New cruising restrictions in Georgia (USA)

[a64pilot]

OK, all posts about abortion and or other political ones have been removed. Please don’t go there, it will at least just be removed and your time wasted.

[Captain Puget]

Seems to infringe on federal rights and international maritime law.

As far as the boat squatters / law breaker issues in the NW (and elsewhere) - there are laws available to solve the problem, they just need to be enforced.

[Huey2]

Michigan Sea Grant helps marinas install pump out stations limiting the charge to $5 per pump out. Many are automatic with $5 bill readers. If they made the marinas do the paper work as in Georgia they would close the pump out stations because of the labor costs. The Great Lakes states seem to have a better solution with either free or cheap pump out stations. This law will hurt marine related business as well as small towns that depend on the boaters.

[a64pilot]

Originally Posted by Frank999

Just curious. After they establish their anchorage areas, I am cruising along, and the first one I come to is full, and the second one, and I am so tired that it's not safe for me to continue, am I required to continue underway UNSAFELY, or am I allowed to anchor outside an anchorage area to AVOID NAVIGATING UNSAFELY?

Odds are I bet that as long as you didn’t in front of someone’s house I bet you will get away with it.
In fact I bet we will find that this new law will be very differently enforced depending on where you anchored. Some areas I suspect the law will be on you before the anchor sets

Ga has a long history of being anti cruiser or anti live board, I had hope that had changed, but apparently it has resurfaced with a vengeance.
Previously cruisers were caught up in the law, it wasn’t specifically targeted towards them, but this one seem to be a it seems specifically targeted towards the coast in general and of course the ICW.

[a64pilot]

Originally Posted by Huey2

Michigan Sea Grant helps marinas install pump out stations limiting the charge to $5 per pump out. Many are automatic with $5 bill readers. If they made the marinas do the paper work as in Georgia they would close the pump out stations because of the labor costs. The Great Lakes states seem to have a better solution with either free or cheap pump out stations. This law will hurt marine related business as well as small towns that depend on the boaters.

The reason stated and the excuse is waste discharge, as a long time Ga resident, I can assure you that has nothing to do with it. (in my opinion)
If waste discharge was the concern, that starts with water quality studies that you have done so your complaint has teeth, I don’t believe that was done here.
It’s all about I don’t want those boats in my backyard spoiling the view, and you know those people are up to something, cooking meth or lord only knows what, we don’t want that in our neighborhood.
We don’t let them set up trashy RV parks alongside of the road, why do we let them in our backyards?

[Zil]

I'm with dooglas and boat driver. I think it is about protecting the environment. don't anchor in sensitive area, don't **** in the water. unfortunate that such regulations are needed. it will soon be in every state.

[AA3JY]

Originally Posted by a64pilot

I went to the contact page of Brunswick Landing Marina and sent them a message this morning. I told them that we had stayed there for months for a couple of different years (all true) and that we loved the place, but with the new laws coming into effect that I was afraid to travel through Ga’s waters, and unless that is solved we were going to have to stay away.
I’m sure I’m not alone, and that I’m afraid this may severely hurt Michales business at the Marina as many are concerned enough to bypass Ga, like we used to in the past.

For those that don’t know Michael Torres owns the Marina, I believe it was a gift from his very wealthy Grandfather that I think made some of his money from developing St. Simons and other islands. I don’t know which ones, but the bridge to one of them is named after him etc.

Anyway he has to be very well connected with the Government and I hope he doesn’t want to see his gift to his Grandson go under or lose money.
I figure it couldn’t hurt.

I know Michael watches Social Media and I assume those messages very closely.
Read some of the Active Capt reviews, he jumps right on negative reviews.

This new legislation will be the ammunition that BLM will now be used to prevent anchoring in the river adjacent to that marina.. See Active Captains comments for Brunswick River Harbor. Wouldn’t be surprised that this area will be one of the designated restricted anchoring areas..

[a64pilot]

I don’t know why anyone would want to anchor next to the Marina, there is no shore access and it’s down the end of a dead end creek, with no outlet.
I’ve stayed there a few times for months each time, in the Marina, there was very, very little anchoring done there, sometimes a shrimping boat Careening on the tide to do some bottom work or other Commercial boats of then one kind of barge or another, but almost never a pleasure boat, and they few that did were transient.
I don’t think Michael the Marina owner really cared as there just wasn’t any anchoring there.
Now if there had been, then I’m sure that would be a different story.

[a64pilot]

Originally Posted by Zil

I'm with dooglas and boat driver. I think it is about protecting the environment. don't anchor in sensitive area, don't **** in the water. unfortunate that such regulations are needed. it will soon be in every state.

Curious, how does restricting where people can anchor keep them from discharging?
There have been laws prohibiting discharge for a long time, if that were the issue, then they would be enforced. Stop boats, inspect, use the dye tabs etc. Never seen it done in Ga though.

