Cruisers Net wishes to thank all those whose efforts went into preparing for the meeting, those who sent letters and for all those cruisers who attended. Even without speaking, your physical presence spoke volumes! And a big thank you to Kelly Hill for this report.

WOW! Everyone, just wow! What an amazing evening, cruisers speaking out!

Thanks first of all to everyone who made it to the DNR meeting in Brunswick – I know the DNR was impressed by the fact the room was full. That means a lot.

Thanks to all who commented, your voices were heard loud and clear.

Thanks to the folks who were thinking ahead and livestreamed the meeting – I was so wrapped up in what was going on I didn’t even think of it. Had I done so, we could have announced that so that everyone here could have watched the meeting.

As you can gather, it was a high energy meeting – a VERY high energy meeting. Not a single soul spoke in favor of the DNR’s plans. The upset with them was obvious. The biggest considerations were that laws already exist to deal with issues such as pumping out and derelict boats; that the fee/permitting setup was possibly not legal, couldn’t be enforced and was basically unworkable.

Condemnation of the DNR’s plans was universal – from Kim Russo of the SSCA, from Boat US and the NMMA, even from GAMBA president Charlie Waller, and about 25 speakers from the boating and cruising community.

The bill’s sponsor, House rep Don Hogan, spoke, and kudos to him for being brave enough to get up in front of that audience. It was clear that the officials heard what the audience was saying – that this was a bad bill, not properly prepared, with no data to back it up and without adequate predication. At least three people, if not more, stated that the bill should not be enforced, that it should be put aside until the 2020 legislative session, when it can be reviewed and the problems in it corrected.

What will the DNR do? That’s hard to say. If they’re responsive to the public, this bill is dead in the water (sorry for the pun!). If not – we have a problem.

So – we need to keep the pressure up. The DNR has received 70 letters to date, not counting the official responses from we of the Save Georgia’s Anchorages, the SSCA/MTOA/AGLCA coalition, Boat US and the NMMA.

So if you aren’t one of the 70 who already wrote in – we need you to write in your opposition to HB201 today. Send your opposition to this bill to

Kelly Hill

Coastal Resources Division

One Conservation Way

Brunswick, GA 31520

Kelly.Hill@dnr.ga.gov

Once you’ve done that, copy at least three boating friends with this information and get them to do the same. If you want a prewritten letter to make it easy, you’ll find three of them in the FILES section of the Save Georgia Anchorages Facebook group – https://www.facebook.com/groups/SaveGeorgiasAnchorages/. See the links on the left hand side of the page to open FILES.

Just do it, and then post here that you did, pour encourage les autres.

Again everyone, thanks for your support. We’re winning this fight, but we’re not quite there yet. We’ve all still got work to do!

Once again, huge thanks to Cruisers Net for their support of the boating community.

Our thanks to Tom Hale for this explanation of the Clean Water Act and how it pertains to boats. The hearing to which he refers is the Georgia DNR hearing on wording of HB 201 being held today in Brunswick, GA.

CLEAN WATER ACT

For those who will attend the hearing today. I think it very important that the issue of boat sewage and NDZs is presented clearly and with one voice.

As previously stated, I have been involved with the issues of boat waste discharge and marine sanitation systems with related issues since the 1970s. After being involved with the creation of several No Discharge Zone laws (and always being on the losing end!) I understand that there is a great deal of confusion which then leads to the dissemination of misinformation. NDZs are proposed and established because if the “icky” factor of sewage. When people hear that there is such a thing as “no discharge zones” they assume that that means that anyplace else is a “discharge zones”. And then citizens, Natural Resource types and elected officials get worried about all the boats dumping sewage into “our waters.“ Then with little fore though t or study they decide “We must eliminate this sewage and create a law making it illegal to dump sewage in our waters.” The Georgia law reflects this confusion. It is already illegal to dump raw sewage into the waters of GA or any other territorial waters of the USA. (https://www.epa.gov/vessels-marinas-and-ports/vessel-sewage-frequently-asked-questions)

There is further confusion because the law also states that each vessel must be equipped with a marine sanitation device (MSD) . The word “device” may, to some people, imply that there has to be some sort of mechanical “thing.” Under the law, a sewage holding tank is one such device. Every boat out there today has a marine sanitation device, that being a holding tank (A sewage holding thank is by definition a Type III marine sanitation device.). Every boat out there has the equipment required to be in compliance with the clean water act.

