State & local govt have no authority in harbors

[Lewis Harry]

Yes, we went through all this mess on San Diego bay back in the 80s & 90s.
. It is illegal under federal law for local authorities to have a maratime police force. It is illegal to have a Port District who pretends to have authority over their local bay ... to regulate anchoring, build docks especially private docks without federal permission ... which is never asked for, or granted.
All that said, $$$$$$ talks, elected Congressional representitives bribed to look the other way. The state government passes laws saying the local governments can do whatever they want, local state judges put people in prison for exerciseing their federal rights. The lawyers doing everything they can to keep maratime matters OUT of Federal court. And carefully selected Federal judges look the other way and send these cases back to corrupt state courts.
In California the govt says they have authority over the offshore fishing grounds! Totally obscenely illegal under Federal law. But once again, the FIX is in.

[Gudgeon]

What's your point? Can your provide specific examples of your claims?

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by Lewis Harry

Y
. It is illegal under federal law for local authorities to have a maratime police force ...

I call 'bull'.
Under what federal statute?

[Lewis Harry]

I understand, of course. Free anchorages had existed in the bay for hundreds of years under standard maritime law.
That said, however, starting in the early 80s, the monied people in the state began their theft by first passing a law saying that all the California bayfront and coastal land belonged to the state and local governments. Did not matter if you had owned the land for 200 years. Now you are leasing the land for ripoff rents.
Over ten years, the local governments and elite paid the state representitives (campaign money&)to pass laws saying the local governments like the SD Unified Port District could have a maratime police force(a direct violation, only the coast Cuard can legally enforce the law) as well as drive boaters out of their historical anchorages. Then set up moorings for boaters for a monthly fee. My personal experience being that boats in the remaining "free anchorages" were not allowed to rent the new moorings.
"They" gradually closed down the bay starting on the North end.
The harbor police occasionally just towed boats away at random if no one was on them on that day, then broke them up. No due process at all.
We anchored out people in San Diego bay fought the unified port district in state court for ten years. from the 80s to the 90s. We collected all the federal maratime law, statutes and etc. However, the State courts did not care what the Federal law said. And the Federal courts, lawyers wanted huge money to even bring a case, and peoples experience across the country from Cape Cod to San Fran to Hawaii is the federal courts would just send the matter back to the state courts where the fix is in.
So eventually I lost both my boats, ten years of work and Way over $30,000. The moneyed people just did not want to see us on their "private lake" and put pressure on the cities and police to come and take our boats regardless that we had court orders saying they could not do so.
Oh yes, the city even built a huge development over a toxic waste dump in the South Bay and sold it for huge money BTW! Hope they enjoy it!
Thanks for the memories!
Lewis

[Montanan]

Incorrect in many facts.

States have always had sovereignty to their coastal, tide lands and inland waters. The States boundaries are outward from shore 3 nautical miles, beyond which US Federal jurisdiction applies.


Florida state waters are a bit unique as they extend from shore to 3 nautical miles on the Atlantic and from shore to 9 nautical miles on the Gulf. Federal waters extend from where state waters end out to about 200 nautical miles or to where other country's waters begin.

States have the authority to delegate their authority to their dependent authorities of counties and municipalities.

[Montanan]

FYI:

Informative reference link.


Overview of California Ocean and Coastal Laws

Snipets therefrom:

Introduction
This inventory of California ocean laws is developed in response to Action Item 2 of the Governor’s Ocean Action Strategy1 and the Ocean Protection Council’s strategic plan. These documents direct an update of California’s inventory of ocean and coastal laws and regulations. This inventory is designed to serve as reference material for the work of the Ocean Protection Council and state and local agencies interested in ocean resource management. The inventory provides a generalized list of laws, which affect natural resources within the state’s coastal and marine jurisdiction. Naturally, some redaction of relevant laws occurred in development of the inventory; laws that are not unique to ocean and coastal resources are generally not included in this inventory. For example, mining and timber laws are not included, though the regulation of these resources may directly or indirectly affect coastal and ocean resources. Included in this inventory are laws from various departments and commissions of California’s chief resources agencies: the
Resources Agency and California Environmental Protection Agency, as well as selected federal laws.
The Pacific Ocean and its resources are so fundamental to California’s legal landscape that it is referenced in our Constitution and founding documents. References to the ocean and coastal resources are found in well over half of California’s 29 codes. Some codes provide a detailed regime for the identification and management of ocean resources; others mention these ocean resources only as a subset of a larger set of natural resources that are managed or regulated by the state. Two codes in particular provide
detailed laws concerning ocean and coastal resources. The Resources Code and the Fish and Game Code contain significant detail concerning the management of ocean and coastal resources. The regulation of saltwater fish and fisheries, for example, is both detailed and complex in its organization. While this inventory discusses relevant portions of these codes, an evaluation of how these laws integrate federal or local law would be beyond this document’s intended scope. This inventory provides a starting point for
California resource managers and other persons interested in these resources to identify where relevant laws are found and a simplified overview of their scope and effect.

. . .

