Florida anchorage restrictions

No Mast said:

Once this isn't the current topic, and the issue has been settled, I'd expect some areas to have anchoring restrictions. But will they really be enforced i wonder?

Click to expand...

I think there will be some enforced, simply because the homeowners complaining will call for enforcement. It's my hope that the final results go both ways in creating anchorages and moorages and in creating rules that both sides can live with.

I find the derelict vessel law to be far more important and the way the one being considered right now has been watered down, I see very little likelihood of enforcement.

I think the state has overall moved responsibly, just some people won't accept that. They created pilot sites. They then said they wanted to see that project completely through to 2017 before making further recommendations. Again, some want immediate and far reaching solutions.

When we purchased in Fort Lauderdale in 2012 there was one area we chose not to purchase because of the number of boats anchored. We didn't mind the look, but didn't want to have to go through that every time in and out. My problem is why purchase in such a situation and then feel it must change. WYSIWYG.

We have an anchorage close to our home and it's never a problem. The anchoring in Middle River, which is part of the bill, is very close to us as well. We saw it before we bought here and nothing has changed. There have been some blow ups though when local enforcement has asked boats to move in the area near the park. Note, I didn't say to leave, just to move a little. I do not know the specifics beyond that and have no first hand knowledge.

In my opinion, as a homeowner, I don't consider us to have an anchoring problem in our area. I do consider derelict boats a problem nearly everywhere there is boating in the country and because Florida has more boating, it's more of an issue, but totally separate from anchoring.

I wish the pro-anchor side would come up with their own recommendation at some point, perhaps at the completion of the pilot. This is a pre-emptive move I'd like to see. I do believe there will be some restrictions and who better to come up with a reasonable plan than those who do anchor. Some sites and publications have campaigned diligently against various proposed laws but I haven't seen their alternative proposal.

And I am strongly opposed to a piece meal solution of the state legislature passing a provision to cover a specific anchorage.

Our Maritime Authority is tough on bad boats sitting on location licensed moorings, I expect they take particular exception to similar boats on unlicensed moorings.
Our problem is less about boats tethered in the water and more about boats on trailers parked in the streets. Some trailer boat owners won`t keep their boat on their own property or pay for storage, so they park them, not necessarily near where they live. A couple of boats parked together seem to breed, quiet suburban streets can become clogged with parked boats on trailers.

BandB said:

A common misconception is that the laws to deal with derelict boats are on the books. They aren't. In fact there is a separate derelict boat law awaiting passage and it has been so watered down as it passed through the legislature as to be of far less help than it should.

However, that's a separate law and separate discussion.

Click to expand...

It is a separate law, but I don't think it is entirely a separate issue. Derelict boats create unhappiness that can lead to folks complaining about any boats anchored out.

I am in the upper left-hand corner rather than the lower right as you are, but I would have a hard time believing that a homeowner would be upset about a cruiser anchoring in the late afternoon or evening and then moving on in the morning (often before the land dwellers are even awake). However, abandon an ugly, slowly deteriorating boat out in front of their property, I can see them rightly being very upset.

It just seems to me that by solving the derelict boat issue it would go a long way to solving a lot of problems for everyone.

dhays said:

It is a separate law, but I don't think it is entirely a separate issue. Derelict boats create unhappiness that can lead to folks complaining about any boats anchored out.

I am in the upper left-hand corner rather than the lower right as you are, but I would have a hard time believing that a homeowner would be upset about a cruiser anchoring in the late afternoon or evening and then moving on in the morning (often before the land dwellers are even awake). However, abandon an ugly, slowly deteriorating boat out in front of their property, I can see them rightly being very upset.

It just seems to me that by solving the derelict boat issue it would go a long way to solving a lot of problems for everyone.

Click to expand...

Certainly the derelict boats have contributed heavily to the problem. Also, while you and I consider the cruiser anchoring pleasant, there are some who don't even like that. They are definitely in the minority. But then you look at this bill. The majority of people in Florida aren't pushing for banning anchorages in these three locations. This is definitely not a bill of public demand, but very much special interest legislation.

