The Save Georgia’s Anchorages Committee’s response to Georgia Legislation HB 201 has been written by three very experienced Waterway cruisers. See Discussion Summary.

Save Georgia’s Anchorages Committee Position on Proposed New Rules on HB201 to Georgia DNR

June 10, 2019

Ladies and Gentlemen:

The members of the Save Georgia’s Anchorages committee have spent considerable time during the past ten days consulting with and listening to, hundreds of boaters – active east coast boaters – on the subject of the proposed changes to anchoring rules in the State of Georgia that are to be a part of HB201.

To follow are what we feel are reasonable and acceptable suggestions for proposed language to be approved by the DNR with respect to the new anchoring law passed in Georgia which is to go into effect January 1, 2020.

Because not everyone reading this will be familiar with just what is involved in big boat cruising, we’ve taken the time to add context to assist in that understanding.

As a community, cruisers (or transient boaters) desire to be good stewards of the waterways. Georgia has much to offer the cruiser and we believe the cruising community has much to offer the state. We believe we have four mutual goals:

• Protect the waters we all enjoy from pollution and extend those protections to critical marine life such as shellfish beds.

• Ensure the waterways are unencumbered by abandoned boats. These are not only an eyesore, but a hazard to navigation.

• Keep the waterways open for traffic by ensuring anchored vessels do not obstruct passage through the waterways

• Make Georgia more “boater friendly” to encourage more transient boaters to pass through the state and enjoy what it has to offer.

Unfortunately, as HB201 is written and from proposals we have seen coming from others, we feel these four goals are at greater risk now than they were before the law was passed. We understand the DNR has the authority to enact regulations that may reverse the negative impacts of the law as written. We implore the DNR to adopt the language we have outlined below (or similar) to meet the needs of the boating community AND the State of Georgia.

GEORGIA ANCHORING PROPOSALS

Issue 1: Anchoring Fee

Vessels in transit are often unable to make schedules due to conditions

• Schedules are often dictated by forces outside of our control. Timing for passage is based on daylight hours, weather, tides and speed and draft of our vessels.

Reasons for fee assessment

• Removal of abandoned vessels.

• Mitigation of costs thereof, and enforcement costs

We have been told that the original language of the bill earmarked funds from these permits to mitigate costs of removal of abandoned vessels. It does not appear these earmarks made it into the final bill. As such, we feel the need for this onerous requirement is unwarranted.

Legal Issues Affecting Fees

• In the matter of the rights of boats in navigation, the US Supreme Court has ruled against license imposts for anchoring,

• Anchoring, by law, is an inherent part of navigation.

We’re not sure what that does to solutions for long term anchoring issues (perhaps nothing, if those vessels can be defined to be “stored” and “not in navigation”), but clearly, it does affect transient cruising boats, and appears to rule out any fee imposts for short term anchoring. In any event, the legal aspects of the issue require clarification by the DNR before moving forward.

Should fees be determined to be illegal, then we advise that the entire section referencing fees and permits be eliminated in its entirety.

Citation: Huron Portland Cement Co. v. City of Detroit Mich, Supra at 447;

Harman v. City of Chicago, 147 US 396, 13 S. Ct. 306 37 L. Ed. 216

Ruled that a vessel cannot be subjected to local license imposts for the use of a navigable waterway.

IF fees are legal, we recommend the following language for the regulations:

“Anchoring fees are waived for vessels remaining in the State of Georgia for a period of less than 90 days. For vessels that remain in Georgia waters beyond 90 days, there are no fees for anchored vessels remaining within a single anchorage, or within one mile of a previous anchorage, for a period of less than seven days.”

GEORGIA ANCHORING PROPOSALS

Issue 2: Designated Anchorages

• Boaters require access to anchorages due to issues of safety,

• Slow speed makes it impossible for many vessels to reach marinas due to GA’s remoteness

The law as written indicates that anchoring will be prohibited everywhere except in designated anchorages. We believe that language should be reversed – anchoring should be permitted everywhere, with as few as possible specific exceptions for shellfish beds or specific waterways where anchoring impedes navigation (eg Turner Creek). We recommend the following language be adopted:

“Anchoring is permitted in all areas of Georgia’s waters except where specifically prohibited. These prohibited areas include established shell fish beds as already defined by the DNR, and specified waters where anchoring impedes the ability of vessels to transit the waterways. Areas where vessels can safely anchor without obstructing channels or navigable waters shall not be designated as restricted areas. These exceptions will be marked as such with appropriate signage or floating markers to identify the area as restricted.”