Article III, section 2 of the California Constitution provides that the boundaries of the state are those stated in the Constitution of 1849, as modified pursuant to statute.
California Government Code Sections 170 and 171 provide for the boundaries of the state taking into consideration offshore islands, bays and inland waters. Government Code §172 declares definitions and boundaries of certain navigable waters of the State. These code sections were enacted in 1949 in response to the United States Supreme Court decision in United States v. California, which held that the federal government, and not the states, has paramount rights to the lands offshore of the “inland waters” of the State.
The dispute over who owned the submerged lands lying off the California coast was partially resolved in 1953 by the Submerged Lands Act (SLA), discussed below, the main purpose of which was to modify the effect of the California decision by moving the boundary between federal and state jurisdiction to the seaward boundaries of the state.
Other sections of this code define the specific boundaries of several California counties whose boundaries include the Pacific Ocean. The Harbor and Navigation Code designates the state’s official “coastline” with reference to the U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey of 1933.
Under the above referenced state law, California's territorial boundaries extend three nautical miles (6076.103 ft x 3) beyond the outermost islands, reefs, and rocks, and include all waters between those islands and the coast. Under this state law definition, the entire Santa Barbara Channel is arguably within the state. On the other hand, federal law as set forth in the Submerged Lands Act as interpreted by subsequent decisions of the United States Supreme Court, defines California's state ownership boundaries more narrowly, extending three geographical miles (6087.15 feet x 3) from the coast and where inland waters meet the sea. Technically the three geographical miles are measured by creating concentric arcs from points on a base line that consists of either lower low water adjacent to a seaward physical point (an island, rock, breakwater, etc.) or a straight closing line across the mouth of a bay determined by the United States Supreme Court to be an inland water (Monterey Bay and San Diego Bay are examples). This definition provides a three-mile-wide band around any islands lying off the coast, but excludes waters between the islands and the coast. Under this federal law definition of California's boundaries, areas such as the central portion of the Santa Barbara Channel are not within the state waters.


https://www.opc.ca.gov/webmaster/ftp/pdf/docs/Documents_Page/Noteworthy/Overview_Ocean_Coastal_Laws.pdf

Bon voyages.

[Montanan]

The Constitution of the State of California October 13, 1849

California was an independent republic and did not become a state within the USA until September 9, 1950

ARTICLE XII

BOUNDARY

The Boundary of the State of California shall be as follows:
Commencing at this point of intersection of 42d degree of north latitude with the 120th degree of longitude west from Greenwich, and running south on the line of said 120th degree of west longitude until it intersects the 39th degree of north latitude; thence running in a straight line in a south easterly direction to the River Colorado, at a point where it intersects the 35th degree of north latitude; thence down the middle of the channel of said river, to the boundary line between the United States and Mexico, as established by the Treaty of May 30th, 1848; thence running west and along said boundary line to the Pacific Ocean, and extending therein three English miles; thence running in a northwesterly direction, and following the direction of the Pacific Coast to the 42d degree of north latitude, thence on the line of said 42d degree of north latitude to the place of beginning. Also all the islands, harbors, and bays, along adjacent to the Pacific Coast.

[PippaB]

The Submerged Lands Act is not simple. It gave rights to the states for the submerged lands, largely as a function of mineral resources, but not necessarily control of the water above the lands.

The federal government retains the power to regulate commerce, navigation, power generation, national defense, and international affairs throughout state waters. However, states are given the authority to manage, develop, and lease resources throughout the water column and on and under the seafloor.

In general, states must exercise their authority for the benefit of the public, consistent with the public trust doctrine. Under this doctrine, which has evolved from ancient Roman law and English common law, governments have an obligation to protect the interests of the general public (as opposed to the narrow interests of specific users or any particular group) in tidelands and in the water column and submerged lands below navigable waters.

Public interests have traditionally included navigation, fishing, and commerce. In recent times, the public has also looked to the government to protect their interests in recreation, environmental protection, research, and preservation of scenic beauty and cultural heritage.

https://govinfo.library.unt.edu/ocea...03a_primer.pdf

[S/V Illusion]

I would like to see/read any objective evidence of any of these accusations. Otherwise, it’s just hyperbole.

[thinwater]

I seldom find substance in the discussion of a conspiracy theory. Perhaps the looming election has the waters churned up.



There is an irony. We cry for local authority when that suits our wants, and federal authority when that better suits our wants. As for waterways, it's not hard to see that like many things, sometimes federal standards are best for uniformity, and sometimes local regulation better fits local realities. I think both. As for influence, people are people.

[Johan Leopard51]

The world over, local authorities love throwing their weight around, especially if they can make money.

In my country by law, anything below the admiralty line (in effect the spring high mark including changes in it from storm surges) belongs to the government. So your beachfront home private frontage ends there and any member of the public is allowed there including the right to beach a kayak for example - as long as they don’t trespass above that admiralty line.

Nobody but the government can regulate navigation in tidal waters. In practice, different councils take upon themselves all sorts of powers, including trying to regulate, often in conflict with maritime navigation rules where who can do what without that special permit from them. It leads to chaos. There are some lagoons where the local council has banished impeller boats - with no scientific study or public participation. If you quote the EPA studies that found propellor boats cause more harm to tidal and non-tidal lagoons, they just stare back blank. (Yes I have a 20 foot impeller boat).

By law things like bait and fish limits & permits are regulated by national regulations. That doesn’t prevent some local councils from imagineering their own limits & permits.

It will never end as long as there are special interests that want things done a certain way.

[ericettinger]

The original and follow up posts have a certain sovereign citizen aroma.

[Leadfree]

Originally Posted by ericettinger

The original and follow up posts have a certain sovereign citizen aroma.

'aroma:' excellent word choice there...

[SailingHarmonie]

It is well known that there is a huge expansion of “pseudoscience” in recent years. Less well known popularly is an equivalent expansion in “pseudolaw”.

A excellent example of the is the sovereign citizen cult, but this is not the only source of the stuff. It comes up in local issues all the time.

Just like with pseudoscience, the pseudolawyer usually takes one tiny grain of truth and applies it totally out of context and ignoring all kinds of contrary information to make up something that is total nonsense.

[PippaB]

Originally Posted by ericettinger

The original and follow up posts have a certain sovereign citizen aroma.

I think a very similar aroma can be observed in many cruiser's anchorages around the world