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 is an Waterway eastern shore on which you do NOT want to walk your dog! Because of the official restrictions, there are obviously no anchorages recommended in the area. Browns Island is immediately north of Browns Inlet.
Hurricane Florence erosion exposed explosives buried on NC island, Marine base warns
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
On June 14th the Cruisers Net team pauses to remember our founder and our friend, Claiborne Young, who was taken from us five years ago in a tragic accident. Because he is with us on every page of his website, it is still hard to believe that he is gone. We hope that you, too, will continue to see him in the work we are continuing.
Claiborne Sellars Young 1951-2014
Claiborne S. Young was considered one of the foremost authorities on cruising the waters of the Southeast, having written numerous cruising guides from North Carolina to Mobile, AL, as well as creating video guides along the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway through the Carolinas. Claiborne was a larger than life man with a huge dream and a large family of cruising and boating friends that boated or cruised the coastal and near coastal waters from all over the south from Virginia to Alabama. He was a real people person, meeting and making new friends wherever he went. We remember and miss his tireless commitment to serving the cruising community concerning water access, clean water, navigational rights, safety, as well as providing information that would make every cruise most enjoyable. His ability to tell a story was unmatched and made him a very popular quest speaker. In his rich southern drawl, Claiborne’s ability to tell you where to anchor safely or visit a marina comfortably was matched equally by his yearn for a fine and enjoyable dining experience. In his own words, “a gastric-intestinal delight” or “cholesterol enriching experience.”
Since his tragic and untimely death in June four years ago, his Cruisers Net team of associates has worked to keep Claiborne’s dream alive by continuing to provide detailed, up-to-date cruising information free of charge to the boating and cruising community. This work, Claiborne’s dream, is supported by maritime business sponsors contributing to the growth and sustenance of our online services. The Cruisers Net team is constantly upgrading the site with easier to open and read graphics, new data formats and the latest technology such as bathymetry depth recordings available on all ChartView pages, as well as a powerful mobile app putting all the tools of Cruisers Net and more in the palm of your hand.
The members of the Cruisers Net team are most grateful to all our sponsors and to all the boaters and cruisers who continue to support, contribute, and participate with us. We are dedicated to keeping Claiborne’s life’s work alive. Sail on Captain Young and God’s Speed!
And we are ever so grateful for your continued participation: “CRUISERS HELPING CRUISERS!”
Kaye Adams
Larry Dorminy
Winston Fowler
Curtis Hoff
Meeting Claiborne and reading that first version of Cruising Guide to North Carolina revealed the huge cruising potential of my home state. So many of us have ventured to new places because of him. His kind advice and answers to questions in person or via email showed what a truly gracious person he was.
Claiborne was a true icon of the east coast cruising community, and Judy and I came to know him well–and really appreciate him–during the 15 years we owned and managed Bluewater Books & Charts. A larger-than-life personality, he brought so much to our world, and we still miss him.
Whenever I pick up and read one of Claiborne's books, my mind hears his soft Carolina accent saying the words, because Claiborne wrote like he talked–or did he talk like he wrote? Either way, what he wrote was true vintage Claiborne Young and it came from his heart. He was a true gentleman, the consummate cruiser, and he was never more at home that leading a discussion at Trawlerfest or a yacht club or another of his many other venues and seminars. And, like the country traveling salesman he was, selling his books all along the way.
Knowing that he is now reunited with Karen, his "first-rate-first-mate", makes his loss a tiny bit easier to accept, but I'll miss his friendship, his charm, and his warm smile for years to come. In the best sense, he made a difference in so many lives. So sad to see his life end so early.
Milt and Judy Baker
It is hard to imagine that it has already been 5 years…but if he could look down at all the changes and challenges that technology has brought to the boating world and how his "crew" has kept his dream alive and thriving…he would feel proud this fathers day. Keep up the good work!
We still miss you and think of you often my friend. Chuck and Susan
He was a great personal friend and one I even “worked for” for a short time. He is very much missed. As stated above, ya’ll are doing a great job as well. Personally, I’d love to see you expand your efforts into the Chesapeake where many cruisers and liveaboards spend their summers.
We also think of Claiborne every time we view the website, which is at least twice a week when at the dock and many times a day when cruising. (He and my wife share the same hometown and graduated a couple of years apart from the same high school). There will certainly never be anyone to take his place. However, there should be a tremendous amount of praise for you who have carried on after his death and kept his dream alive. There is no way to overstate the value of the website to the cruising community, and we wish you continued success in the future.