"Make little difference though, the current regime has ignored the referendum that had 70% support by the voters to correct the Okeechobee water releases that are killing the Indian River Lagoon and ditto Fort Meyers area:

This Jan FL rain (15 inches) happens every 105 years or so.

There will be loads of time to "cure " any problem.

My guess would be the water is directed to Miami and the Keys , rather than dumped in the ocean.

Its all drinkable fresh rain water , discolored by a bit of tannin from Lake O dead leaves.

Easy enough and cheap enough to filter.

The only hassle with some transients is their rowing ashore to leave dog poop in the yard.

Not my problem were too far in a canal system , but neighbors dont like it much.

BandB said:

Also, while you and I consider the cruiser anchoring pleasant, there are some who don't even like that.

Click to expand...

Thanks BandB for an excellent analysis of this issue. As an example of someone who doesn't want any anchoring in front of his house, below is a picture of the Sunset Lake anchorage, one of the 3 anchorages considered in the bill. The picture shows 20+ small dinghy's anchored in front of his house presumably to prevent anyone from anchoring nearby. We anchored about 1/4 mile from this homeowners house and saw one other boat in the anchorage. This was the summer of '14.

My guess is though the homeowner may be rich he has other issues in his life and is probably not a very happy person.

timjet said:

Thanks BandB for an excellent analysis of this issue. As an example of someone who doesn't want any anchoring in front of his house, below is a picture of the Sunset Lake anchorage, one of the 3 anchorages considered in the bill. The picture shows 20+ small dinghy's anchored in front of his house presumably to prevent anyone from anchoring nearby. We anchored about 1/4 mile from this homeowners house and saw one other boat in the anchorage. This was the summer of '14.

My guess is though the homeowner may be rich he has other issues in his life and is probably not a very happy person.

Click to expand...

Yes, it's not the anchoring boats making his life miserable, but his response to them. I'm sure sometime there was one who really bothered him and was probably a jerk or a derelict or loud till 3 AM or discharged. Who knows. However, when you become obsessed, all consumed by it, you have a problem. Can you imagine how much he's harassed law enforcement, legislators, and others over this issue. To some of them it's probably worth passing the bill just to not deal with him anymore.

A diver, sharp knife or cable cutters could have fun with this guy. He deserves as much. One obsesser meets another. This guy is legend here in FL. Danger to others is of concern though in setting them free.

"One obsessed mets another"

FF said:

"Make little difference though, the current regime has ignored the referendum that had 70% support by the voters to correct the Okeechobee water releases that are killing the Indian River Lagoon and ditto Fort Meyers area:

This Jan FL rain (15 inches) happens every 105 years or so.

There will be loads of time to "cure " any problem.

My guess would be the water is directed to Miami and the Keys , rather than dumped in the ocean.

Its all drinkable fresh rain water , discolored by a bit of tannin from Lake O dead leaves.

Easy enough and cheap enough to filter.

The only hassle with some transients is their rowing ashore to leave dog poop in the yard.

Not my problem were too far in a canal system , but neighbors dont like it much.

Click to expand...

FF,
On issues like this you are usually dead on. This time you are dead wrong. In 2013 the poison wrecked havoc on the Lagoon. Killing reefs, oysters and so forth. Red tide was everywhere killing manatees among other things. The water quality was so bad in Stuart that there were many cases of people getting the poisonous water on bare human skin that lesions soon followed.

You may drink all you want of the nitrogen-phosphorus fertilizer filled polluted crap from the Sugar cane fields you wish but not me or mine. I just brought a Great Harbor 37 through the waterway from Ft Meyers. The water release where the water was churned foamed up like old time Tide laundry water.

That lake water is a filthy cesspool of ag waste and it is killing the beaches, reefs polluting both coast. Drive behind Publix at the causeway on US1 north Fort Pierce and look at the filthy mess coming over that spillway.

Here at Harbortown at Taylor Creek the water is so filthy there are no fish, not even mullet or jacks. I cannot do my monthly fire up of my water maker for fear of ruining filters, or worse. 5 divers that clean boat bottoms here are out of comission due to sickness.

