What is the current FL anchoring policy?

[Neeltje]

On a lighter note, I just read in the local paper that Tampa Bay was launching some sort of crusade against "undesirable vessels". The article didn't actually qualify the term "undesirable vessels", and it might be smoke as usual, but the cruisers involved might want to take a closer look at it.

Jacques

[a64pilot]

Originally Posted by Neeltje

Off and on, since 1970. Why do you ask?

Seems most who speak of Florida like you, haven't lived there very long.

See, truth is it's NOT Florida's waters, it's Federal waters. Don't believe me, look up both the definition and jurisdiction of navigable waters, Florida has no more right to them than the Bahamas. That is why I don't understand this whole argument

[Scout 30]

How long have you lived in the US? The fight between state rights & the feds has been going on as long as our country has been around. These may technically be federally navigable waters but unless the state restricts commercial navigation or affects homeland security the feds are not going to step into this mess.

[Group9]

Originally Posted by Scout 30

How long have you lived in the US? The fight between state rights & the feds has been going on as long as our country has been around. These may technically be federally navigable waters but unless the state restricts commercial navigation or affects homeland security the feds are not going to step into this mess.

Well, that is certainly the bet the waterfront landowners, condo commandos and real estate brokers are making by trying this play. (Because it's a lot easier and a lot less trouble to buy off local politicians than it is the Coast Guard and Corp of Engineers, who is the designated regulator of navigable waters under federal law).

Rights get chipped away, not wholesale carted off, and that's how it will be done this time, too.

[a64pilot]

Originally Posted by Scout 30

How long have you lived in the US? The fight between state rights & the feds has been going on as long as our country has been around. These may technically be federally navigable waters but unless the state restricts commercial navigation or affects homeland security the feds are not going to step into this mess.

I believe a war was fought over this a while ago?

[zboss]

I may be wrong on this count but I believe that the Coast Guard has at least given official permission to states and local municipalities to self govern some of the waters in return for assistance in policing and maintaining those waters.

With the CG facing a tighter budget every year, I can understand why they would want to enlist the help of the state and local municipalities to govern the waters. At the same time, I can see the state and local municipalities saying "well, if you want us to help we need to get something in return"

So, IMO, this issue only exists because of a cut back in CG funding by the fed.

[Scout 30]

I'm certainly no legal expert but it appears that the only way to successfully fight what appears to be the inevitable anchoring restrictions will be to wait for the law to be passed allowing local municipalities the freedom to pass their own rules. Then someone has to violate them so that they can fight them in court. This is how it played out the last time with the Marco Island case. However, if it could somehow be fought & won in Federal Court then maybe that would put an end to this foolishness.

[rwidman]

Originally Posted by a64pilot

I for one don't keep any receipts at all, I don't want the clutter.

No to be enforceable, I believe there is going to have to be some kind of check in system, how else could you know and prove how long some one has been there?

Ride by in a boat and take a dated photograph. There is a private citizen in my area who has made it his business to see that "rich" boat owners pay the required personal property taxes. He does just what I posted and turns the information over to the tax office.

A property owner could do the same thing. Take dated photographs and turn them in to the authorities.

[zboss]

Originally Posted by rwidman

Ride by in a boat and take a dated photograph. There is a private citizen in my area who has made it his business to see that "rich" boat owners pay the required personal property taxes. He does just what I posted and turns the information over to the tax office.

A property owner could do the same thing. Take dated photographs and turn them in to the authorities.

We don't pay yearly personal property taxes on boats in Florida

However, I can definitely see someone taking pictures. I bet a web site crops up that shares images and names of boats so they can just immediately call the cops on us. THAT would start a war. Imagine boats taking pictures in the back windows of those houses.

BTW - I think setoffs and no anchor zones are also illegal in the same way that abortion buffer zones are illegal:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/n...zones/6698787/

[Group9]

Originally Posted by zboss

I may be wrong on this count but I believe that the Coast Guard has at least given official permission to states and local municipalities to self govern some of the waters in return for assistance in policing and maintaining those waters.

