It would amaze you how many people own waterfront homes and have no interest whatsoever in boating, especially in Miami. Fort Lauderdale is more an active boating community. Miami and West Palm are more resort living communities.
Florida anchorage restrictions
- Thread starter bankerboy1
- Start date
The friendliest place on the web for anyone who enjoys boating.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
It would amaze you how many people own waterfront homes and have no interest whatsoever in boating, especially in Miami. Fort Lauderdale is more an active boating community. Miami and West Palm are more resort living communities.
That's always been the situation and is along the ICW in every state. Florida owns the land under the water. The ICW is considered inland water.
To amplify B's response:
The states hold title to the beds off all waters within their borders. This comes from old English common law as it existed in 1776. In 1787, the existing English Common Law was enacted as US law at the time. At that time title to all submerged lands resided in the sovereign, i.e. the king. As states were sovereign, the SC held very early in our history that states, as the sovereign successor to the Crown, held title to the beds of their wetlands pursuant to that common law. So, states do in fact own the land beneath all navigable waters within their borders. The confusion comes from the fact that the US Government has been held since very early days to hold an absolute power over the "navigable waters" of the US under the Commerce Clause. So, since the Feds have control of the navigable water, the effect is that the states own and control the land beneath the waters but subject to the Feds power. So a state may decide what happens on or to the land or bed of the waterway, but it may not interfere with its "navigability".
An interesting example-a long time firend of mine in Shallotte, NC claimed ownership of land in the Shallotte River just off Shallotte Point. His family had been granted the land by a grant from the King in 1757. He had several big oyster beds there and raised and sold oysters. North Carolina took him to court claiming the state owned the land and he would have to pay fees for exclusinve use. In court, the state lost with the court finding that the King could and did make a grant of his sovereign rights and, when NC became a state, they did so subject to the prior actions of the King. That was great for Randy. However, about 10 years later, the Corps of Engineers decided to dredge Shallotte Inlet. They chose to use some of Randy's underwater land for dredge spoil. He sued the Feds claiming they needed to pay him for "taking" his land. He lost. The Court held that the Feds right to control the navigable waters was absolute and he had no rights to any compensation for a "taking". Fortunately for him, they did ultimately megotiate some payment for his loss. But, he got the good and the bad of the law governing inland waterways.
The states hold title to the beds off all waters within their borders. This comes from old English common law as it existed in 1776. In 1787, the existing English Common Law was enacted as US law at the time. At that time title to all submerged lands resided in the sovereign, i.e. the king. As states were sovereign, the SC held very early in our history that states, as the sovereign successor to the Crown, held title to the beds of their wetlands pursuant to that common law. So, states do in fact own the land beneath all navigable waters within their borders. The confusion comes from the fact that the US Government has been held since very early days to hold an absolute power over the "navigable waters" of the US under the Commerce Clause. So, since the Feds have control of the navigable water, the effect is that the states own and control the land beneath the waters but subject to the Feds power. So a state may decide what happens on or to the land or bed of the waterway, but it may not interfere with its "navigability".
An interesting example-a long time firend of mine in Shallotte, NC claimed ownership of land in the Shallotte River just off Shallotte Point. His family had been granted the land by a grant from the King in 1757. He had several big oyster beds there and raised and sold oysters. North Carolina took him to court claiming the state owned the land and he would have to pay fees for exclusinve use. In court, the state lost with the court finding that the King could and did make a grant of his sovereign rights and, when NC became a state, they did so subject to the prior actions of the King. That was great for Randy. However, about 10 years later, the Corps of Engineers decided to dredge Shallotte Inlet. They chose to use some of Randy's underwater land for dredge spoil. He sued the Feds claiming they needed to pay him for "taking" his land. He lost. The Court held that the Feds right to control the navigable waters was absolute and he had no rights to any compensation for a "taking". Fortunately for him, they did ultimately megotiate some payment for his loss. But, he got the good and the bad of the law governing inland waterways.
Last edited:
timjet
Guru
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2009
- Messages
- 1,920
I'm pretty sure they are small sailing dinghy's so registration is not required. I heard from a local when we anchored there that there is a 6 mo anchoring rule so he hires someone to reshuffle all the boats. I don't know how true that is.
Concerning the ability and legality of moving a derelict boat, Gulfport muni marina a couple of years ago had a real problem with abandoned boats in the marina. We use to keep our sailboat there but when we returned a couple of years later with the intention of keeping our power boat there the marina had many fishing boats and several abandoned boats. We went elsewhere. When I talked to the dockmaster about this he said that the abandoned boats were not paying dockage and the cost to hire an attorney and pay the legal costs to have them remove were to much.