Issue 3: Anchoring Setback Distances

• Boaters agree some degree of setback is required

• Initial 1000 foot setback unacceptable

• Setback must be the smallest possible for boater safety and shoreside needs

Excessively large setback requirements eliminate a very large number of anchorage locations, as was demonstrated by one of our members using Google Maps.

Were Georgia to adopt a 75’ setback, in line with those of other jurisdictions, it would send a clear message to the boating community that Georgia recognizes the needs of boaters by minimizing any setback. We propose the following wording:

“Anchoring shall not be permitted within 75’ of an existing structure that extends into the waterways of Georgia. This includes, bridges, dams, docks and other structures that extend 10’ beyond the shoreline. Structures built entirely on land are not included, nor are structures whose purpose is to restrict anchoring.”

GEORGIA ANCHORING PROPOSALS

Issue 4: Discharge and Pollution

• Waste issues are covered by federal legislation

• Boaters understand that protecting our waterways and the environment is the core intent of the legislation. As written, HB201 will likely have the opposite effect.

• The Federal Clean Water Act of 1972 established limits on discharge of raw sewage within territorial waters of the United states. since this act took effect it has been unlawful raw sewage into the territorial waters of the United states.

• Boats with USCG certified treatment systems may discharge the treated effluent except in a No Discharge Zone (NDZ). So far as we are aware, Georgia waters have not been designated as NDZs.

• No need for bill to deal with waste/pumping overboard issues

• It is unlawful to discharge the contents of a holding tank or otherwise directly discharge sewage into the territorial waters of the US, and it has been unlawful for at least 40 years. This would seem to render the sanitation portion of the subject Georgia Statutes unnecessary.

• Difficult for boaters to comply

• Any requirement for the mechanical removal of component parts of a boat’s plumbing system is a severe hardship and unreasonable imposition on boaters who discharge sewage lawfully beyond the US three-mile limit before entering Georgia estuarine waters.

• There is no way to document compliance for these boats, which can lead to unneeded misunderstandings with law enforcement officials.

• HB201 imposes an unreasonable hardship on boats on the ICW and other waters of the state. Many cruising boats take only two or three days to transit low-country estuarine waters and do not require a pumpout.

• Boats may pump out in a non-Georgia jurisdiction (South Carolina or Florida) prior to entering Georgia state waters, with no way to document compliance with the Georgia statute.

• A boater who pumped out in South Carolina, transited the low country, and pumped out again in Florida, is in compliance, but unable to meet the newly imposed documentation requirement.

• Some marinas have pumpout facilities at the boat slip, with the boat’s owner performing the work him/herself. This makes documentation proving pumpout inconvenient and means relying on owner self declaration, which makes any sort of enforcement impossible.

HB201 is poorly thought out and constitutes an undue burden to boaters engaged in lawful navigation on Georgia Public Trust estuarine waters.

GEORGIA ANCHORING PROPOSALS

Unfair to marina businesses

We feel that any requirement that Georgia’s marinas maintain a record of pumpouts is an excessive, unfair and costly burden on the businesses so affected, and does not provide any benefit to the State, the environment or boaters.

To that end, we propose that any reference to sewage discharge be deleted from the language in deference to the federal legislation already in place addressing these issues.

Conclusions:

The cruising community and the State of Georgia have much to offer one another. We ask that together we take this new law as an opportunity to restore Georgia as a cruising destination, protect her waters and provide safe cruising grounds. Ultimately, a boater/ transient friendly Georgia will benefit us all.

We recognize that these proposals do not and cannot address every single circumstance that may arise or every concern that other stakeholders may have, but in our opinion, they do address 99% of the circumstances that concern the State of Georgia, transient boaters and boaters living in Georgia as outlined to us by these same boaters. We ask that the DNR and legislators contact us for our opinions, thoughts and advice on other issues that may arise, so that together we can form a mutually acceptable regimen addressing the concerns of all, including thousands of boaters affected by these changes but not represented by those at the table currently.

Thank you for your time in reviewing these proposals. You may contact the Save Georgia’s Anchorages committee by contacting:

James Newsome, Jack White, or Wally Moran.