The clean vessel act (https://wsfrprograms.fws.gov/Subpages/GrantPrograms/CVA/CVA.htm) is a program to make funding available for the installation of shore side facilities to handle the waste from boats. In my personal cruising experience Maryland, Rhode Island, Vermont, New York and Massachusetts have done an exemplary job of encouraging commercial facilities to build pump out stations and a number of cities and towns operate mobile pump out boats.

NDZs are created on a state level. To declare a body of water to be an NDZ the state must be able to prove that there are adequate facilities in place to handle the needs of the boating community. A reminder, NDZs only apply to boats which have an onboard treatment system (And, by the way, dumping a bunch of chemicals into your holding tank to kill bacteria does NOT meet the requirements of a sewage treatment system.) Georgia DNR has to understand that declaring all the waters of the state to be an NDZ is unnecessary due to existing federal law. There is no need to duplicate it with a state law. If there are concerns, GA DNR can and should enforce the federal laws already on the books.

The following is from an EPA website on the Clean Water Act.

• Section 312 of the Clean Water Act requires the use of operable, U.S. Coast Guard-certified marine sanitation devices (MSDs) onboard vessels that are equipped with installed toilets and operating on U.S. navigable waters.
• Untreated sewage discharges are prohibited within three miles from shore.
• In order to discharge within three miles, sewage must be treated using a U.S. Coast Guard-approved Type I or Type II MSD. Alternatively, sewage may be stored onboard in a holding tank (Type III MSD).
• Treated and untreated sewage discharges are prohibited in:
  • • Freshwater lakes, reservoirs and other freshwater impoundments whole inlets or outlets are such as to prevent the ingress or egress by vessel traffic.
    • Rivers not capable of navigation by interstate vessel traffic.
    • No-discharge zones (NDZs) (as applicable).
    • In these areas, sewage effluent generally must be retained onboard in a holding tank (Type III MSD). Operators of vessels equipped with flow-through MSDs (Type I or Type II) must secure the device to prevent overboard discharge.
    • Visit the No-Discharge Zones (NDZs) by State webpage for more information on the location and applicability of NDZs.

This is the third summary of comments regarding wording of Georgia’s HB 201 which restricts anchoring in Georgia’s coastal waters. See also GAMBA Statement and Save Georgia’s Anchorages.