Last year I was 5 miles or so out steaming north parallel to the beach I did not need my GPS or anything else but the brown stain coming from the inlet on an out flowing tide, all I had to do was follow it in. .This is a slow moving Corps of Engineers man made disaster that is far more than 100 year event.

The vegetation in a 5 mile wide belt across FL on North end of the Everglades will cause the grass to flourish as it filters the stuff out. That is the answer, but it will cost money to correct the unintended consequences of at the time good intentions of the Corps.

And look at the view behind his house. That would bother me more than boats.

Here in Stuart FL the water in the St. Lucie is disgusting. The fish are gone, nobody fishes from the Roosevelt Bridge anymore. Not even algae survives and my sea strainers remain grass and algae free. It has become a dead zone. How this can be allowed to continue stuns me.

Mule said:

This is a slow moving Corps of Engineers man made disaster that is far more than 100 year event.

The vegetation in a 5 mile wide belt across FL on North end of the Everglades will cause the grass to flourish as it filters the stuff out. That is the answer, but it will cost money to correct the unintended consequences of at the time good intentions of the Corps.

Click to expand...

Certainly would be interesting to see the Environmental Impact Assessment on this project.....or does it predate EIA's???

TIMjet-shouldn't all those little boats be considered "abandoned" under Fla law? No apparent owner, no activity, no movement. Does he keep the registrations current on all of them? It would seem he is doing precisely what he objects to just to keep others from also doing it. I suspect he would be pretty pi$$ed if the state came long and removed them as abandoned.

Greetings,
Tag the boats that are abandoned or not attended to. Post notices in the local marinas and in the local papers that said boats are tagged. Haul those suckers away after the notice period. Charge the waterfront property owners for the costs to haul away (increase their taxes-call it a shoreline improvement tax). That will either clean up the derelict boat problem OR shut the waterfront owners up.

Further, set a time limit for anchoring in one spot and enforce it through fines (parking tickets).

There actually is a tagging mechanism and even a map with indicators for all the at risk vessels.

https://public.myfwc.com/LE/ArrestNet/DerelictVessel/VesselMap.aspx

There is also a bill, SB 1300, which appears ready to pass. It is a wait 30 ticket, wait 30 days ticket again, wait 30 days ticket again type bill, but there is no action specified in the bill beyond ticketing. It's still so woefully inadequate. If you're Law Enforcement how much time are you really going to spend looking for and ticketing the same boats over and over.

Florida also has no salvage law. To take claim to an abandoned vessel requires a claim process and making application to have it transferred into your name, then waiting for an investigation that may cost you $600 and take several months. Then, if successful, you then own the boat and are responsible. Picture this, you go through the process, the boat sinks the day after title is transferred to your name, and now you have to pay for salvage.

So, as of today and as of the law about to be passed there is really no system in place in Florida for removal of derelict or at risk vessels.

Greetings,
Mr. BB. I think you've referenced that map before and noted it is not active as of yet. Should be VERY interesting to peruse, particularly for Broward County (your neck of the woods and an area I am a bit familiar with).

Thanks for the mention of SB1300. Seems another useless law that simply pays nothing more than lip service to a problem that needs addressing.

As far as salvage law, empower the LEO's. Tag and after 30 days, as I mentioned in post #45, tow to an impound area. Auction these "deals" off with a new title on a monthly basis with the proceeds going to...whatever. A charity, say.

Speaking of derelicts in Broward County, we took a run up the New River a while back and on the north shore, just before the North/South fork, there were 2, possibly 3 vessels that were in such a state of disrepair I wondered how they were still floating. They were behind a private residence. Just gotta love some neighbors...

B-thanks for the details, a pretty toothless law. Yet, in many jurisdictions, the towing and subsequent vehicle storage is contracted out So, when you get a parking ticket, especially where restricted parking may affect traffic flow, there are like a half a dozen tow trucks just waiting for the time to tow to pass. All at no cost to the city. Maybe something similar for boats? One 30 day notice, then contract out the towing and disposal, let the contractors auction unclaimed off and dispose of the rest. Even if the city/state has to kick in $$ for disposal costs.

