[EXPIRED]Comments on the Report from the FWC Meeting in Tallahassee, July 22-23, 2014
These discussions and future meetings are extremely important to cruisers who prefer anchoring to docking. Please note that the mention of derelicts, a major cause of the new regulations and a real issue for coastal communities, is not found in this report. The newly established mooring field program and other anchoring restrictions, intended to solve the derelict problem, have not worked in most cases and have, in fact, severely limited the rights of legitimate boaters.
For an interesting Public Opinion Survey taken by the FWC, go to page 157 of a 220 page report at http://myfwc.com/media/2704721/FindingsRecommendations.pdf
NOTE: For comments from a landowner/boat owner, see Michael Bodin’s remarks below. His contribution is lengthy, but well worth reading.
FWC holds public meeting to discuss the future of anchoring regulations in Florida
In response to increasing concerns between local governments and boaters related to anchoring in state waters within local jurisdictions, the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) conducted a public meeting in Tallahassee on July 21-22, 2014, to discuss anchoring issues and potential ways forward to resolve the conflicts.
Attended by interested persons representing the boating industry, resident and visiting boaters and local and state governments, the two-day meeting focused on complex issues.
`Protecting the rights of people to use the waters kept in public trust by the state is very important,’ said Lt. Colonel Jack Daugherty. `We all want to keep Florida a boater-friendly state and maintain that great part of the Florida lifestyle and economy. On the other hand, local governments have the duty to respond to the needs of their citizens. We are committed to a robust dialogue and to seeking balance between boating interests and local governments in an effort to identify points of consensus and to help resolve some of these issues.’
This year, Florida’s Legislature extended the Anchoring and Mooring Pilot Program, which was authorized in 2009 to look for solutions to these problems, for three additional years in order to allow for more time to test various anchoring strategies and to engage stakeholders in exploring possible legislative solutions. During the public meeting, a framework for potential future anchoring legislation was discussed along with several draft regulatory provisions based on components of the pilot program, each aimed at solving or minimizing specific anchoring challenges.
FWC staff will draft language based on comments from this meeting, distribute that language to interested parties and hold at least two additional public meetings to further refine a possible legislative proposal. Meeting notices and reference documents will be posted by mid-August on FWC’s Anchoring and Mooring web page, found at http://myfwc.com/boating/anchoring-mooring
********
Those promoting anti-anchoring laws often use the argument that it is about eliminating derelict boats, but the reality is very different. For example, many of the laws exempt local boats that are stored’“the vast majority of so-called `derelicts.’ In some cases the laws have been pushed by local influential home owners who don’t want people anchored near their property, and in other cases they are pushed by marina and mooring field owners who want to force people to pay for using public waterways. The arguments about safety and derelicts are a smokescreen. Note that boats have broken loose from so-called safe moorings in places like St. Augustine, and yet users must sign an agreement that absolves the city of all liability.
John Kettlewell
I’m still not buying the party line from the real estate people that this is about derelict boats. The problem is that waterfront property owners pay a lot for that property, and believe with all their little black hearts, that those high prices mean they should control everything they see from that high priced property. The bigger problem is that people who can afford to buy high priced property, can also afford to buy high priced politicians, through high priced campaign contributions. Another problem is that it doesn’t matter how many times they get these laws or regulations brought up unsuccessfully, or lose, they can get as many bites at the apple as they can afford. And, for a lot of these people, that is a lot of bites.
In a way we’re lucky that they didn’t just decide that they wanted boats banned, because the same legislators that are carrying the water for them on anchoring restrictions, would be more than available to do it for banning boats, too.
R. Holiman
Comments from Cruisers (2)
To: Commissioners at Florida Fish and Wildlife August, 20, 2014
Subject: Proposed Anchoring Restrictions
Greetings,
I would like to commend your undertaking of anchoring restrictions. The views expressed are solely my own. As a waterfront property owner in Indian Rocks Beach, Fl. and a boater harbored at Riviera Dunes Marina Palmetto, Fl. I’m quite interested with the subject. Presently I’m over 1,000 miles from Bradenton, Fl. and cannot attend the meeting.