Respectfully submitted,

James H. Newsome

Jack White

Wally Moran

(for) Save Georgia’s Anchorages

Committee Report Author bios

James Newsome – Lifetime Georgia resident, retired Georgia businessman, cruising sailor, and writer.

Jack White – Georgia resident, Retired Air Force pilot, former Georgia State Representative, cruising sailor.

Wally Moran – international cruising sailor, boating journalist, author and speaker, founder of annual Sail to the Sun ICW Rally

Here is a link to HB 201 from the Georgia Assembly regarding anchoring:

Click here for 2019-2020 Regular Session – HB 201
Board of Natural Resources; promulgate rules and regulations regarding anchoring certain vessels within estuarine areas

Another Georgian and experienced yachtsman and Waterway cruiser, James Newsome, shares his thoughts on Georgia’s new restrictive anchoring legislation. See Anchoring Under Attack in Georgia?

Reply to Bob Keller and my thoughts on the anchoring debate in Georgia,

You wrote, “As a 30+ year resident of Georgia this law is the most outrageous I have seen. This is a classic case of legislators voting on bills proposed that they have no idea about and no knowledge of what they are doing. Just trying to cast their vote so they can go on summer break and don’t have a clue what they are voting about. Disgusting really. Would like to know who sponsored and introduced this bill? Then who voted on it. They had no lobbying pushback so they voted Yea on a bill they had no clue about. Sickening. This is an embarrassment to the residents and voters of Georgia. Georgia is an afterthought on the east coast ICW and this nonsense will ensure that GA is nonexistent.”

A Senator and Representative from St. Simon’s Island and Brunswick sponsored the bill. And apparently the only lobbying group was the GA Marine Business Association or GAMBA. It’s interesting that (apparently) none of the normal waterway associations or groups knew about this legislation in last month. This includes Brad Pickel with the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway Association, Waterway Guide, or Cruisers Net. To say that this bill flew under the radar is an understatement, and I don’t think this was by accident.

The bill pretends to address concerns about liveaboards, anchoring, and possibly derelict vessels, but I believe these are simply a ruse for the real purpose. What we need to know is the nexus for this law. We know that the Georgia DNR Coastal Resource Division and GAMBA were involved, but whose interests were being represented?

Let’s look at the public record so far from Doug Haymans of the Coastal Resource Division of DNR. In addition to removing the term “liveaboard” from all rules “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.” Hayman goes on to state that current law “doesn’t allow a live-aboard outside of an eligible marina.”

So now with the already passes amendments to HB201, DNR states that the main purpose is to establish rules for “for overnight or long-term anchoring in the estuarine areas of the state” by creating a new boating regulation.

Fortunately, GA law requires assessment of the economic impact on small businesses as part of any rule change. Here’s what Hayman has presented. “All the businesses possibly affected by this rule employ less than 100 persons. There are no additional costs to businesses, such as marinas, and if anything, these rules may direct additional customers to eligible facilities. For many years, Georgia has been viewed by transient boaters as unfriendly to their activities. The proposed amended rules should have the added benefit of opening Georgia estuarine waters to more transient boaters and therefore more business for coastal marinas.”

I think the phrase “these rules may direct additional customers to eligible facilities” is the real purpose of this amendment to HB201, and also why GAMBA is so involved. Does anyone with any sense really think that creating a permitting process, telling boaters where they can and cannot anchor, and charging boaters for anchoring is going to add benefit of opening Georgia waters to more transient boaters? At least we now understand how this is going to direct customers to eligible facilities (commercial marinas).
There is nothing about this change to HB201 that is friendly to Georgia boaters or transient boaters. It is heavy handed overreach of government and a thinly veiled effort to drive transient boaters to commercial marinas.
I have defended and advocated for cruisers to not bypass Georgia on their semiannual migrations. I’ve written many articles about Georgia’s wonderful cruising destinations and debated on social media platforms against folks who blatantly said to skip Georgia when asked for cruising advice. But I cannot defend this action by our state’s DNR and I am embarrassed that this has happened to us.

In the coming days and weeks, I think we will learn more about the changes to this law and I think the hand will be pointed to a few folks who are greedily trying to use their influential positions to line their pockets. I hope I’m wrong, I really do.

James Newsome