There are probably some good ways to remove abandoned boats, but the state doesn't want to pay for the legal and removal costs. Laws need to be changed to make this easier. In some perhaps many cases the abandoned boat's owner can't be identified.
A similar issue is one every marina deals with. Most marinas in Florida do not own the land under their docks. The state does and it rents the right to use it to the marinas. However, a few do have deeds to the submerged land. They don't have to pay a fee to the state.
Making this scenario you painted even worse. Let's say the marina does go to court and wins. They now own the boats, have full responsibility for them. So, if the boats sink in place or if they have issues such as sinking or leaking of fuel in a move, the marina now has the environmental issue to deal with. Very quickly, moving a derelict boat can become a $50k or $100k cost. This is why marinas in South Florida were selling such boats for as little as a dollar or giving them away. Let's see, I give a 40' fishing vessel to a homeless man with the only provision that he must remove it. I even help him start it and I assist him with a tow in clearing the docks and heading out. Then he's on his own. 500 yards out the boat starts taking on water. Coast Guard is called, owner rescued, boat sinks. The homeless man is responsible for salvage now, not the marina.
Alaskan Sea-Duction
Guru
- Joined
- Jul 6, 2012
- Messages
- 8,057
- Location
- USA
- Vessel Name
- Alaskan Sea-Duction
- Vessel Make
- 1988 M/Y Camargue YachtFisher
Well the bill passed the FL house:
Florida House passes anchoring restrictions bill | Trade Only Today
Florida House passes anchoring restrictions bill | Trade Only Today
Last edited:
Alaskan Sea-Duction
Guru
- Joined
- Jul 6, 2012
- Messages
- 8,057
- Location
- USA
- Vessel Name
- Alaskan Sea-Duction
- Vessel Make
- 1988 M/Y Camargue YachtFisher
The wealthy homeowners pocket book buy your state representatives. Why is the boating community not beating down doors and saying NO? BB what did the representatives say when you contacted them?
Actually I attribute this to total ignorance on the part of the representatives. The boating community did beat down their doors. FWC (Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission) opposed the bill.
Most responses were form letters. A couple got calls from assistants of assistants. I think we actually spoke to three. One was clearly in agreement with us but told us up front that it would pass. He said he'd talked to many others and made no progress at all. Florida is many different states. The majority of the state has nothing in common with South Florida. Years ago they tried to pass a thong law. No one in their areas was wearing thongs. Why did they care so much what someone on the beach in Miami wore? The law would have specified minimum width of the section of cloth between the buttocks. Who the heck is going to measure and police that? Is there anywhere in the country casinos would make more sense than Miami? We have daily casino cruises to three miles offshore so people can gamble but the state gets no benefit. We have casinos on Indian reservations with the state getting no benefit. But the representatives in Central and Northern Florida think casinos are evil. They never listen to the fact we have them, just aren't collecting any revenues.
Ok, representative number two. His IQ couldn't have been over 80. He couldn't stop talking about derelict boats in spite of me telling him that was a separate bill. He went on a wild tangent about how would I feel if I had an expensive home on the water and boats anchored out near it. I told him, I do and I like it. He said, "I'll bet your wife doesn't like it." At that point my lovely wife spoke up and told him "You'd freaking (except she didn't use that word) loose that bet you stupid buffoon." We concluded that conversation shortly after that.
Representative number three was of the opinion since it was just a couple of places (I did inform them a couple was two and this was five) if they wanted it just give it to them. Then said something about the representative who submitted the bill was a good friend and had always been willing to help him. He asked if I lived in Florida. I said yes. He said because most of the letters I've seen have come from non-Florida residents and others from people who owned no property, lived on boats, paid no Florida tax. I told him how much property tax I paid and how much sales tax my businesses collected. He said he really thought we were all making too much out of this bill and he'd given his word so had to keep it. He was honest in saying he didn't really know much about boating and the ICW as he lived in Gainesville. It was clear he was supporting a friend who had authored the bill.
I'm a bit at a loss as to how a bill like this passes so overwhelmingly. No one has surveyed the population. I live in a community of about 350 homes, almost all waterfront. We're in an area of perhaps 1500 homes, almost all waterfront. I would guess of those who were aware of this bill at least 75% opposed it. Everyone I talked to thought it was stupid. But then 90% of these homes have docks and boats.