RT Firefly said:

Greetings,
Mr. BB. I think you've referenced that map before and noted it is not active as of yet. Should be VERY interesting to peruse, particularly for Broward County (your neck of the woods and an area I am a bit familiar with).

Thanks for the mention of SB1300. Seems another useless law that simply pays nothing more than lip service to a problem that needs addressing.

As far as salvage law, empower the LEO's. Tag and after 30 days, as I mentioned in post #45, tow to an impound area. Auction these "deals" off with a new title on a monthly basis with the proceeds going to...whatever. A charity, say.

Speaking of derelicts in Broward County, we took a run up the New River a while back and on the north shore, just before the North/South fork, there were 2, possibly 3 vessels that were in such a state of disrepair I wondered how they were still floating. They were behind a private residence. Just gotta love some neighbors...

Click to expand...

Actually the map is active now. You can search on it and you'll see many listed boats. Click on Queries in the lower right and it will give you options. There's a 34' Blue Boat up New River and it's Derelict and a hazard to navigation. I found a 20' White Boat with photo that is derelict but not a hazard.

So it's in use, just not very fully, and all it's doing is showing they know there are derelict boats there.

THD said:

B-thanks for the details, a pretty toothless law. Yet, in many jurisdictions, the towing and subsequent vehicle storage is contracted out So, when you get a parking ticket, especially where restricted parking may affect traffic flow, there are like a half a dozen tow trucks just waiting for the time to tow to pass. All at no cost to the city. Maybe something similar for boats? One 30 day notice, then contract out the towing and disposal, let the contractors auction unclaimed off and dispose of the rest. Even if the city/state has to kick in $$ for disposal costs.

Click to expand...

I've thought similar. Set up a boat junkyard. It would obviously require a crane or lift and then stands for the boats, so towing would not be cheap by any means. At this point there is no provision for that.

Greetings,
Mr. BB. Got "Chicken Under a Brick" on the stove so I'll check out the map later (I did try the query tab but alas, no joy...).

Seems if the legislators can get together and pass an anchoring law it would be pretty straight forward to rescind that law and pass the "Derelict boat Law".

RT Firefly said:

Greetings,
Mr. BB. Got "Chicken Under a Brick" on the stove so I'll check out the map later (I did try the query tab but alas, no joy...).

Seems if the legislators can get together and pass an anchoring law it would be pretty straight forward to rescind that law and pass the "Derelict boat Law".

Click to expand...

Well, they think SB 1300 solves something. All it does is allows for the writing of tickets. First $50, then $100, then $250.

Enjoy your chicken.

B-I think it could be done relatively cheaply. Most of the abandoned and derelict boats are not too big, my guess would be that the vast majority are under 40' A decent sized flat barge, very small tug/tow, maybe a 20 ton or so crane on board and a boat stack type forklift on land. Hell, you can probably rent a barge and small towboat for less than $3,000 a day. 30 day notice goes on boat, mailed notice to current or last registered owner. then lift and dry store.. I don't even think you would need stands. Most FRP boats can lay on their sides. 30 days to redeem from storage then auction or crush. Any unused industrial waterfront provided by the jurisdiction for storage. Furthrmore, I would start tagging "owners" with the fees and costs. A transfer document should be required for all changes of ownership. If you sell the boat, you must retain a copy. If you can't show to whom you sold or gave the boat, as last registered owner, you eat the accumulated fees and costs. If you provide the info, it is turned over for collection. Pay a collection entity 60%, and they usually will find the responsible party. I also would suggest that if something like this were done and done effectively, the problem would rapidly diminish over a realtvely short time period. Word would get around quickly. That would leave the "derelict" boats to deal with. Enact minimum standards, as all building have through building codes, such as functioning propulsion, meeting CG sanitation standards, and the like and limit anchoring time, and again, the problem would diminish a lot with effective inforcement. Take some of the marine cops off terrorism watch and let them enforce the laws.