These comments pertaining to the Notice of Rule Making for Coastal Marshland Protection and Boating
Regulations are respectfully submitted on behalf of a coalition of boating associations formed several
years ago to protect cruisers’ anchoring rights. Our coalition includes America’s Great Loop Cruisers’
Association (AGLCA), Defever Cruisers Group, Marine Trawler Owners’ Association (MTOA) and Seven
Seas Cruising Association (SSCA). Collectively, our coalition represents approximately 12,000 active
boaters.
We strongly believe that derelict and abandoned vessels, and vessels left unattended at anchor, are
major problems and that a solution to rid our waterways of these vessels is needed. They present
hazards to navigation, cause damage to property, and clog anchorages that would otherwise be useable
for responsible, active cruisers. However, the proposal to require a permit for short-term anchoring in
Georgia is unduly burdensome and creates a hindrance for boaters who want or need to “drop the
hook” in Georgia’s pristine anchorages.
While some of our members question the constitutionality of the law, we recognize DNR’s responsibility
is to implement the law as it stands. However, we believe the existing law and proposed rules are
fraught with potential problems on implementation. Below are questions and concerns brought forth by
our members related only to implementation, and the challenges inherent in the rules as proposed:
• Transient boaters entering Georgia may not be informed about the requirement to obtain a
permit and may inadvertently be in violation
• Weather, mechanical issues, and other factors beyond the boater’s control may prevent them
from planning enough in advance to obtain a permit (i.e., they may be forced to anchor when
and where they did not intend to)
• With some mobile service providers, service may not be available everywhere in the estuarine
areas of Georgia, leaving a boater unable to obtain a permit
• Local boaters object to needing a permit to spend a weekend at anchor in their “backyard”.
• Will DNR have the man-power to enforce the permit regulations?
• How will boaters know where they can anchor under the exclusionary approach that all
waterways are closed to anchoring except those that DNR designates as anchoring areas?
To address the permit issues, we suggest that a permit not be needed when anchoring in one location
for less than 60 days. Accordingly, we propose the language in 391-4-5-.23 (1) and (2) be amended as
follows:
(1) Anchoring or Docking Vessels at Night.
No person shall anchor or dock a vessel at night in the estuarine area of the state unless it is at an
eligible facility, as defined in O.C.G.A. 52-7-8.4, or in an anchorage area established by the Department
as outlined in paragraph (3), below. No boat may be left unattended at anchor for more than seven days.
If anchored for more than 60 days in one location, an anchorage permit as outlined in paragraph (2),
below, is required. This rule does not apply to the following:
A vessel docked at a private recreational dock or a non-eligible facility so long as such vessel is not
utilized as a live-aboard vessel, as defined in O.C.G.A. 52-7-8.4;
(2) Anchorage Permits.
(a) Vessels may not be anchored for more than 180 days in one location. Persons anchoring a vessel
for more than 60 days in one place in the estuarine area and within an anchorage area established by
the Department, must purchase and be in possession of an anchorage permit, except as provided
herein.
(b) Permit Fee.
1. A monthly anchorage permit is valid for 30 days and is available at a cost of $40.00.
2. Senior citizens (65 years of age or older), active duty military and veterans may purchase a
monthly anchorage permit at a fifty percent discount.
(c) Anchorage permits shall be available at all sites that sell hunting and fishing licenses, by phone and
online.
(d) Anchorage permits may be printed or held electronically, but must be onboard the vessel at all
times and available for inspection upon request. When a vessel is unoccupied at night, any monthly
anchorage permit must be prominently displayed and visible from the water.
(e) Any person applying for an anchorage permit for a live-aboard vessel must certify to no discharge of
sewage, treated or untreated, into the estuarine area of the state.
(f) Exemptions to this rule may be granted by the Department for unique circumstances. Conditional
permission must be requested in writing to the Commissioner.
This solution eases the burden on, and the concerns of, the cruising community.
We recognize that, one reason to support the need for the permits is to give additional authority for law
enforcement to impound derelict, abandoned, and long-term stored vessels, as they are unlikely to have
a permit. Removing the obligation to obtain a permit for short-term stays does not interfere with the
goal of giving law enforcement additional leverage to deal with this very real issue.
With a permit not required for short-term anchoring, should DNR deem it necessary, our coalition would
support fees for monthly anchoring permits that are higher than those proposed.
Regarding the approved anchorage areas, we proposed a more inclusive approach where all areas are
open to anchoring with a few exceptions. We suggest that the language in 391-4-5-.23 (3) be amended
to specifically state that anchorage areas include all waterways, with restrictions only where anchoring
can create a hazard or cause environmental damage. The State of Florida has a statute in place that
establishes setbacks from marine infrastructure in which anchoring is not permitted. We propose
modeling the Georgia regulations on Florida’s statute, as follows:
(3) Public Notice. Anchorage areas shall be all of Georgia coastal waters except shellfish beds,
navigation channels, and within 150 feet of marine infrastructure including marinas, boat ramps,
boatyards, or other vessel launching or loading facilities.
(b) This subsection does not apply to:
1. A vessel owned or operated by a governmental entity.
2. A construction or dredging vessel on an active job site.
3. A commercial fishing vessel actively engaged in commercial fishing.
4. A vessel actively engaged in recreational fishing if the persons onboard are actively tending
hook and line fishing gear or nets.
5. A vessel suffering a mechanical failure that requires immediate securing of the vessel to
avoid grounding, drifting into area of greater hazard, and/or to allow the operator to attempt repairs or
wait for a tow.
6. Imminent or existing weather conditions in the vicinity of the vessel pose a risk of harm to the
vessel or the persons aboard.
Our coalition thanks you for the opportunity to share our comments as part of the proceeding.
Respectfully,
Kimberly Russo
On behalf of
America’s Great Loop Cruisers’ Association
Defever Cruisers Group
Marine Trawler Owners’ Association
Seven Seas Cruising Association

Our thanks to Ted Arisaka and Save Georgia’s Anchorages for this interactive map of select Georgia anchoring waters. After opening the map, zoom in on one of the red dots. The red circles shown indicate 150 feet from structures near waters appropriate for anchoring. The setback distance has been a major issue for a number of cruisers.