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
There is always plenty to do around Charlotte Harbor, especially during the Summer. Whether you are moored in Punta Gorda’s mooring field or berthed at Fishermen’s Village Marina, A CRUISERS NET SPONSOR, you will enjoy your visit to beautiful Charlotte Harbor, where Punta Gorda, also A CRUISERS NET SPONSOR, lies on Western Florida’s Charlotte Harbor/Peace River.
Click here for Fishermen’s Village July Calendar of Events/Entertainment
Kathy Burnham
Marketing/Events Manager
Fishermen’s Village
mkting@fishville.com
1200 W. Retta Esplanade #57A
Punta Gorda, Florida 33950
P 941 575-3007
M 941 258-1327
F 941 637-1054
Click Here To View the Cruisers Net Western Florida Marina Directory Listing For Fishermen’s Village
Click Here To Open A Chart View Window, Zoomed To the Location of Fishermen’s Village
A new Florida law could make it easier for local governments and law enforcement to remove derelict boats from waters in their jurisdictions.
Sick of seeing derelict boats littering local waterways? So was the governor from Englewood Sun
Give em away! Duh. Thousands of people looking for project boats. Buying boats no better than those lining the ICW here in Bervard County, FL, and making them seaworthy again. Give em a year, then inspect the progress. OR….spend millions turning them int trash. Use your brains FMP
Here’s an interesting article regarding dredging at the Breach Inlet/AICW intersection which has been a Problem Stretch for years due to shoaling and channel shifting.
US Army Corps of Engineers works to maintain the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway
Moultrie News
Click Here To Open A Chart View Window, Zoomed To This AICW Problem Stretch
AREA SPONSORING MARINA
Click Here To Open A Chart View Window, Zoomed To the Location of Isle of Palms Marina
Now that many of you are in southern waters and maybe headed for the Bahamas, don’t miss this opportunity to link with the Royal Marsh Harbour Yacht Club, A CRUISERS NET SPONSOR!
Are you planning to cruise to the Bahamas? Come spend some time in the Abacos with the Royal March Harbour Yacht Club. It’s an easy 60 mile crossing to Little Bahama Bank and then hundreds of miles of cruising amid protected islands and harbours with lots to explore.
Here are just some of the benefits of joining Royal Marsh Harbour Yacht Club.
Affordable initiation fee and annual dues
Discounts at marinas throughout the Bahamas
Discounts at restaurants and stores, particularly in the Marsh Harbour area
Friendly boating community with fun activities
The best deal in the Bahamas!
For more information and to become a member, go to www.rmhyc.com.
Stop in and give a big Welcome to one of our newest Sponsors! Only a mile or so upstream from downtown Jacksonville, Ortega Landing Marina, now A CRUISERS NET SPONSOR, is the first facility on your starboard as you enter the Ortega River from the St. Johns. Our thanks to Dave and Nan Fuller for these kind words as posted on AGLCA’s Forum.
We kept our boat for about 18 months at Ortega Landing. We loved both the marina with very nearby conveniences, and Jacksonville itself. It is just past downtown Jacksonville off the St. John’s river about 20 miles or so from the coast on the Ortega River. Tides here are about 18 inches and brackish water. Ortega Landing has floating concrete docks, great amenities, pump outs in slips, and lots of things you want just 3 to 4 blocks away including a Publix, West Marine, several restaurants, and other conveniences. There are several very good repair facilities within a half mile on the river. The only thing missing is covered slips and those are available about 1/4 mile away. Hard to beat this marina and pricing is competitive for this part of Florida.
Dave & Nan Ellen Fuller
WACI 3
Click Here To Open A Chart View Window, Zoomed To the Location of Ortega Landing Marina
Here is a link to HB 201 from the Georgia Assembly regarding anchoring:
These kind words for CRUISERS NET SPONSOR, Marineland Marina, were posted by Tim Gaffney on AGLCA’s Forum. With many recent facility upgrades and consistently good words from cruisers, Marineland Marina is located in Marineland, FL. See FOCUS ON Marineland Marina for more on this fine facility.
During our adventures we have spent 3-5 months all told at Marineland, 15 miles South of St. Augustine. Marina looks brand new, Dolphins swim inside the cove, 2 free tickets to see the Marineland scientific research center across the street.