With the CG facing a tighter budget every year, I can understand why they would want to enlist the help of the state and local municipalities to govern the waters. At the same time, I can see the state and local municipalities saying "well, if you want us to help we need to get something in return"

So, IMO, this issue only exists because of a cut back in CG funding by the fed.

When's the last time you saw a city or county dredging or maintaining navigable waters? Except for the entrance to a city or county harbor, I don't think I have ever seen it. And, it would have to be the Corp of Engineers, not the Coast Guard, delegating that authority to the local or state governments (that's the way the Coast Guard gets their authority in that area in the first place, too).

For those who want to read more, here is a treatise on Federal waterway jurisdiction from Duke Law School, 1980. Nothing has really changed much since then, but where it has changed, federal authority has been expanded, ( i.e. wetlands).

http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/...34&context=dlj

Like most political fights, it will probably be a long one.

[Cormorant]

Originally Posted by zboss

BTW - I think setoffs and no anchor zones are also illegal in the same way that abortion buffer zones are illegal:

Now, this is a brilliant new angle. Simply buy a megaphone and spend part of each day spouting political diatribes toward the shore. If the authorities ask you to move, hell -- your First Amendment rights have been violated! We win.

Quoting from the article:
"Petitioners wish to converse with their fellow citizens about an important subject on the public streets and sidewalks — sites that have hosted discussions about the issues of the day throughout history," Roberts wrote. Though the state has an interest in public safety, it "pursued those interests by the extreme step of closing a substantial portion of a traditional public forum to all speakers."

[a64pilot]

The dated photo thing wouldn't work, reason is can you change the date on the camera to be incorrect? Of course you can, therefore the data isn't reliable.
I'll admit that someone determined can cause us a lot of problems though, but hopefully that will be rare.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I think when this law passes, if it is aggressively perused it will be thrown out as I think it would require a change in Federal law to make it legal, I.E. a Federal law that stipulate under what certain circumstances that the Federal Government passes control of Navigable Waters over to the State and Municipalities.

However, I am no Lawyer and do not have any background that qualifies me in Law, just hope surely that there has to be some kind of legal actions taken to transfer powers?

[Scout 30]

To enforce this I think local law enforcement would have to note the location & time/duration anchored of every boat in their jurisdiction. To be accurate they would have to verify the exact location of the boat each day to show that it hadn't been out sailing & then re-anchored. I sure hope that state tax dollars won't be wasted to enforce local anchoring ordinances.

[Sea7King]

A64 Pilot, Here's the act that gave control of the water to the States:


1. The Submerged Lands Act (SLA)


Under the Submerged Lands Act (SLA),37 ownership of submerged lands and


control of the overlying waters was transferred to the states, subject to a reservation


of significant power by the federal government.38 The SLA recognized, confirmed,


and established each stateʹs claim of title and ownership39 as well as


management and administrative responsibility40 over submerged lands beneath


navigable waters. The Supreme Court has characterized the SLA as a transfer to


the states of rights to “submerged lands and waters.”41 Congress’ goal in passing


the SLA was to decentralize management of coastal areas and foster greater local


control to better meet the needs of the state and boaters.42 Congress stated that


because management of submerged lands is directly tied to local activities, “any


conflict of interest arising from the use of the submerged lands should be and can


best be solved by local authorities.”43 The SLA, however, expressly reserved in


the federal government the power to regulate these lands for the purposes of


“commerce, navigation, national defense, and international affairs.”44 The statutes


discussed below implement that authority.

[Scout 30]

That was a great post. It makes it clear that the state does have some jurisdiction over state waters. However, it's the last sentence that gives us hope: The SLA, however, expressly reserved in the federal government the power to regulate these lands for the purposes of “commerce, navigation, national defense, and international affairs.”


The state of Florida has already made some areas off limits to motorized vessels in order to protect the environment which is a restriction of navigation. So the state has shown it can restrict navigation in some circumstances. I wonder if this was done unilaterally or with the approval of the Feds.


I also wonder if it's been established whether a boat at anchor is navigating. It seems that the time restrictions revolve around this question.