New cruising restrictions in Georgia (USA)

[a64pilot]

Originally Posted by 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/

I believe that was the way it was, before this new law.
It’s why I was beginning to think Ga had changed it’s idea about cruisers.
This new law is far more restrictive for cruisers, but still allows you to live in a Marina as long as it’s an approved Marina and you get the permit.
Just don’t anchor out, not even for a weekend

[Brewgyver]

Originally Posted by WindwardPrinces

(snippage)
I always wonder who is behind these initiatives.

Unlike Florida, Georgia doesn't have an initiative referendum process, so this wasn't one. Actually, Florida is the only state on the Southeast seaboard with an initiative process.

The cruising community may need to get their act together, as cruising rights are absolutely affected when states do what is essentially a land grab for control of cruising areas.

States already have control of their own waterways, so I don't think it could be called a "land grab."

[a64pilot]

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.

While I think you may be correct, it would be nice to have seen a water quality study that either proved boats are a problem, or a non issue, etc.
I still don’t think discharge has anything to do with this though. Other than the records keeping, they didn’t change anything on discharge.
There is more to this though than you guys are seeing I believe, like the removal of the words live aboard, and giving complete control to one agency, Ga DNR.

Where do the feds stand in this, have the feds conceded all authority to the States?

This is about not being allowed to anchor out, this is herding us into trailer parks and controlling us. Plain and simple.

It sets I believe a tremendously dangerous precedence in my opinion, for other States to follow, it Ga can, why can’t others?
You know herd all those boats together, to protect water quality.

[Brewgyver]

Originally Posted by letsgetsailing3

So the solution is to not let them anchor near your property? What makes you so sure they're not using their holding tank?

If a boat has people on it and hasn't moved in a week or more, it's a pretty safe bet that they're discharging illegally.

We need to be wary of giving more control to state and local municipalities.

Giving control??? States already HAVE control over their waterways. As to municipalities, I agree as far as state waters are concerned, but many marinas and harbors are municipally owned, so they can do as they please with them.

[letsgetsailing3]

Originally Posted by Brewgyver

Unlike Florida, Georgia doesn't have an initiative referendum process, so this wasn't one. Actually, Florida is the only state on the Southeast seaboard with an initiative process.

States already have control of their own waterways, so I don't think it could be called a "land grab."

This is, in effect, a "land grab", or more a "waterways grab" by the administration of the state. It usurps the freedoms of the cruising community. While the state does have legislative control of it's shores, this is an attempt by a small number of people to grab some control over waterways that they don't already have. They only get it by powers granted by their legislature. Sometimes they're well-intentioned, but not always.

There are many such laws being debated, as we speak, by small numbers of people who donate to state legislatures. While they suggest that they are just protecting their land rights, they are in effect augmenting their rights to cover adjacent spaces.

As a related principle, rights over beach front property and public access are currently happening in several states. We should all be paying attention to the legal battles in Walton County Florida, where "Customary Use", or the right of the public to use beaches, is being tested against property owners who have started to put physical barriers around the beaches adjacent to their beach front properties. They are augmenting their rights, and attempting to increase their value. The public has been using those beaches for centuries.

The wealthy are often trying to augment their rights over the public via legal means. They recognize the power of the legislature to help them with this.

We only keep our freedoms if we remain vigilant and energized, as there is always someone who is looking to modify and use the law to their advantage.

If this law were only about discharge record-keeping, then I might be inclined to agree with you. But someone tacked on the anchoring limits, and that has a different purpose and effect.

[a64pilot]

Originally Posted by Brewgyver

If a boat has people on it and hasn't moved in a week or more, it's a pretty safe bet that they're discharging illegally.

Not necessarily, the desiccant toilets for example, but it’s pretty easy to find out who is by inspections, that aren’t being done.
So again I ask, how does herding everyone into a few anchorages reduce illegal discharge?

Again, the discharge is an excuse that it’s pretty easy to get the voters behind, it’s not the reason for an anchoring bill though, anchoring is, but 99% of the voters don’t care about anchoring, but they may care about discharge.

[Brewgyver]

Letsget, I believe what you're talking about is simple (or not so simple) influence peddling, AKA corruption. Unfortunately ubiquitous.

As to the beachfront property, the public use will likely win out, but only for use up to the mean high tide mark. That's been adjudicated more than once, in places like Malibu, parts of New York state, etc. I'd be very surprised if they were able to gain access beyond that.

[Brewgyver]

a64, I suspect you're right about the motivation behind this, unfortunately. True, a composting head would be the exception to my assertion, but as you said, easy enough to verify.

[Dooglas]

Originally Posted by letsgetsailing3

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.

I think it is already quite clear that the places where overboard discharge of wastes IS a problem is at moorages and anchorages where there are significant concentrations of vessels and poor water circulation. If you are arguing for unrestricted overboard discharge of sewage from boats into coastal and freshwaters of the United States, you and I are definitely on opposite sides.

[deltaten]

Well! So much for plans to Winter over in GA.