Map of Georgia Anchoring Sites with 150ft setback

This response to Georgia’s HB 201 legislation which restricts anchoring on Georgia’s coast has been formulated by a number of very experienced cruisers and a representative of the Georgia Marine Business Association, GAMBA, all of whom worked many hours through extensive discussion to put together a cohesive statement regarding the wording of HB 201. There is still time before Monday’s GA DNR meeting for each of you to submit your own comment, see HB 201 for addresses.

Rules Wording – GAMBA Statement 13 June 2019

Roger Long is an experienced cruiser who, along with several others, has submitted comments to the Georgia Department of Natural Resources in response to HB 201. Cruisers Net invites you to make your own response to the addresses shown in Georgia’s HB 201 before Monday, June 17.

Comments to the Georgia Department of Natural Resources on Rule Making for Coastal Marshland Protection and Boating Regulations.

As the former Harbormaster of Cape Elizabeth, Maine I was charged with supervising anchoring and mooring in that town. Since retirement, I have cruised over 40,000 miles between Halifax, Nova Scotia and the Florida Everglades with a dozen transits of the ICW and extensive exploration of Georgia’s waters. I have thus had the opportunity to view the anchoring question from both sides and followed the decades long controversy and legal actions over anchoring in Florida. I have been asked to advise other commenters on the proposed Georgia regulations.

I strongly endorse the position, widely expressed in social media, and in the drafts of comments to your agency which I have been permitted to review, that the proposed rules as published
would be damaging to the overall interests of Georgia. Rather than comment on specifics of the proposed rules, which I think will be adequately covered by many others, I would like to offer a background analysis of anchoring issues to help the DNR reach a clarity that was lacking in the Florida processes as well as in discussions since the issue arose in your state.

Anchoring is a protected activity under well established common law as part of navigation. Restrictions must show an over riding public interest such as safety, not impeding other’s navigational rights, and (increasingly) environmental concerns. The long standing and court upheld status of anchoring has been often cited in relation to issues of vessels being abandoned or stored long term in navigable waters. The point that has seldom surfaced is that the most essential element of a vessel engaged in navigation is a crew. If there are no people aboard, the vessel can not be considered to be navigating and the state has greater latitude in regulating the craft’s use of a public resource.

A state could probably prevail in court on challenges to a rule that required that vessels at anchor always have a crew aboard capable of handling and moving the vessel if the anchor drags. I am only pointing out that the state has this option and a not advocating it. The fact that the state could do this does not mean that it should. There would be a huge backlash from boaters and it would be a very damaging to businesses along Georgia’s waterway. There are places in the state where people anchor to go ashore, spend money in local businesses, and hike in state parks and the National Sea Shore. These activities benefit the state economically and increase public support for protecting the unique and special environment of Georgia. Many cruisers already avoid the state by taking the outside route due to its navigational challenges. Any general restrictions on anchoring, paperwork (even if free), or even just the perception that interaction with law enforcement may be needed to justify a routine navigational operation, will increase this avoidance with resulting economic harm.

Even though vessels anchored so that the entire crew may go ashore are no longer navigating in the strictest sense of the word, it would be in the interest of Georgia to recognize the intermediate status of an “Attended Vessel”. The crews of vessels anchored in places like St. Marys may have left their vessel unoccupied but they are still generally in a position to monitor the weather and return within a short time period to deal with anchors dragging or other problems. If the crew of the vessel is far away, unable to return in a fairly short time period, and unable to be contacted, the vessel is neither navigating nor attended and the state has much greater latitude in regulating it. I would endorse a regulation that requires vessels anchored and unoccupied to post a phone number on a portlight or window where the owner may be contacted. Even if law enforcement is not involved, the ability of a nearby vessel to contact the owner could prevent or mitigate damage to the vessel, other vessels, shore structures, and the environment in the event of the anchor(s) dragging.

As both a former harbormaster and life long cruiser, I do not believe that unoccupied or unattended vessels should be left at anchor for more than very short periods. Anchors are most prone to breaking out and dragging when the current reverses. This is especially true in Georgia with its high tides and fast currents. Monitoring and returning to a vessel is more difficult in the dark and any “attending” crew ashore are likely to be asleep. It would be legally supportable to require that any vessel anchored overnight be occupied by a crew capable of handing the anchors and moving the vessel. In order to avoid economic damage to the state by denying cruisers the ability to dine or visit ashore while anchored, and the resultant avoidance of the state by many, I would propose that “overnight” be defined as between the hours of midnight and dawn. Establishing that unoccupied vessels may not be anchored between those hours would have little impact on either transient or local cruisers and would give the state an immediate handle for dealing with improperly stored and abandoned boats that are at risk of becoming derelicts.