If memory serves me cost is $1.25 a foot for a monthly stay. I think 30 amp for $35 a month. [See link below for all rates]
Eric really watches over the boats!
Did I mention the beach is right across the street?
Tim Gaffney
The Home Office
Click Here To View the Eastern Florida Cruisers Net Marina Directory Listing For Marineland Marina
Click Here To Open A Chart View Window, Zoomed To the Location of Marineland Marina
National Fishing and Boating Week is a national celebration highlighting the importance of recreational boating and Fishing. Federal and state land managers host lots of events and offer free fishing days around the country to commemorate National Fishing and Boating Week June 1 -9, 2019.
National Fishing and Boating Week
If you are in the Washington area and have land transportation, this would be a fascinating tour of the NOAA Cartography facilities in Silver Spring.
Save the Date: NOAA Nautical Cartography Open House 2019
|
|
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
The permit program is a disaster waiting to happen – for Georgia as well as cruisers who love the state. It seems so simple and the cost is modest. However…
Nothing spoils the ambiance and experience of being anchored in a remote and beautiful spot like seeing a boat with a flashing blue light coming at you. Am I going to have to stop watching the sunset and spend the next half hour showing my papers and watching them put dye in the head? Requiring a permit taped to a window raises the prospect of a law enforcement officers going by each anchored boat it sees close enough to check the permit and read the number of nights purchased. Then, they have to determine how many nights the boat has actually anchored. That means either an Orwellian tracking data base or the need to stop and talk to the vessel. This can only work as written if there are just a few approved anchorage areas in the state that can be monitored. Just the need of law enforcement having to cruise by close enough to read a document on the window will cause many to either avoid the inside route or zip through just as fast as they can. I’ve had people tell me that they avoid the state just because of the signs saying it is illegal to sleep on your boat more than 30 days a year. It wasn’t that they planned to stay longer but because they didn’t want to have to establish to law enforcement how long they had been there. I know this almost never happened but perception will keep people away just as well as fact.
Permits online? There are many boats that cruise without Internet. Sure, you can get the permit before you leave home but I’ve never gone into Georgia knowing how many nights I plan to spend there. That depends on weather and whim. Even on our 43 footer, we don’t carry a printer. If we purchased four nights and need another, what are we going to do? If a boat has purchased 5 nights and learns that Sunbury Crab Company is a must stop but it means another day, they are less likely to make the run up the river and spend money there.
We hear that the permits won’t be enforced but are just a tool to get a handle on abandoned vessels. Even if that is true, having laws on the books with no intent to enforce is terrible public policy. It is an invitation to abuse and the economic and racial profiling the south already has a bad reputation for. Furthermore, there will be little control over how this law enforcement tool is used in the future. Marina and waterfront property owners will exert pressure to check every vessel and, while they are at it, inspect the heads and papers. Local jurisdictions will use it as grant and budget writing support for additional boats and then need to justify them. This is what happened in Florida. They lost the fight to restrict anchoring so pressure was put on law enforcement to aggressively inspect anchored vessels. It got so bad that even the marina and shore business owners finally said, “Stop”. Now you can cruise the state in relative peace.
The DNR should have the flexibility to resolve problems like this within the final regulatory language. The question is whether they have the knowledge of cruising culture and the will to resist the pressure of interests that want to drastically restrict anchoring. Wording is powerful. “Every vessel intending to remain anchored *in one location for more than seven days* shall obtain a permit.” Put “overnight” inside the ** and you have a completely different situation. The first version would accomplish everything we are told is the aim of the law regarding derelict and abandoned vessels without significantly changing the status quo. I haven’t had a chance to review the law. Perhaps it has language that would restrict the DNR from making this adjustment in which case the state is going to become even more remote and less crowded. Marina and waterfront property owners will like the second version and can be expected to fight for it. The marina owners will come to regret it if they win. Consider our case. We cruise Georgia for the anchoring experience but the time spent usually results in a night at one of our favorite marinas because we need to re-supply and to pump out. If there is a restrictive and enforced permit program for short term overnight anchoring, no marina in the state will see us or our money again. We’ll join those running down the outside or make just a single midway stop in one of the approved anchorage areas.
