New Florida Anchoring Amendment!

[letsgetsailing3]

Originally Posted by CarlF

Toll roads were more common when the Constitution was written than they are today so the framers could have included something in the Constitution like they did for Navigable Waters.

Unlike roads, they wrote the Constitution to give the Federal Government unique "control" over all navigable waters for the purpose of commerce (and "commerce" is not limited to "commercial" use). "For this purpose they (Navigable Waters) are the public property of the nation" (United States v. Rands)

The key clause that you're missing is "for that purpose". Sure, if the state laws are deemed to interfere with commerce between the states, or even basic navigation, a law will be deemed unconstitutional.

Nothing you're saying is going to interfere with a state's right to determine mooring field locations, unless they block shipping or the ability to navigate the coast line. The Feds aren't going to fight the state over anchorage locations unless the state does something egregious.

Time to strap on a big dose of reality. People in Florida need to weigh in with their representatives, as it's not likely that the Feds are going to weigh in on this.

If you STILL want to argue about this, please provide examples where states put up anchorage regulations that the Feds deemed unconstitutional, and we'll see how they compare to Florida's laws.

I'm guessing that the legal teams hired by Florida did some basic research.

[Stu Jackson]

Originally Posted by Neeltje

As a resident of Saint Augustine, I'm naturally a proponent of the mooring fields. They keep the waterfront nice and tidy, and at the user's expense to boot.

On the other hand, I'll all for "travelling free", so why don't we start by asking that the fine State of New Jersey eliminate the exorbitant toll fees on the Jersey Turnpike, and let the locals foot its maintenance costs themselves?

Anybody from Jersey care to pipe in?

I used to live in NYC, does that count?

A truly poor analogy.

Next thing ya know, someone will say: "Heck, we toll the bridges up on top, why not add toll booths down below so we can charge the boats, too?"

That'd work real well here on the Golden Gate Bridge...

[CarlF]

I agree that the Feds are unlikley to object to mooring fields - as the purpose is to improve navigation. Moored boats require less space and are less likely to be damaged than anchored boats that can drag. I think St. Augustine's field is well done (although I wish they'd dredge that spot at the south end).

Most harbors in New England are full of private moorings permitted (for an annual fee) by the local town. Some towns have a decades long waiting list to put out a mooring. This practice has never caused federal problems.

But the Feds are unlikely to permit a law that restricts the use of the federally controlled navigable waterways to benefit people on land. A blanket rule that limits anchoring in a navigable waterway within a certain distance of a private residence is a good example.

[Boatguy30]

There is a guy here locally that has brought a federal lawsuit against the city of st augustine on basically the grounds you, CarlF site. I honestly did not think the lawsuit had a lot of merit, but perhaps he does need to get it into federal court so their can be a decision.

I guess the question then become are areas like Lake Sylvia and canal around spoil island in imam well off the intercostal really federal waters? they were created by local developers in the 50s or whatever.

I am starting to wish the British had put in a mooring field in Boston Harbor, perhaps this would be a settled issue by now.

[Jammer Six]

Originally Posted by Boatguy30

This is not democracy, it is one guy with lots of cash buying the legislature.

We (the United States) don't live in a democracy.

[CarlF]

The U.S. Supreme Court in 1979 created four tests for determining what constitutes navigable waters. Established in Kaiser Aetna v. United States, 444 U.S. 164, 100 S. Ct. 383, 62 L. Ed. 2d 332, the tests ask whether the body of water (1) is subject to the ebb and flow of the tide, (2) connects with a continuous interstate waterway, (3) has navigable capacity, and (4) is actually navigable. Using these tests, courts have held that bodies of water much smaller than lakes and rivers also constitute navigable waters. Even shallow streams that are traversable only by canoe have met the test.

[Jammer Six]

Originally Posted by CarlF

The Constitution (which I assume you support) enumerates a list of things that "the folks who live in Florida" are not best able to decide. What happens on "navigable waters" is one of those things.

I read it again, from "We The People" through all amendments, then I searched for the words "navigable" and "water" without finding any such reference.

It is certainly possible that there is law, even federal law, but I don't see any constitutional provision.

Citation, please.

[Neeltje]

Originally Posted by Stu Jackson

I used to live in NYC, does that count?

A truly poor analogy.

Next thing ya know, someone will say: "Heck, we toll the bridges up on top, why not add toll booths down below so we can charge the boats, too?"

That'd work real well here on the Golden Gate Bridge...

Now there's a great idea! I'm going to propose we put a Credit Card Swipe on each side of the Bridge of Lions. Every time it opens, 3 or 4 sailboats putter through, while 3 or 4 hundred cars sit there idling for 15 - 20 minutes waiting for it to close. Makes Saint Augustine remind you of the Holland Tunnel on a regular basis.

The only analogy I was attempting to make concerned cost. It's fine to say that it would suffice to implement the derelict laws that are already on the books, but who's going to pay for doing so? The local taxpayer? What does he get out of it?