Vessels anchored but neither occupied nor attended should be in a marina, tied to a dock, or on a mooring. Moorings are rare in Georgia and most of the discussions I have seen in both states have lacked clarity on the important distinctions between anchors and moorings. It is much more than just a difference in the kind of gear used to secure the vessel to the bottom.

Anchors are designed and intended to be deployed and retrieved by a vessel and carried aboard as an essential part of navigation. As such, compromises need to be made with their weight and holding power so that they may be handled. Moorings are heavier, semi-permanent installations that must normally be installed by a larger vessel dedicated to the purpose. Moorings are significantly less prone to dragging, generally immune to the effects of current shifts, and capable of securing the vessel against more severe weather events.

I have seen comments and opinions in both states that waterfront property owners will want to “anchor” their boats in front of their houses and that anchoring restrictions would prevent that. However, most property owners will actually want to have a mooring. It is much more convenient to pick up or drop the rope on a mooring buoy than to haul up and deploy an anchor. The mooring will also reserve their spot so they will be sure of it being available when they return. The vessel will be much more secure if the owner leaves for an extended period.

Anchors further differ from moorings in that a vessel takes its gear with it when it leaves whereas a mooring continues to occupy and restrict the use of a portion of a public resource when the vessel is absent. Since a mooring can not be considered a part of a vessel’s navigational equipment, a vessel on one is not navigating. Mooring are closer in the legal and regulatory scheme to docks than they are to anchors. Moorings appropriate a portion of a public resource for private use (or commercial in the case of a marina) so can and should be regulated by the state. There are recognized standards for mooring gear specifying the size of anchors, chain, and other components relative to vessel size.

A vessel which simply drops an anchor, intended for navigational use and to be carried aboard the craft, and is then left unattended for long periods is not navigating. It would be more accurate to think of it as being moored but with inadequate securing tackle that presents a risk to the vessel, other vessels, shore side structures, and the environment. One approach for the state would be a requirement that any vessel left unoccupied in the water for more than some short time period, say seven days, be either secured to a dock or on a permitted mooring. Insuring that the mooring gear met the recognized standard selected by the state would be part of the permitting process. The regulation could reasonably exempt boats below a certain size, perhaps 18 feet . This approach would increase the safety of all vessels, shore structures, and the environment. It would clearly distinguish boats that are in use from boats that are being stored or abandoned without infringing on the navigational rights of legitimate cruisers. The mooring permit could require vessel owners to agree to removal of their vessel and mooring without notice if the permit was allowed to elapse.

A more difficult issue is the occupied vessel that remains anchored in the same spot for long periods. Since the vessel is occupied, it can claim that it is navigating so long as it has a means of propulsion. At some point however, it becomes clear that the vessel is not engaged in navigation but is residing and being used as a habitation. I believe it would be reasonable, and legally defensible, for the state to require that any vessel remaining in the same location over 60 days obtain a mooring permit. I would define “location” as anchoring within the same anchor circle (radius of seven times the water depth around the original anchor location) and require an absence of seven days with relocation at least a mile away to restart the 60 day period. The exact numbers can be explored.

Finally, I commend Georgia for attempting to clean up and protect the waters which comprise one of the most beautiful areas on the whole east coast. However, I must point out that the huge brouhaha that has erupted over this was the result of failure at both the legislative and rule draft writing level to fully research the issues and understand the constituency effected by them. I urge your agency to issue a second draft of proposed rules followed by an additional comment period and to obtain further advice on the issues I raise above. I was part of a very productive and successful rule making process to create new Coast Guard regulations in which an industry/USCG task force was set up to draft the rules. We educated the Coast Guard, the Coast Guard educated us, and the result was a very workable set of regulations. I would highly recommend such an approach to the Department of Natural Resources.