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
| ||||||||
| ||||||||
| ||||||||
|
I am the owner of Isle of Hope Marina and the president of The Georgia Marine Business Association ("GAMBA") – so take aim now! We are seeing a firestorm of comments on these proposed regulations from our cruising customers, key leaders and leading organizations in the boating community, and from our long-time friends at Cruisers Net. And as facetious as this may sound based on the comments below, that is good as our community is clearly engaged on this important issue as it should be. As Americans, and more so as boaters, we cherish our personal freedom and rise up quickly when we believe it is threatened. As humans, we fear the unknown and quite naturally assume the worst when given incomplete or inaccurate information on a controversial issue, as is evidenced by many of the comments here and on other sites. In order to take two small steps toward some clarity, here are two specific suggestions on the proposed rules:
1) Anchorage Rules: This rule needs to encourage and support safe anchoring, not inhibit it. The setback from structures must be practical. The DNR should move quickly on this issue to quiet fears.
2) Anchorage Permits If these rules are too onerous, particularly for short-term stays, I do agree that this will drive boaters away from Georgia's waters. We also need to ensure that a law-abiding boater's privacy is protected as these rules are developed. * Apologies to Susan Parker as these comments mirror her excellent and succinct comments below
These are my personal comments. GAMBA is comprised of most of the major marinas on the coast of Georgia, as well as many of Georgia's leading marine businesses. GAMBA, as an organization, will submit detailed comments in the near future. Contrary to comments posted by others, GAMBA has taken no specific position on these proposed regulations at this time. Coming soon….
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.
I ask two things:
1) Restricted areas and rules be clearly communicated.
2) Anchoring permits be easily accessible/available on line.
I'd like to clarify a few things about new laws in Georgia. I'm the executive director of the Georgia Marine Business Association (GAMBA), and the publisher of Southern Tides Magazine. I was also previously an executive director of an international cruising association.
This bill, which I strongly support, is NOT an attack on cruisers or on anchoring in Georgia.
Most liveaboard boaters/cruisers/transient boaters follow the principle of leaving no wake – meaning leaving no trace of their presence when visiting or transiting through an area. No trash, no waste, the smallest/least footprint possible. If you've been through Georgia's coastal waters, you're aware that what we have here is some of the last remaining undeveloped and unspoiled marshes, wetlands, barrier islands, and inland waterways on the eastern seaboard. This bill is an attempt to keep it that way by designating anchorage areas and restricting sewage pumpout in our state waters.
Some things to be aware of:
– Anchoring will still be permitted in most Georgia waters. Areas that will be restricted are shellfish beds (which are critical to our coastal ecosystem), and within a specified distance (still being decided) of structures, to include bridges, existing docks, and in navigation channels. This distance is for the safety of everyone involved and is not aimed so much at cruisers as at local boats that anchor in high traffic areas creating a hazard to navigation, and boats anchoring a couple hundred feet (or less) from a marina or other dock and causing dangerous situations for boats approaching and departing those docks.
– There will be a small permit fee, similar to what you'd pay to camp at a state or national park. The purpose of this fee is to prevent boats from being anchored in our coastal waters and abandoned, which happens far more frequently than you might imagine – I can think of half a dozen off the top of my head. It allows these abandoned boats to be dealt with (there currently isn't a way of dealing with them). The other purpose of the fee was to fund the removal of these abandoned vessels, but it was struck down on the floor of the House, even though we fought hard for it. And we'll continue to push for those fees to go directly into an abandoned vessel fund in the next congressional session.
– This law will be enforced by reporting – meaning law enforcement isn't going to ride around looking for permits, inspecting your Y valve, etc. But it does allow reports of pumping sewage overboard, protection of our shellfish beds, vessels anchored in dangerous locations, and abandoned vessels (NONE of which we want) to be dealt with.
You are all still heartily welcome in Georgia waters! We rely on your patronage and have no wish to push you away. You are still welcome to anchor in our countless truly lovely areas or stay in any marina of your choosing, and there are pump-out stations (that only charge nominal fees) located throughout our coast. Please also note that this law will not go into effect until January 1, 2020, and before it does, the wording will be clarified and posted (as well as shared with Cruiser's Net , Active Captain and Waterway Guide).
I welcome any questions, and of course you're welcome to participate in the public comment to the GADNR.
Sincerely,
Amy Thurman
Georgia Marine Business Association
Southern Tides Magazine
Georgia Resident
amy@southerntidesmagazine.com
Experienced yachtsman and Waterway cruiser, Jim Healy, shares his thoughts on recent Georgia legislation restricting anchoring in or near the AICW.
