Jim and Peg Healy cruise the Waterway annually and have been supportive of and outspoken on the issue of boaters’ rights for as long as I have known them. Jim is articulate, logical and reasonable in his writing, as you will see below. Our thanks to Jim for sharing his thoughts with our readers.

Hon. Don Logan
Hon. William Ligon
Hon. Jesse Petrea
Hon. Karen Mathiak
Hon Al Williams
Hon. Lynn Smith

Ladies and Gentlemen:

My wife and I are long-term cruisers. Our boat has been our principle home for 15 years. We are “snowbirds;” annually, we cruise north to spend our summers on the Chesapeake Bay, the NYS Canal System, or along the New England Coast. Each fall, we cruise south to spend our winters in SW Florida. Both spring and fall, we utilize the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway (A-ICW) to transit the magnificent Low Country of Georgia. In our travels, we take advantage of both anchorages and marinas. Georgia anchorages we’ve utilized include several places around Cumberland Island, at Jekyll Island, the Frederica River at Ft. Frederica, the Duplin River, New Teakettle Creek, the Crescent River, the Wahoo River, several places at Walburg Creek, Big Tom Creek, the Ogeechee River and the Vernon River. Marinas we have visited include Jekyll Harbor Marina, Brunswick Landing Marina, Golden Isles Marina, Two-Way Fish Camp, Kilkenny Marina, Delegal Marina, Isle of Hope Marina, Sail Harbor Boatyard and Marina, Thunderbolt Marina, and the Savannah Downtown Municipal Docks. We try to visit and enjoy different areas on each passage.

I am writing to express my general opposition to HB201. As I understand the revisions to the relevant Georgia Statutes, there appear to be two components of HB201. First is the discharge of sewage. Second is a new requirement for permits needed in order to anchor in Georgia estuarine waters. I will comment on each in turn, but I believe HB201 is based on flawed assumptions, and will only serve to confuse transient boaters like myself. Furthermore, it is going to be very difficult for boaters to comply, and both difficult and costly for Georgia Law Enforcement Officers to actually enforce. It’s hard to understand how this bill could have been adopted without input from Georgia Marina operators and from the boating public, since the burden of compliance falls on these two groups.

With regard to the discharge of sewage:

The Federal Clean Water Act of 1972 disallows the discharge of sewage within the territorial waters of the United states. It has been unlawful under federal regulations to dump any raw sewage into the territorial waters of the United states since that act took effect. Boats with USCG Type II treatment systems, which have been tested and certified by the USCG to comply with the strict requirements of onboard sewage treatment, may discharge treated effluent except in designated “No Discharge Zones.” So far as I know, the estuarine waters of Georgia have not been designated as NDZs. To emphasize, however, today it is unlawful under the regulations of the Federal Clean Water Act to discharge the contents of a holding tank or otherwise directly discharge sewage into the territorial waters of the US, which includes all of the waters of Georgia, and it has been unlawful for at least 40 years. This would seem to render the sanitation portion of HB201 unnecessary in the first place. If Georgia believe a boater is in violation, that boater can be cited under the terms of the Federal Clean Water Act of 1972.

Continuing, however, 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 travel offshore, discharge sewage lawfully beyond the US territorial three-mile limit, and subsequently enter Georgia estuarine Public Trust waters seeking safe overnight anchorage. In this circumstance, there is no way to document compliance with HB201, which can lead to misunderstandings and inappropriate accusations in encounters between transient boaters and Georgia law enforcement officials.

The revised Georgia statue also imposes an unreasonable hardship on transient cruising boats in navigation on the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway and tributary estuarine waters of the state. Many cruising boats take only two or three days to transit low-country estuarine waters. A variety of circumstances might result in a boat lawfully pumping out in a non-Georgia jurisdiction (South Carolina or Florida) prior to entering Georgia state waters. Assuming a boat with a 10-14 day capacity for the holding tank, there may be no way for an otherwise compliant boater to document compliance with the Georgia statute. A southbound transient boater who pumped out in South Carolina, subsequently transited the low country, and pumped out again in Florida, is in compliance with HB201, but is unable to meet the newly imposed documentation requirement to demonstrate that compliance.

In light of the above, it seems the Georgia law is poorly though out and constitutes an undue burden to transient boaters engaged in lawful navigation on Georgia Public Trust estuarine waters.

With regard to the new permitting process:

The Official Code of Georgia must acknowledge that there is a difference between the rights of 1) a boat anchored while engaged in navigation, such as ours, and 2) a boat that is in what amounts to long-term storage upon the Public Trust waters of the state while attached to an anchor or mooring ball. Neither current Georgia Statute nor HB201 appear to me to recognize this important distinction. Boats engaged in navigation are not at risk of becoming derelict. It is boats in long term storage at anchor, or on a mooring ball, that are at risk of becoming derelict.

It appears to me that Georgia statute does not define “Derelict” and does not provide objective criteria for 1) declaring a boat to be at risk of becoming derelict or 2) of actually being in a derelict condition. This is an oversight (flaw) of Georgia statute. I respectfully suggest a review of Florida Statute 327.4017. The Florida definition of “At Risk” boats is at this time well thought out and does not adversely affect boats lawfully being used in navigation.

Local Law Enforcement Officers who patrol Georgia estuarine Public Trust waters on a regular basis are well aware of stored boats that are either derelict or at risk of becoming derelict. Absent specific superseding legislation, local nuisance laws can be used by local municipal authorities having jurisdiction to seize and remove derelict boats and to cite owners of at risk boats to require corrective action within a specified period of time in the same way that abandoned cars can be removed from public highways.

Conclusions:

In consideration of the jurisdiction of the Federal Clean Waters Act of 1972, the sanitation provisions of HB201 appear to be unnecessary in whole.

I am completely opposed to permitting fees for transient boats lawfully engaged in navigation, of which anchoring is a lawful part. Additionally, I believe there are federal court precedents that identify such license imposts as unconstitutional. For the short term (no more than 60 days) for boats in navigation (boats in transit through the State of Georgia), there should be no anchoring fees (license imposts) and no permit requirements.

I am not opposed to a permit requirement and substantial fees for boats that are long-term stored by anchoring upon Georgia Public Trust waters. It is these long term stored boats that create the risk of becoming derelict, and it should fall to the owners of long term stored boats to fund corrective action and cleanup. These storage fees could attach to any boat anchored in the same place on Public Trust waters for an extended period of time; ex: anchored in one place for 60 days or longer. I would also suggest, in any case, it is incumbent on local law enforcement officials and municipal authorities having jurisdiction to take interventional action before a boat in their jurisdiction becomes derelict in the first place.

Very truly Yours,
l/s: James B. Healy

cc: Amy Thurman, GAMBA

Peg and Jim Healy aboard Sanctuary, currently at Annapolis, MD.

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