Roger Long

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

Is anchoring in Georgia under attack as it is in Florida? Note carefully the proposed changes to terms for live-aboard, long term anchoring and the establishment of an anchoring permit. The first public hearing is June 17 in Brunswick. Written public comments may be submitted through July 15.
See response below from Executive Director of Georgia Marine Business. See also Kim Russo on New Anchoring Restrictions and  Jim Healy Comments

Public Notice: Notice of Rule Making for Coastal Marshland Protection and Boating Regulations

NOTICE OF PROPOSED REGULATION CHANGES TO:                  All Interested Persons and Parties FROM:             Doug Haymans​ SUBJECT:        Notice of Rule Making for Coastal Marshland Protection and Boating Regulations Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to authority set forth below, the Georgia Department of Natural Resources proposes an amendment to the Rules of Georgia Department of Natural Resources Coastal Resources Division, Chapter 391-2-3, Coastal Marshlands Protection Regulations and Wildlife Resources Division, Chapter 391-4-5, Boating Regulations.  This is a notice of proposed amendments to the rules to reflect the deliberations of the Coastal Committee of the Board of Natural Resources at its May 21, 2019 meeting. These amendments are being promulgated under the authority of Title 52, Section 52-7-8.4 of the Official Code of Georgia, Annotated.  In addition to the removal of the term ‘live-aboard’ and all associated rules from the Coastal Marshlands Protection Regulations, 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. A public hearing on the proposed amendments will be held in Brunswick, Georgia on Monday, June 17, 2019, 5:30p.m. at the Coastal Regional Headquarters of the Georgia Department of Natural Resources. Written public comment will be received through Monday July 15, 2019. Comments should be legible, concise and limited to the proposed rule change. Following the comment period, the Board of Natural Resources will consider the proposed rule on August 27, 2019 at 9:00 AM at its Board Room located at 2 Martin Luther King Jr. Drive, SE, Suite 1252, Atlanta, Georgia. Mail or email comments to: Kelly Hill, Coastal Resources Division, One Conservation Way, Brunswick, GA 31520. Kelly.Hill@dnr.ga.gov Additional information is available at www.CoastalGaDNR.org. Click on the “News and Notices” tab or click this link: https://coastalgadnr.org/notice-rule-making-coastal-marshland-protection-and-boating-regulations

20 years of Sustaining, Protecting,Enhancing, and Conserving Support marine habitates by upgrading your license plate!

STAY CONNECTED with Coastal Resources Division

Experienced cruisers and long a champion of boaters’ rights, Wally Moran has organized resistance to restricted water rights in the past, especially in Florida. See Anchorage Harassment.

Folks, we need to get upset over the Georgia anchoring situation and kick up a fuss. We can’t count on the SSCA, MTOA, AGLCA etc to get involved here in any substantive way – they’re into negotiating with the legislatures, and it’s now too late for that.
What do we need to do? I wish I knew, I’m thinking about it and would like to hear your ideas.
If the state can be convinced to not enforce these rules because of the damage they’ll cause to the marine business, that would be a beginning. My understanding from someone looking into this now is that at least one major marina in GA is not happy as this will drive people to go around GA.
Also – could this be a violation of the laws regarding interstate commerce?
Any other thoughts out there? Believe me folks, we need to mobilize on this. Can you imagine the damage to our lifestyle if Florida picks up on this? $5 a day to anchor in Florida, and only in state designated locations?
Say goodbye to cruising if that happens.
Wally Moran

Roger Long is an experienced yachtsman and Waterway cruiser. His passion for the freedom offered by the ICW is very evident in his writing. Anchoring restrictions in Florida have dampened the enthusiasm cruisers once had for that state. Georgia appears to be on the same “boating is only for the wealthy” path. Thank you for sharing Roger. See also Anchoring Under Attack in Georgia? and Kim Russo on New Anchoring Restrictions in Georgia.

Larry,
I was shocked to click into Cruisers Net this morning and see NOTHING about the new Georgia anchoring law that was snuck in under the radar. There was a small, easily overlooked item yesterday but it has aged down to page two. Do you not realize that, if this stands, we are looking at the beginning of the end of ICW snowbirding for everyone not wealthy enough or inclined to stay in a marina every night? This will be the formula that FL uses to finally shut down the state. It will likely spread to the Carolinas. There is a comment and rule making process in play. There should be an all stop call for emergency action.