The Middle River area which is very near to us and was part of this is different. It has a lot of homeowners with boats. But it also has a lot of homes with two or three slips, all rented out and one of those was strongly in favor of the bill for "business" reasons. He has no boat but has three slips all rented out to megayachts and he collects over $5k per month in slip rental. I also talked to one Middle River homeowner who was for the bill because the anchored boats got in the way of jet skis and water skiing and it's one of the few places for those two.
I will say that to the majority of the representatives in Florida, South Florida is pretty much a foreign country they don't understand and don't like but they sure do like to try to legislate it. They couldn't find the five locations on a map if their life depended on it. The majority of input they received did not come from those who elected them or vote in their area.
Now, to be fair, these five locations being restricted changes very little overall. Not earth shattering. However, it's an ugly precedent to override an existing law because a few people complain. The "four" locations in Miami Beach are really in one greater location. They're between islands along the Venetian Causeway and then Sunset Bay which is nearby. I could understand the argument for those areas being too narrow between homes to anchor. I just oppose how this came about and the fact there was no trade off. For instance, why not create a better anchorage or mooring field there and a dinghy dock accessible and large enough to accommodate people. Biscayne Bay has all sorts of potential. But that's the sort of thing the Pilot Program is designed to assess. The location in Fort Lauderdale is really one from left field and I can only think that it's designation for water sports is largely responsible. If so, then that makes some sense. I am concerned if that eliminated the Aqua Vista anchorage as it's well outside the inside Middle River area.
However, my opposition to the bill has nothing to do with the locations, with the rights of boaters or with the rights of homeowners. It is superseding the law and violating a process already underway. It's the entire idea that you could have hundreds of separate regulations for specific areas in the state. It's also the idea that you take away without giving. Ultimately I'm for more and better anchoring and mooring while having some minimum restrictions on anchoring.
Last edited:
dhays
Guru
- Joined
- May 26, 2015
- Messages
- 9,045
- Location
- United States
- Vessel Name
- Kinship
- Vessel Make
- North Pacific 43
B,
I have spent my entire professional life dealing with legislators. You made some very interesting observations and you did almost the right thing by making an appointment and discussing it with them personally. I say "almost" because you never want to burn bridges with a legislator. No matter how much of an incompetent fool they may be, you can't let them know that you know it. That same incompetent fool may end up being a committee chair, house speaker, or Governor some day. You may need their support down the road.
- Legislators will listen to their own constituents. Letters from outside their district will get little attention. Letters from out of the state will get none.
- Legislators live and die on relationships. In the one case you cited, he told you that he had a relationship with another legislator and was going to support the legislation as a favor to him. This happens all the time and is an important way that things actually get done.
- Legislators live and die on relationship part 2. Legislators will listen to constituents whom they have a relationship with. Do they know you? Do they know your business? Are they your neighbor or do your kids go to school together. Did you support their campaign? Do you contact them during the year when the legislature is not in session to discuss a variety of issues of importance to you, as well as their own pet projects?
- While less important, legislators do pay attention to who attends and testifies at the committee hearings for the legislation. Those that show up, are listened to.
There is no way that every legislator is going to be able to read, understand, and make an informed decision on every piece of legislation they vote on. If we have a relationship with our own legislator, then we can become the goto person when legislation comes up in our area of expertise.
I spend lots of time and money each year on local campaigns and chatting with legislators. I am fortunate now that my current legislators are smart folks. That has not always been the case.
All I am saying, is the time to try to influence legislation is not after a bill has been introduced, but long before the legislator has ever been elected to begin with.
I have spent my entire professional life dealing with legislators. You made some very interesting observations and you did almost the right thing by making an appointment and discussing it with them personally. I say "almost" because you never want to burn bridges with a legislator. No matter how much of an incompetent fool they may be, you can't let them know that you know it. That same incompetent fool may end up being a committee chair, house speaker, or Governor some day. You may need their support down the road.
- Legislators will listen to their own constituents. Letters from outside their district will get little attention. Letters from out of the state will get none.
- Legislators live and die on relationships. In the one case you cited, he told you that he had a relationship with another legislator and was going to support the legislation as a favor to him. This happens all the time and is an important way that things actually get done.
- Legislators live and die on relationship part 2. Legislators will listen to constituents whom they have a relationship with. Do they know you? Do they know your business? Are they your neighbor or do your kids go to school together. Did you support their campaign? Do you contact them during the year when the legislature is not in session to discuss a variety of issues of importance to you, as well as their own pet projects?
