparian rights in Florida do give you the right to an unobstructed view. The problem is that an unobstructed view was never defined. This has been interpreted to mean that you can trim plants along the water to allow you to see the water. This is the interpretation used to give riparian rights holders the right to trim mangroves to six feet high where it is a crime to cut mangroves anywhere else. It has never been interpreted to exclude others from entering ones view. I, for instance find large condo's and office buildings to be an eyesore and to obstruct my view. This does not give me the right to demand these buildings be torn down if they are in my line of sight from my waterfront property.

Even if Florida anchoring laws restrict the anchoring rights of vessels near your waterfront property, it will still be the state/county that has the right to enforce these laws. You won't have the right to get out your gun and run them off for trespassing on your property.

[tomfl]

The most general concept of federal > state > local is true, with the caveat that locals can pass laws as long as they don't conflict with state or federal laws. One of the most common examples of this is no wake laws. In Florida the same goes for the slow down for manatees areas. Locals have almost unlimited power in regulating where one can land, as those wishing to dock their tenders in Miami Beach found out.

What is being missed in a lot of discussion about this topic is that while the land is owned by the state (with some exceptions) control of the land is being ceded to local governments. And this control is only being ceded in limited areas, all of which are very over crowded. Therein lies the problem. While I understand many boaters feel Florida is becoming boater unfriendly the locals in these crowded areas are boater unfriendly because of the crowds. Proposing a boycott means fewer boats in crowded areas; just what the locals want.

Bottom line is there are too many boats in Florida, with the result that the government is making efforts to reduce the number.

[Captndave1]

I have responded to the survey with comments to the effect that the fed is supposed to control these waters. The states have no jurisdiction even though they try to gain control because the rich homeowners don't want to see boats in their front views. I go along with controlling derelicts, but the fed should be in control, not the state.

[DotDun]

Originally Posted by Captain Bill

Actually you don't control the water, you have certain riparian rights to the use of state waters and bottom with permission of the state. You did get the proper permits and approvals from the USCG, state DEP, etc before you built your dock didn't you? The dock may indeed be private property, but the water isn't. Even the water under the dock isn't. That being said, it is possible that you have an old deed that does include ownership of the bottom below Mean High Water. These were issued before the modern law where the state claimed ownership of submerged lands.

I do not own the bottom, the state of Florida owns it.

It would be quite difficult to use the water under my dock without 'touching' structure. But if you do, feel free to clean the barnacles off the pilings! As far as being under my boat, hmm, I would like to think FWC would stop that from happening.

Originally Posted by Captain Bill

Interestingly riparian rights in Florida do give you the right to an unobstructed view. The problem is that an unobstructed view was never defined. This has been interpreted to mean that you can trim plants along the water to allow you to see the water. This is the interpretation used to give riparian rights holders the right to trim mangroves to six feet high where it is a crime to cut mangroves anywhere else. It has never been interpreted to exclude others from entering ones view. I, for instance find large condo's and office buildings to be an eyesore and to obstruct my view. This does not give me the right to demand these buildings be torn down if they are in my line of sight from my waterfront property.

How can a condo/office build on your waterfront property between you and the water?

Originally Posted by Captain Bill

Even if Florida anchoring laws restrict the anchoring rights of vessels near your waterfront property, it will still be the state/county that has the right to enforce these laws. You won't have the right to get out your gun and run them off for trespassing on your property.

I normally don't desire to play law enforcement officer.

I'm confused by your strawman.... "vessels near your waterfront property" and "trespassing on your property" Which is it?