I posted on some social media sites yesterday and am almost as shocked by the reaction of many in our community as the idiocy of Georgia government, comments generally along the lines of:

We always go outside so this doesn’t effect us.

We always stay in a marina so this doesn’t effect us.

If $5.00 a night is a problem for you, you can’t afford boating.

I’m in favor of keeping sewage out of the water.

We can afford one marina stop and get through Georgia in two days so what’s the big deal?

I find this fragmentation of interest disturbing. Do boaters only care about people who cruise exactly as they do? We are a small enough community as it is and such narrow perspectives will leave us powerless.

For us personally, exploring the remote corners of Georgia and anchoring in the many creeks and unspoiled spots is major reason for all the expenditure of time and money to maintain a large boat and take it south. If anchoring in the state is restricted to a few designated areas, which will certainly be only near places convenient for law enforcement to patrol to check for permits, and crowded, we will not be taking our boat south of Norfolk again. I know that we are probably a minority as most of your readers view the ICW as just a speed bump on the way to the Bahamas and Florida but, if our community fragments like this, there won’t be a Cruisers Net or need for it in a few years.
Roger Long

Our thanks to Kim Russo, Director of America’s Great Loop Cruisers’ Association for this summary of Georgia’s new anchoring laws. See also Anchoring Under Attack in Georgia?

The State of Georgia has passed a bill that restricts anchoring and adds some requirements for boaters regarding their marine sanitation systems.

It appears this will mean some new requirements for Loopers, such as keeping logs of pumps outs in Georgia and securing the black water discharge valves, similar to what is currently required in the Great Lakes and Canada. It will also restrict where you can anchor and require you to obtain a permit in order to anchor overnight. Please read below or view the attached bill for more specifics.

At this point in the process, Georgia DNR has issued a notice of proposed rulemaking to start the process of implementing this new law. Details can be found here. They are suggesting a nominal fee for anchoring permits, with permits obtained in a number of ways including online. No information is included on what areas will be designated as anchoring areas, other than a notice that those area will be posted on the DNR website.

This is the most restrictive anchoring law I’ve seen pass. Thankfully, the AICW through Georgia is less than 150 miles. AGLCA will participate in the process for the notice of proposed rulemaking as DNR works on implementation. We will let members know what assistance is needed as we continue analyzing the new law and it’s proposed implementation. In the meantime, if anyone has followed the evolution of this bill or has any additional information, please contact me.

The highlights of the bill are:

-The Board of Natural Resources is authorized to adopt and promulgate rules and regulations relating to
overnight or long-term anchoring within the estuarine areas of this state to include the establishment of an anchorage permit.

-The Department of Natural Resources is authorized to establish anchorage areas within the estuarine areas of this state as well as areas where anchoring is not allowed.

-It shall be unlawful for any person to dock or anchor at night any vessel within the estuarine areas of this state unless it is in an anchorage area established by the department and in compliance with all rules and regulations adopted by the board pursuant to this Code section or at an eligible facility. Nothing in this Code section shall prohibit short-term anchoring for fishing or similar activities, nor shall it prohibit the owner of a vessel from docking at a private recreational dock or noneligible facility so long as such vessel is not utilized as a live-aboard vessel.

-It shall be unlawful to operate or float any live-aboard vessel within the estuarine areas of this state, whether anchored in an anchorage area or at an eligible facility, which has located within or on such vessel a Type I, Type II, or Type III Marine Sanitation Device, as defined in 33 C.F.R. 159, unless such device has a secured mechanism which is constructed and installed in such a manner that it can be emptied only by pumping out to prevent discharge of treated and untreated sewage or is equipped with a holding tank, as
such term is defined in Code Section 52-7-3. Examples of secured mechanisms considered to be effective at preventing discharges include, but are not limited to, closing the seacock and padlocking, using a non-releasable wire tie, or removing the seacock handle with the seacock in the closed position.

-Persons operating or floating live-aboard vessels with marine toilets and subject to the requirements of this Code section shall create and maintain for at least one year after creation records which indicate the name and location of pump-out facilities used and the dates of such use. Persons who own or operate pump-out facilities shall also create a record and maintain, for at least one year after creation, records which indicate the name and vessel registration number, the date of pump-out, and verification of pump-out for each vessel for which pump-out services are performed.

Kim Russo
Director
America’s Great Loop Cruisers’ Association