- While less important, legislators do pay attention to who attends and testifies at the committee hearings for the legislation. Those that show up, are listened to.
There is no way that every legislator is going to be able to read, understand, and make an informed decision on every piece of legislation they vote on. If we have a relationship with our own legislator, then we can become the goto person when legislation comes up in our area of expertise.
I spend lots of time and money each year on local campaigns and chatting with legislators. I am fortunate now that my current legislators are smart folks. That has not always been the case.
All I am saying, is the time to try to influence legislation is not after a bill has been introduced, but long before the legislator has ever been elected to begin with.
Dave
I have no interest or desire in influencing legislators on the basis you suggest or in any way other than the facts under consideration. I don't like or get involved in politics. I've been friends with congressmen and not influenced them or even voted for them. My only time ever influencing government officials was on business relationships and what the business I was involved with could do for their constituents and what we needed to allow us to do so. I had business relationships with Prime Ministers and maintained them with their successors.
I have never given a dollar to any political campaign or any PAC and will never. I find the election process today disgusting and more so the higher the level.
Now enough on that as I don't like discussing politics and certainly not here. The bill will pass and life will go on. We'll worry about future anchoring legislation. The general feeling is this one will lead to more, but perhaps even the passing of this bill will in the short term lighten the push for broader anchoring restrictions. I'm most interested in the conclusions and recommendations at the completion of the Pilot project in 2017.
I have no interest or desire in influencing legislators on the basis you suggest or in any way other than the facts under consideration. I don't like or get involved in politics. I've been friends with congressmen and not influenced them or even voted for them. My only time ever influencing government officials was on business relationships and what the business I was involved with could do for their constituents and what we needed to allow us to do so. I had business relationships with Prime Ministers and maintained them with their successors.
I have never given a dollar to any political campaign or any PAC and will never. I find the election process today disgusting and more so the higher the level.
Now enough on that as I don't like discussing politics and certainly not here. The bill will pass and life will go on. We'll worry about future anchoring legislation. The general feeling is this one will lead to more, but perhaps even the passing of this bill will in the short term lighten the push for broader anchoring restrictions. I'm most interested in the conclusions and recommendations at the completion of the Pilot project in 2017.
markpierce
Master and Commander
- Joined
- Sep 25, 2010
- Messages
- 12,557
- Location
- USA
- Vessel Name
- Carquinez Coot
- Vessel Make
- penultimate Seahorse Marine Coot hull #6
This sunken sailboat has been "docked" for years at an abandoned pier at our marina. Wonder why it hasn't been removed yet. Other sunken boats have been removed nearby along the strait within the last year. The sailboat is adjacent to the USCG dock.
Who is removing sunken boats?
Perhaps the difference in the others and this one is "hazardous to navigation". This one would not appear to be a hazard to navigation, just to one's senses.
psneeld
Guru
The USCG can get involved and even pay for a salvage out of environmental funds (well up until a few years ago...haven't run across it lately) if there is a threat from trapped pollutants.
I am sure there is a threshold where they will get involved or not depending on how many gallons...seemed like around 100 gallons was a figure I have heard in the past.
I am sure there is a threshold where they will get involved or not depending on how many gallons...seemed like around 100 gallons was a figure I have heard in the past.
healhustler
Guru
- Joined
- Oct 2, 2009
- Messages
- 5,198
- Location
- USA
- Vessel Name
- Bucky
- Vessel Make
- Krogen Manatee 36 North Sea
Here in Sarasota, the city that turned the downtown anchorage into a mooring field to get rid of the derelict boats, there were two sailboats beached next to downtown Sarasota's Ringling Bridge nearly two months ago. Today, a crane arrived to remove at least this one, which was blown up on the rip rap surrounding the abutment on the city side of the bridge. Maybe tomorrow's paper will say who paid for it. Regardless, I'm sure it hasn't helped the attitude any.
Attachments
sunchaser
Guru
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2008
- Messages
- 10,195
- Location
- usa
- Vessel Name
- sunchaser V
- Vessel Make
- DeFever 48 (sold)
Well, I find it amazing when I'm in FL as to how many boaters have no interest in waterfront homes. And I know some that have both. Interestingly, those with both bitch about noisy, wake creating, anchoring where they shouldn't boaters. Its complicated.
High Wire
Guru
The camels nose is under the tent. Mark my words the following sentence will be stretched to apply to most anchorage areas in FL and eventually the whole east coast.