Besides if the concern is discharge, have the water tested for fecal bacteria, I believe it’s a very easy, inexpensive test, not rocket science at all

[GordMay]

FWIW: Kathy Bohanan Enzerink (published in “All At Sea”) certainly has a different (from the majority opinion expressed on CF) view of the new law.
"Georgia Welcomes Liveaboard Boaters (with permit)" ➥ https://www.allatsea.net/georgia-wel...oaters-permit/

[Daniel Grant]

This is a copy of the notice. They are having a comment period which closes on June 15. Meeting for those concerned will be at the DNR office in Brunswick Office. There is a write in and email period for comments until the 15th. Please everyone email their comments before the deadline. They need to hear the comments of all those using Georgia waters. It is all in this DNR Post.

NOTICE OF PROPOSED REGULATION CHANGES
TO: All Interested Persons and Parties
FROM: Doug Haymans​
SUBJECT: Notice of Rule Making for Coastal Marshland Protection and Boating Regulations
Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to authority set forth below, the Georgia Department of Natural Resources proposes an amendment to the Rules of Georgia Department of Natural Resources Coastal Resources Division, Chapter 391-2-3, Coastal Marshlands Protection Regulations and Wildlife Resources Division, Chapter 391-4-5, Boating Regulations. This is a notice of proposed amendments to the rules to reflect the deliberations of the Coastal Committee of the Board of Natural Resources at its May 21, 2019 meeting.
These amendments are being promulgated under the authority of Title 52, Section 52-7-8.4 of the Official Code of Georgia, Annotated. In addition to the removal of the term ‘live-aboard’ and all associated rules from the Coastal Marshlands Protection Regulations, the proposed amendments would create rules for over-night and long-term anchoring in the estuarine area of the state and establish an anchorage permit.
A public hearing on the proposed amendments will be held in Brunswick, Georgia on Monday, June 17, 2019, 5:30p.m. at the Coastal Regional Headquarters of the Georgia Department of Natural Resources. Written public comment will be received through Monday July 15, 2019. Comments should be legible, concise and limited to the proposed rule change. Following the comment period, the Board of Natural Resources will consider the proposed rule on August 27, 2019 at 9:00 AM at its Board Room located at 2 Martin Luther King Jr. Drive, SE, Suite 1252, Atlanta, Georgia.
Mail or email comments to: Kelly Hill, Coastal Resources Division, One Conservation Way, Brunswick, GA 31520. Kelly.Hill@dnr.ga.gov
Additional information is available at www.CoastalGaDNR.org. Click on the “News and Notices” tab or click this link: https://coastalgadnr.org/notice-rule-making-coastal-marshland-protection-and-boating-regulations

[letsgetsailing3]

Originally Posted by boat driver

As a waterfront tax payer, I do not want a "live-a-board" assemble of con-tiki anchored in front of my house crapping in the water expressing the free spirit.

So the solution is to not let them anchor near your property?

What makes you so sure they're not using their holding tank?

Restricting their anchoring is more akin to saying "I've got mine, so go away.

If this is the case, shouldn't we INCREASE taxes on waterfront property owners, as we're giving them property rights that far exceed their actual plot of land? Don't get me wrong, I'm sure they're paying a premium already, but that's for water access and view, not for exclusive use of waterways. Any elimination of boater freedoms increases the value of your land. It's a gradual encroachment of the rights that others have always held.

While I agree about enforcing pump out laws, it's fairly clear that this type of law controlling anchorages exceeds that.

Will future cruising just be sailing from marina or mooring ball to the next marina or set of mooring balls? We need to be wary of giving more control to state and local municipalities.

[Brewgyver]

Originally Posted by a64pilot

(snippage)
Which if I read correctly it’s not allowed to have a system that can be emptied by any means other than being pumped out.

Actually it says that if you have a seacock for direct discharge, it must be secured, which is true on any inshore body of water, and every "no discharge" area, whether inshore or offshore. They spell out the means of securing, as well:

Examples of secured mechanisms considered to be effective at preventing discharges include, but are not limited to, closing the seacock and padlocking, using a non-releasable wire tie, or removing the seacock handle with the seacock in the closed position.

(emphasis mine)
This is what most of us do anyway, right?

[Daniel Grant]

A minute percent of any fecal mater or toxic waste comes from boats. It comes from industry and the municipalities which comes from homes not boats. They have not solved that problem yet and this is a way to deflect the source of that contamination from municipalities to boaters.

[letsgetsailing3]

Originally Posted by Daniel Grant

A minute percent of any fecal mater or toxic waste comes from boats. It comes from industry and the municipalities which comes from homes not boats. They have not solved that problem yet and this is a way to deflect the source of that contamination from municipalities to boaters.

This is ABSOLUTELY true. Part of this proposal should require an analysis of this problem, with data about coastal sewage discharge. I think it would be fairly clear that boaters aren't really a problem.