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