Had the same thought yesterday (barge collecting abandoned and unregistered boats after notice). Something like this but with a heavier-duty crane:



Edit: here's a better one:

I have mentioned it elsewhere, but Washington State developed a derelict boat program in 2002 to deal with these issues. Not perfect by any means, but it sure has helped here.

hmason said:

Here in Stuart FL the water in the St. Lucie is disgusting. The fish are gone, nobody fishes from the Roosevelt Bridge anymore. Not even algae survives and my sea strainers remain grass and algae free. It has become a dead zone. How this can be allowed to continue stuns me.

Click to expand...

Doesn't have anything to do with the cities dumping their sewage into the water.....

I can understand both sides. The freedom to cruise and anchor were you want. The homeowner who has invested hundred if not millions of dollars in a sea side property.


But the last time I looked the property owner does not have the deed to the coastal water, therefore should not be able to ban anchoring in front of their property. However if a boat is abandon/derelict then the city/county should be able to remove the vessel with relevant ease.

Alaskan Sea-Duction said:

I can understand both sides. The freedom to cruise and anchor were you want. The homeowner who has invested hundred if not millions of dollars in a sea side property.


But the last time I looked the property owner does not have the deed to the coastal water, therefore should not be able to ban anchoring in front of their property. However if a boat is abandon/derelict then the city/county should be able to remove the vessel with relevant ease.

Click to expand...

You're right in that the homeowner can't ban anything. However, the state has the "deed" (not actually a deed but the ownership) of the land in which we're talking about placing the anchors. And the state has the rights and the responsibilities to regulate the use in the way best for it's residents and constituents. So, as to rights, they can ban anchoring anywhere they want and the residents can try to get them to do so.

This also means that the municipalities don't have rights to regulate anchoring unless they are given those rights by the state.

As a homeowner, I don't have the deed to my neighbor's property. However, what he can do on his property is highly regulated. That includes docks he can build. Generally there is a setback on the sides of his property as far as any construction. Also, it includes how he uses the property. The properties in many areas can't be used for operating a business to which clients or customers come or employees.

The homeowner and the boater can go to the state and ask for any rights they want to.

Now, I compare the homeowner who wants no anchoring or wants anchoring not allowed within 300' or his property to the homeowner who doesn't want anyone to be allowed to build a house on the adjacent three properties. Yes, I have seen homeowners fight a developer deciding to finally build on some vacant land.

The state has the responsibility to serve all involved parties. Derelict vessels is an area that adversely impacts both homeowner and boater so no one except owners of derelict vessels has a problem with them. Anchoring is controversial. There is a solution. Doing it with piece meal legislation for three areas isn't in my opinion that solution.

At some point, the state of Florida will pass some form of regulations limiting local governments and giving them specific rules they can use for anchoring. Probably the maximum restrictions allowed. Or the state will less likely just pass a law with statewide anchoring rules.

As I said, I think the 300' suggested was crazy and ridiculous. However, boaters who want no rules and no restrictions are ultimately even less likely to win their way. In fact, the only way the extremists homeowners can win is by those who anchor refusing to compromise in any way.

If I had the power I probably would handle it like most compromises I handled in business. I'd sit both sides down in a room and say you're staying here until you reach an agreement. Then I'd say, write a rule stating what the maximum limitations municipalities can put on anchoring are. As a starting place it's greater than 1' from a homeowner's dock, and it's less than 300'. Call me when you're ready with the solution.

Unfortunately we'll battle over this for years with hardliners in both directions dominating the conversations.

I've never encountered a problem from a boater or a homeowner. Guess I've only been around those who use common sense. However, I've heard of stories from both sides that are the reason regulations are required. I've heard of the homeowner who couldn't get out from his own dock without some anchored boats moving and many of them had no one aboard to move them. I've also heard of the boat anchored as the sole boat in a cove surrounded by farm property with one house way up on the hill and the homeowner came out yelling at them to move and carrying a shotgun. Guess I've been lucky to avoid the crazies.

Alaskan Sea-Duction said:

Doesn't have anything to do with the cities dumping their sewage into the water.....

Click to expand...

Actually, in this case it doesn't at all.

Here is a funny thought. Of those homeowners that is pushing for a moratorium on anchoring in front of their property. How many of them have a dock in front or back of said property..........