First: I think anchoring restrictions should be unlimited for derelict boats. The proposed 300 feet does not even come close to eliminating there view. These boats are a cancer in prime anchoring areas and often do not have a current state registration. These trash heaps are a blight upon our community. They are not kept up, often left to the ravishes of weather, it’s only a matter of time before the anchor line (rode) will let go and the boat will be in front of someone’s home causing a further expense for the community to remove. These junk boats are a pollution hazard, an eyesore and in general give the civilized boating community a poor impression to land dwellers. As a Florida tax payer I cannot emphasize enough my encouragement for this commission to rid our waterways of derelict boats.
Second: The Trawler I have at Riviera Dunes Marina has a new price tag of just a little over $ 1 million dollars; my yearly boating operating budget is approximately $30,000-$35,000 excluding boat payments and insurance.. These continuous operating expenses are direct Florida revenues. My interest with the proposed 300’ anchoring restriction is both personal and financial, and I appreciate your open comment forum.
In my plus fifty years of boating upon the Florida waterways I have experienced many changes;
Marinas- have no concerns for overcharging for dockage. This is due to selling off of marinas per the state’s “best use” tax structure (for condo development) causing many of the marinas to sell during the last real-estate boom. This reduction of marinas caused increased prices for the remaining slips. Marinas are in favor of restricting anchorages, thus they could rent more slips. Safe anchorages are now very important.
Local cities installing new docks – to promote mariners to visit the communities for local financial gain. Indian Rocks Beach just completed new beautiful docks with the following “No overnight stays”. The dockage at Venice inlet was changed to “No overnight stays”. These towns are nice to visit as well as many others during the day time but after sunset boaters must leave. Upon leaving I will often anchor at a protective area along the Intercostal waterway. I don’t like to cruise upon the waterway at night. It’s now becoming more difficult to locate a safe anchorage without a waterfront residence in view on the ICW. Also the distance from the residence to the ICW with the 300’ proposed restriction plus my anchor swing of 360’ puts me in the ICW channel, which is again restricted to only boating traffic. Now I can’t anchor. The new local city restrictions of “No overnight stays” with beautiful unused docks should be further examined for use overnight.
Weather- as you know boats do not have foundations. If caught in a sudden weather front of high winds and often with rain that reduces visibility I will locate a safe anchorage on a leeward cove close to landside for protection, and wait the storm out. In Florida the higher winds and storms are prevalent in late afternoons. I will spend the night and continue on the next morning. My safe anchoring swing area at 10’depth and 3’ is 260’. With the proposed 300’ and my swing of 260’ would necessitate a minimum distance of 430’ without any safety distance factor, adding a safe distance factor of 50’ in the event of anchor drag, a distance of 480’ from waterfront residential property would be a safe position if the depth for keel clearance allowed anchoring. 480’ would surely prevent me from anchoring in Florida along major portions of the ICW. Again I can’t anchor.
Waterway view erosion – as mentioned, I have been plying the Florida waterways in excess of 50 years and experienced a general reduction of the natural Florida waterway landscape. There are so many new condominiums, houses, and developments along the waterway the original natural beauty of our state has been degraded. Not to mention all the fertilizer and pesticides for the many green lawns draining into our waterways causing excess pollution. Today, when anchoring it’s almost impossible to select a pristine sight without a waterfront residential dwelling directly within view. I would encourage this commission to consider a recommendation of new construction upon the waterways to be offset to protect the natural remaining beauty of our landscaped waterways and reduce pollution.
Bridge Opening Times—in the morning when leaving an anchorage or marina my daily run will often be around 60 miles average with a cruise speed of 7.5 knots except for the Manatee reduces speed zones. At times I will encounter bridges that open on the half hour or every twenty minutes and occasionally encounter a bridge inoperable in the lowered position. This is ok for landside use but I’m stopped in my tracks and cannot move any further until the bridge is repaired. This necessitates locating a safe anchoring location I was not planning on until the repair is completed. The 300’anchoring proposal plus my swing and depth requirement would surely be problematic. Again I cannot anchor. I can understand the reduced opening times for the landside normal to and from work schedules. But mid-day is hard to justify. During midday I have waited 20 or even 25 minutes for a 4 minute opening with none or only a few cars crossing during the wait time. The bridge opening schedule in my opinion could be improved. Also the bridge clearance sign boards should be standardized through the state. It would be nice to have the bridge name and mileage sigh board as well.