"The following densely populated urban areas, which have narrow state waterways, residential docking facilities, and significant recreational boating traffic, are designated as anchoring limitation areas"
They are no different than anywhere else along the ICW that are not open marsh area.
"The following densely populated urban areas, which have narrow state waterways, residential docking facilities, and significant recreational boating traffic, are designated as anchoring limitation areas"
They are no different than anywhere else along the ICW that are not open marsh area.
High Wire
Guru
Donsan
Guru
- Joined
- Jul 6, 2014
- Messages
- 2,300
- Location
- United States
- Vessel Name
- No Mo Trawla
- Vessel Make
- Hurricane SS188
For most boats in that area, paying the fine is cheaper than staying the night at a marina.
Not likely to be much of a deterrent.
MrJim
Senior Member
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2015
- Messages
- 206
- Location
- USA
- Vessel Name
- Irish Miss
- Vessel Make
- Mainship 30 Pilot Rum Runner Classic
"Recreational and commercial fishermen actively engaged in fishing... would be exempted from the rule."
So, as long as you have a line in the water and have someone attending it, you can anchor as long as you want.
So, as long as you have a line in the water and have someone attending it, you can anchor as long as you want.
A question for the group.
Let's assume we're talking a canal or other area with houses and docks on both sides. Depth a MLW is 9' with 2' tide. This is also a canal that boats must transit to get in and out to homes. What is the minimum distance between the docks on either side that needs to exist to "allow" anchoring of a 50' boat, and of a 100' boat?
I'm not necessarily speaking by law but just common sense and decency.
Let's assume we're talking a canal or other area with houses and docks on both sides. Depth a MLW is 9' with 2' tide. This is also a canal that boats must transit to get in and out to homes. What is the minimum distance between the docks on either side that needs to exist to "allow" anchoring of a 50' boat, and of a 100' boat?
I'm not necessarily speaking by law but just common sense and decency.
Last edited:
dhays
Guru
- Joined
- May 26, 2015
- Messages
- 9,045
- Location
- United States
- Vessel Name
- Kinship
- Vessel Make
- North Pacific 43
Hm... I will never boat in that area, but if I did, I think that I would be tempted to just anchor normally with my usual high degree of courtesy.
Somehow, I can't see a LEO coming out to where I am anchored in the evening, night, or early morning to write me a ticket. If they did (and I wasn't a Florida resident) I am not sure that I would be all that inclined to actually pay the fine.
Getting a legislature to pass a law is one thing. Getting overburdened LEOs to actually enforce it is another.
RT Firefly
Enigma
Greetings,
Mr. BB. In our canal a boat cannot exceed 1/3 the canal's width. So, a 50' boat docked perpendicular to the sea wall on each side with a 50' wide channel. That is the law, as I understand it. The docks are substantially shorter. Common sense and decency? Where?
I suspect if a boater was to anchor parallel to the sea wall, not touching land at all and did not present a hazard to navigation, by law, they probably could. I would love to observe THAT scenario IF I was wearing a bullet proof vest. Be prepared to...
Mr. dh. "...my usual high degree of courtesy." Fair enough but how would you respond to an irate home owner verbally assaulting you for "ruining" their view and and anchoring in "their" water? I think you would be talking to an overburdened LEO in fairly short order.
Mr. BB. In our canal a boat cannot exceed 1/3 the canal's width. So, a 50' boat docked perpendicular to the sea wall on each side with a 50' wide channel. That is the law, as I understand it. The docks are substantially shorter. Common sense and decency? Where?
I suspect if a boater was to anchor parallel to the sea wall, not touching land at all and did not present a hazard to navigation, by law, they probably could. I would love to observe THAT scenario IF I was wearing a bullet proof vest. Be prepared to...
Mr. dh. "...my usual high degree of courtesy." Fair enough but how would you respond to an irate home owner verbally assaulting you for "ruining" their view and and anchoring in "their" water? I think you would be talking to an overburdened LEO in fairly short order.
Last edited:
Alaskan Sea-Duction
Guru
- Joined
- Jul 6, 2012
- Messages
- 8,057
- Location
- USA
- Vessel Name
- Alaskan Sea-Duction
- Vessel Make
- 1988 M/Y Camargue YachtFisher
Well it would appear the bill has clear the state Senate and is on the Governor's desk for signature. I guess the Florida legislature and its Governor is for sale.....
Florida anchoring restrictions bill goes to governor | Trade Only Today
Florida anchoring restrictions bill goes to governor | Trade Only Today