[StanL]

Originally Posted by Brewgyver

If a boat has people on it and hasn't moved in a week or more, it's a pretty safe bet that they're discharging illegally.


Giving control??? States already HAVE control over their waterways. As to municipalities, I agree as far as state waters are concerned, but many marinas and harbors are municipally owned, so they can do as they please with them.

Not sure about whether States own anything anymore.

The Federal government passed a low taking "ownership" / control of all waterways from the Ocean and going up to the smallest little creek. Private landowners are not owners anymore, they are just stewards / liable to Feds' whims.

Having said that, Navigable Waterways are just that. All that is needed is for boaters nationwide to put their "boots on the throats", or whatever the phrase is, on your legislators. (This is all figurative)

No State or Municipality can interfere with Navigable Water and rights of boaters, least not without risking the forfeit of big Federal moneys. And they all get big Federal money for everything for bridges, ferries, docks, dredging, law enforcement, fisheries etc.

If boaters want to let the few waterfront landowners whittle away at their rights, it's on them.

Another game is when public anchoring space is unlawfully (in Federal waters, which IS everywhere now) "stolen" and sold to private interests for a county or town for local revenue for moorings. That's Federal water, that's for anchoring.

If boaters want to play to unfortunate game that is politics in the US, then wake up and do so.

Perhaps BoatUS is a good place to start. Every legislator has someone read their mail. Just make it multiple letters.

[a64pilot]

Stan, respectfully do some reading. I too used to think that, but that has since been very, very watered down. Fl in particular owns all the land under that water now, and controls it.
It would appear that Ga. is asserting its rights over “its” waterways now, but I assume when the dredging bill comes due, they will expect the feds to pay to dredge Ga’s waters?
I see more and more “private do not enter” navigable water now.
Just like you don’t so much see the USCG as much anymore as you see the FWC, the Sheriff, the City cops, the CBP and others now, all patrolling around, all I guess having jurisdiction.

[RaymondR]

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 sort of action can actually work.

Decades ago I had a project office on the outskirts of a downtown business area with restrictive parking regulations in the adjoining streets. The restrictions had been put in place during a one off special event and never rescinded even though no longer required. The problem was that there was no non-restricted time parking within a reasonable walking distance.

Eventually I became so annoyed with the constant issuing of parking tickets and office space became available closer to the fabrication yard so I prepared to move the office. I also had my administrator write letters to all the businesses and service providers explaining the circumstances and copied the correspondence to the mayor.

A couple of days later the mayor turned up at my door requesting I reconsider as it had created a storm of protest. I explained that the move was to far along to cancel but assured him I would not respond to local media requests for comment. A couple of days later all the restrictive parking signs were removed from the adjoining streets.

[Dooglas]

Originally Posted by a64pilot

Again, the discharge is an excuse that it’s pretty easy to get the voters behind, it’s not the reason for an anchoring bill though, anchoring is, but 99% of the voters don’t care about anchoring, but they may care about discharge.

Well, I cruise in the sloughs and side channels of the lower Columbia River among other places. The Oregon State Marine Board restricts anchoring in a single location in state waters without moving at least 5 miles to a period of no more than 2 weeks. The restriction is poorly enforced. I certainly care about it as a cruiser. I pull into one of my favorite little backwaters and find it occupied by 4 or 5 beat up old boats rafted together and various other floating junk that has obviously been there for several months. And naturally the boats and pieces of floating dock are occupied by an unsavory looking group of never-do-wells. Am I happy about that? Heck no. Is that something we as cruisers want? I don't think so.

[a64pilot]

Originally Posted by Dooglas

Well, I cruise in the sloughs and side channels of the lower Columbia River among other places. The Oregon State Marine Board restricts anchoring in a single location in state waters without moving at least 5 miles to a period of no more than 2 weeks. The restriction is poorly enforced. I certainly care about it as a cruiser. I pull into one of my favorite little backwaters and find it occupied by 4 or 5 beat up old boats rafted together and various other floating junk that has obviously been there for several months. And naturally the boats and pieces of floating dock are occupied by an unsavory looking group of never-do-wells. Am I happy about that? Heck no. Is that something we as cruisers want? I don't think so.

So the current laws aren’t being enforced, you think new, more restrictive ones are what we need?
See, I’d say the ones you have would work if they were enforced.

It’s pretty easy, I saw it all the time in Panama City, a boat would come to look abandoned, a big orange sticker would be put on it, by whom I don’t know, but about 30 days later it would be towed to the city marina where it would sit for awhile, then be disposed of.

It seems to be such a simple answer, I can’t help but wonder why it’s not done other places where it seems abandoned boats are “stored”.

Leave a car beside of the road, and you’ll get a big orange sticker on it, but it won’t be 30 days before it’s towed, same thing.

I too hate all those abandoned “stored” boats clogging up all the good anchorages, and you know come a storm and they end up in the marsh or in peoples yards.
There are current laws to deal with them, just I’ve never seen those laws enforced, except in Panama City Fl.