Anchor swing- For nightly anchoring, if room allows, I normally use a 10 to 1 scope. If the depth is 15 feet plus 3’ I will let my rode out 180’. This 180’ is actually closer to 360’ swing room due to the tides in Florida. If I anchor off the proposed 300’ with a max of 660’off of developed property, is this measured on the incoming or outgoing tides? Also I must have at least 4’ under my keel, on full moon nights and low tides only selected anchorages are safe. As it is now, I cannot anchor in the majority of the waterway due to tides and lack of adequate clearance under the keel. Nature has placed additional restrictions for anchoring areas; further anchoring restrictions (300’) would almost eliminate Florida boating experience and question ownership.
Common irritations-Recently I spent last boating season in Daytona Beach, Fl. Reading the local paper, I was amazed at the write in comments from a very small minority pertaining to “bike week” about the noise of motorcycles with suggestions for cycles to add mufflers. Furthermore, a few people that buy new houses next to airports or major highways will complain about the noise. And want restrictions on times for aircraft departures, or noise reduction fences constructed upon the highways. People that buy houses along waterways should be aware of the preexisting waterway traffic flows with anchoring boats. Now I understand that waterside residences are also upset about the new construction of wind turbines to generate electricity located upon the water.
Florida exclusive control -of its natural waterway between all the states north, like a funnel, to the Keys and Bahamas is cause for concern. Many boaters pass through Florida waterways due to their monopoly for transit. To use the Atlantic Ocean against the Gulf Stream to circumvent this waterway monopoly is extremely hazardous for smaller boats and considered ill-advised. Being Florida has the waterway monopoly, I would encourage this review commission to consider the fact of pre-established waterway anchoring rights that have faithfully been used during my and many other boaters for past 50 years in Florida’s waters. In fact these very waterways were used for transportation and anchoring prior to waterside development. It is my intention to live/anchor if possible in harmony with my neighbors either landside or on the waterways.
Annual Florida Boating Expenditures-The $35,000 I spend in Florida each year excludes any boat payment, insurance as well as my residence expenses. Florida has over 90,000 registered anchoring style boaters that ply the natural waterways of this state; they all spend monies, not to mention out of state boaters that cruise Florida’s waterways as well. Anchoring style boaters contribute a substantial amount of monies to local communities spread through the state. New anchoring restrictions negatively affect the boating community.
Nautical / landside times and seasons are different. On the landside you have permanence, upon the water; decisions must constantly be evaluated by tides, weather, seasons and the boats reliability. I would encourage this commission to discuss proposed anchoring restrictions with the actual anchoring boating community. The landside community is readily available because most people live in structures with foundations. Drive cars in inclement weather and can arrive at land destinations quickly. These are advantages that the boating community does not enjoy. Many anchoring boaters 200+ will be in Daytona Beach Fl. at Halifax Harbor, and nearby marinas April 14-16, 2015. These are many of the representative boaters your decisions would mostly affect. I would encourage a mutual anchoring discussion forum for a commonly agreed upon goal. As a community we should endeavor to work together.
Request your attendance-I will assist in setting up a round table discussion of not more than an hour with anchoring boaters at Halifax Harbor, Daytona Beach, Fl. April 14-16, 2015. The specific date and time will be per your prerogative. Also, if you can attend, I will avail several boats for your review including living quarters and our dedication to pollution control levels better than landside residencies. You have heard the landside comments eloquently spoken. My only request is for an equal opportunity for comments from actual anchoring boaters prior to any final decision. This is one of the two nautical seasons for anchoring boat passage through Florida.
Please advise if you can attend the Anchoring Forum at Halifax Harbor, Daytona Beach Fl., April 14-16 2015 with anchoring boater attendees.
In advance, thank you for your consideration to my thoughts, and looking forward to meeting you.
The first step should be a challenge in federal court to determine if states or municipalities have any authority to regulate anchoring in the navigable waters of the USA. It has already been established that only EPA, not states, have authority to regulate pollution in those waters. We also have the FAA/aviation as a role model. States just aren’t allowed to muck with aviation.
To negotiate details of a proposed law with FWC and the municipalities concedes their authority (or in legal terms, their standing). If we had a lawyer representing us in federal court, I’m sure he would advise us to boycott these meetings.
The most constructive thing we could do would be to take up a collection to fund a suitable lawyer to carry the issue to federal court. It would probably need $250,00 or more. I’m not sure how to do that.