So far, the only explanation I have seen for the actions Georgia has taken is pollution from boats pumping overboard, but I think the issue is broader than that, and is really targeted at the “derelict vessel” problem. There is no question that derelicts are a problem in many places, but this approach doesn’t get at the problem and swats a mosquito with a sledge hammer. It’s poorly thought out, typical of government bureaucrats. Does anyone actually know what the intent is? It would be helpful in any analysis of the actions being undertaken to know what the result is supposed to be. If it’s really pollution for pumping overboard, there are much bigger problems for states to tackle than boaters. How about agricultural runoff, storm overflow from municipal sewage treatment facilities, lawn fertilizers, and the plethora of industrial pollutants in places like Savannah harbor and Brunswick harbor.
Legally, this is an amazingly complex area with literally hundreds of years of Roman Law, English Common Law and US Constitutional law and International Maritime Treaty underlying. There are topics of jurisdiction, administration, Public Trust Lands, Supreme Court precedent and the evolution of public policies. I have an article on my website that tries to summarize the very tip of the subject. Here’s a link to the article: https://gilwellbear.wordpress.com/category/cruising-practica/general-cruising/anchoring-rights/. I will assume you will read that instead of having me re-post it here.
The State of Georgia is given money from the federal government for dredging, a public trust responsibility. That money comes to the state through its congressional delegation. The state has consistently diverted that money to other non-waterway uses (as has South Carolina), so we have places like Altamaha Sound, the Little Mud River and Hell Gate that are on the edge of impassible – or actually impassable – at low tide, and worsening. Before the state does something as extensive as what is being proposed, denying the free use of public trust lands to the public, should they not live up to their existing public trust responsibilities?
As with motor vehicle and highway law, should not the maritime laws of the various states be consistent with the laws of neighboring states? If so, we already have a mess on our hands, because there is no consistency from state to state on the A-ICW. This nonsense will just add to that. One wonder if they consulted with their neighbor, Florida, on the history of “derelict vessel” legislation there. Probably not; pride would preclude that reasonable course of action.
I do not object to REASONABLE controls, but a one-night permit for a through-cruiser to anchor on Wahoo Creek overnight which is applied for and received online? Nonsense. There are places in the salt marshes of the low country where no signal is available. And a $240 dollar annual permit? What’s that money to be used for? Is it destined for the general treasury of the state, or is it restricted for some waterway development use?
Boaters need to band together with BoatUS and the AIW Association to help manage this.
We must develop intelligent, factual, non-emotional suggested responses to be sent to Georgia legislators and the governor. Someone needs to lead that. Soon.
In the end, Georgia residents must lead this fight on behalf of all boaters. Georgia boaters have by far the most to lose here, because they can’t go out on weekends and drop the hook, and of course, they can’t go to remote, private locations, either. They’d have to go to “approved anchorages.” It was cleaver to single out “estuarine waters.” That immunizes the thousands of boaters on fresh water ponds like Lake Lanier. Keeps the noise level from the peanut gallery down. I tried once to write an email to then South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley about the condition of the A-ICW between Charleston to Georgetown (McClellanville, Andersonville). Since I am not a South Carolina resident, the state email system would not allow me to contact their governor’s office. How’s that for Bovine Excrement? Georgia residents have to own and lead this.
One important issue is, what is Georgia’s legal definition of “LIVEABOARD?” When Florida went through this, they had to change the definition in a way that DID NOT include cruising boats that are simply exercising their rights of passage. If cruisers don’t fit the definition of “live aboard,” then none of this is an issue for us. And frankly, a column in the logbook that gets a check mark when I pump out is pretty simple. I started doing that years ago when North Carolina flirted with a law requiring a pumpout log.
A lot needs to be done here, fast, on behalf of the cruising community. If I can help, I’m happy to do so. But, I’m not a Georgia resident and not in a position to lead the fight. Someone resident in Georgia is going to have to step up. Peg and I are cruising now, so my Internet Access and personal availability are constrained.
Jim Healy
Cruisers Net is proud to be a member of the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway Association whose lobbying work is crucial to keeping the Waterway navigable. Your membership dollars directly impact their vital work. Please join and encourage your boating neighbors to do likewise, regardless of their homeport.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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
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.
Be the first to comment!