[sailorboy1]

Originally Posted by Boatguy30

I am starting to wish the British had put in a mooring field in Boston Harbor, perhaps this would be a settled issue by now.

There is a mooring field in Boston Harbor and they are private boat club moorings. But this has nothing to do with what the State of Florida decides to do in their state.

[Boatguy30]

I was thinking more pre-1776

[forsailbyowner]

It seems according to a Princeton study it doesnt matter what the citizenry wants. Govt will do whatever those with deep enough pockets want. Letters and votes be damned.

» Princeton Researchers Conclude US Political System Has Been Almost Completely Usurped Alex Jones' Infowars: There's a war on for your mind!

[weavis]

Originally Posted by Boatguy30

\

I am starting to wish the British had put in a mooring field in Boston Harbor, perhaps this would be a settled issue by now.

Sorry 'bout that. we were busy being abused and leaving....

[sparrowhawk1]

One of the things I liked about passing through St Augustine was the wide diversity of vessels. Last time I passed through there were a couple of day sailors and a bunch of ugly moring balls. The studies are showing that even if the balls are full, the tackle, upkeep and administration fees are so costly that it's hard to break even.

[laika]

Originally Posted by Jammer Six

One of the principles behind our political system is that folks who live in Florida are supposed to be best able to decide what happens politically in Florida.

As long as it doesn't interfere with basic human rights, I go along with that.

So if something comes up in Washington, and you live in Florida, I hope you'll have the courtesy to keep your emails, phone calls and opinions about our politics to yourself.

In return, I fear I won't be able to participate in your campaign, because to do so would conflict with the beliefs derived from my education about our political system.

If this were a national matter, it would be different. But a state law is not a national matter except under specific circumstances that this doesn't meet.

The internet does not change that, except by making it easier to interfere with the rights of citizens in other states.

I appreciate where you're coming from and might be inclined to agree, but I live, work and cruise on my boat and do not maintain a residence on land, so even though I do not currently reside in FL (tho I have in the past and will again), I feel entitled to voice my input for something that clearly impacts cruisers. We are a small contingent to be sure, but why should our voices not be heard in these communities that we (occasionally) share?

Being of a younger generation, I worry about the legacy of the cruising lifestyle as more and more older folks say goodbye. When I can do something as simple as sending an email out to a lawmaker more or less saying, "Hey, I'm here. This community exists and we have a vested interest, too" why should I not?

I certainly do not feel like I'm undermining the system by sending an email to a policymaker in FL regarding something that may very well impact me and many of my friends in the future. Consider it a polite and non-intrusive request for some small piece of representation.

[capt-couillon]

Originally Posted by Jammer Six

It is certainly possible that there is law, even federal law, but I don't see any constitutional provision.

Citation, please.

Just in the interests of being argumentative

From "Cornell University Law School - Legal Information Institute"

Article VI of The United States Constitution states that the "Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all treaties made or shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the Supreme Law of the Land." See The Supremacy Clause: U.S. Constitution, art. VI, § 2. Furthermore, all federal, state, and local officials must take an oath to support the Constitution. This means that state governments and officials cannot take actions or pass laws that interfere with the Constitution, laws passed by Congress, or treaties. The Constitution was interpreted, in 1819, as giving the Supreme Court the power to invalidate any state actions that interfere with the Constitution and the laws and treaties passed pursuant to it. That power is not itself explicitly set out in the Constitution but was declared to exist by the Supreme Court in the decision of McCulloch v. Maryland.

Some pertinent sections of 33 CFR Part 329 - DEFINITION OF NAVIGABLE WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES

§ 329.1 Purpose.
This regulation defines the term “navigable waters of the United States” as it is used to define authorities of the Corps of Engineers. It also prescribes the policy, practice and procedure to be used in determining the extent of the jurisdiction of the Corps of Engineers and in answering inquiries concerning “navigable waters of the United States.” This definition does not apply to authorities under the Clean Water Act which definitions are described under 33 CFR parts 323 and 328.

§ 329.3 General policies.
Precise definitions of “navigable waters of the United States” or “navigability” are ultimately dependent on judicial interpretation and cannot be made conclusively by administrative agencies. However, the policies and criteria contained in this regulation are in close conformance with the tests used by Federal courts and determinations made under this regulation are considered binding in regard to the activities of the Corps of Engineers.


§ 329.4 General definition.
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.

An interesting analysis of the federal, state, and local government law that surrounds the practice of anchoring on the navigable waters of the state of Florida. (With case-law citations and footnotes)

ANCHORING AWAY: GOVERNMENT REGULATION AND THE RIGHTS OF NAVIGATION IN FLORIDA
Third Edition (2011) THOMAS T. ANKERSEN, RICHARD HAMANN, BYRON FLAGG
Levin College of Law, University of Florida

While I do have personal opinions about the issue in the OP, they are not germane to the arguments quoted above.

Now please excuse me while I make some more popcorn...