Anchor Wars come to Georgia

[slowgoesit]

Not sure that there is EVER a time to stand down on an important and potentially damaging issue like this . . . .Seems to me that it would be smarter to continue the pressure until the problem is actually CORRECTED!

 

[psneeld]

Not sure that there is EVER a time to stand down on an important and potentially damaging issue like this . . . .Seems to me that it would be smarter to continue the pressure until the problem is actually CORRECTED!

Agree...even politicians agree the squeaky wheel gets the grease...unless their palms were greased already with enough.

 

[Shrew]

Just an FYI. If you are not a constituent of the representative, then writing to them is of little value. Elected officials are only beholden to their constituents. I certainly would not want one of my state representatives catering to the whims of non-residents.

 

[psneeld]

you might be if the facts presented are of some importance...granted few things might influence them....but silence rarely gets you where you want to go.

 

[Woodland Hills]

I've been advised that overnight, our collective voices have been heard in Atlanta and we are being asked to stand down on our email campaign. I've asked the Admin here at TF to remove my post. Thanks for everyone's support!!!

Can you explain what “have been heard” means in practice? Are they just tired of their mailboxes being filled up and want us to stop. Or have they communicated with you that they will vote for the revised bill?

 

[arisatx]

House Bill 833 Progress:

Your emails imploring Georgia legislators to support Rep Stephens HB833 have been successful. Today March 10, 2020, HB833 was voted on favorably in The Rules Committee and will proceed forward to the full House floor for vote Thursday.

Following an anticipated favorable disposition in The House, it will go to The Senate on legislative day 28, aka "Crossover Day".

 

[arisatx]

Can you explain what “have been heard” means in practice? Are they just tired of their mailboxes being filled up and want us to stop. Or have they communicated with you that they will vote for the revised bill?

I think both. I believe we have their support AND there have been several mentions about "all the emails" regarding this bill.

 

[arisatx]

Not sure that there is EVER a time to stand down on an important and potentially damaging issue like this . . . .Seems to me that it would be smarter to continue the pressure until the problem is actually CORRECTED!

Slow: Understand your sentiment, but with Rep Stephens and our lobbyist Draper there on the ground in Atlanta with decades of experience each, we are letting them guide us through this. There will be another round of pressure requested once this is in The Senate.

 

[arisatx]

House Bill 833 Progress:

Your emails imploring Georgia legislators to support Rep Stephens HB833 have been successful. Today March 10, 2020, HB833 was voted on favorably in The Rules Committee and will proceed forward to the full House floor for vote Thursday.

Following an anticipated favorable disposition in The House, it will go to The Senate on legislative day 28, aka "Crossover Day".

I'm happy to convey the news that HB833 passed in the House today and will cross over in to The Senate starting Friday.

Kimberly Russo of America's Great Loop Cruisers' Association just sent out this great summary of the progress that has been made and is reprinted here with her permission:

"Update on Georgia Anchoring
Relief is one step closer for boaters wanting to cruise the waterway of Georgia! The Georgia House of Representatives today passed HB-833, a bill that “undoes” much of the damage created by rules put into place earlier this year that were widely viewed as unfriendly towards cruisers, and some of the most restrictive in the nation.
On January 1, 2020, HB-201 became law in Georgia, giving the Department of Natural Resources broad power to determine where boats may anchor. It also attempted to over-ride federal regulations on discharge of sewage. To implement the law, DNR issued an Administrative Order banning anchoring within 1,000-feet of marine structures and shellfish beds, and within 300-feet of marinas.
However, Representative Ron Stephens, who happens to be a Gold Looper, filed a bill to help fix these issues and reverse the unfairness of the rules for cruisers. After gathering feedback from DNR and the cruising community, the final version of Rep. Stephens’ bill, HB-833, was issued and worked its way through the legislative process. It passed the House by a vote of 157 to 6 today.
HB-833 takes back the power from DNR to establish anchoring zones, and instead statutorily sets the setback where anchoring is not allowed at:
300-feet from a marina
150-feet from marine infrastructure other than a marina
500 feet from approved commercial shellfish beds and designated public harvest areas
Further, HB-833 removes statutory language created by last year’s HB-201 that attempted to override federal regulations by making all the Georgia coast a no-discharge zone. The area cannot qualify as a federal no-discharge zone due to the lack of pump out facilities available. This attempt to side-step federal regulations was removed by HB-833.
Another change is that HB-833 establishes long-term and short-term anchoring. Short-term anchoring is defined as anchoring a vessel within a one-mile radius of a documented anchoring point where a vessel is anchored for up to 14 cumulative days in a calendar year. If your stay is short-term, the above setbacks apply. However, if you want to stay within a one-mile radius of the same spot for more than 14 cumulative days in a calendar year, you are long-term anchoring and a permit must be obtained from DNR under terms and conditions as the commissioner or his or her designee may prescribe. This is a win for cruisers, as most don’t stay in one place for long, and still gives DNR some additional “teeth” to regulate derelict and nuisance vessels, which was their primary goal with the rules set to implement HB-201.
The next step for HB-833 is to work its way through the Senate side of the Georgia General Assembly. The session lasts into April. We’ll keep you posted on progress and post any calls-to-action that are needed via the AGLCA forum and social media."​

If you would like to see the actual presentation and passage of HB833, watch the video on our youtube channel here: https://youtu.be/zdz8L8HyvyQ

 

[RT Firefly]

 

[fryedaze]

Thanks, to the folks that worked on this. Unfortunately cruisers still lost out. These new restrictions that may now spread to other states.

 

[jespchee]

GA Legislature-Anchoring

Just heard GA is suspending its legislative session as of end of day tomorrow due to virus so will be awhile before it moves in further.

 

[rgano]

I will fly the quarantine flag while in GA waters next month. Maybe the water cops will think CV and leave us be.

 

[angus99]

Thanks, to the folks that worked on this. Unfortunately cruisers still lost out. These new restrictions that may now spread to other states.

Not sure how you figure we still lost out. Cruisers from several organizations got together, hired a competent lobbyist and are on the verge of reversing some unfair regs. If other states take note of what happened in GA, it might give them pause or at least goad them to include members of the cruising community in initial discussions. If they don’t, we also learned a thing or two from this, including how to mobilize.

And hats off to Kim Russo and the other rock stars who organized this resistance.

 

[CaptTom]

Thanks, to the folks that worked on this. Unfortunately cruisers still lost out. These new restrictions that may now spread to other states.

I would also like to hear your take on any down side.

For one thing, it could be just a bad precedent. Obviously, as more and more states get the idea to further regulate federally navigable waterways, we'd be faced with an incomprehensible patchwork of regulations, making travel difficult. Then there's the "camel's nose in the tent" argument.

Anything else I missed?

Frankly, the 14-day limit seems reasonable to me. We (cruisers) risk being painted with the same brush as deadbeat live-aboards and derelicts. The first step toward avoiding that is to distinguish navigation from permanent, floating residences.

 

[fryedaze]

I really appreciate the work that was done to reduce the impact of this bill. The bill establishes new set back rules. I don't like new rules. The rules give ownership control to waterfront owners that they didn't have before on waters we all own. Other states will follow suite. Connected more powerful land owners have the opportunity to make more restrictive rules. Sometimes an initial compromise just opens the door for more problems.

 

[psneeld]

Yes the law was already WAYYYYY more restrictive so problems already existed.... yet common sense prevailed and a retreat was necessary.


Of course the waterways are endangered just like the spread of corona virus...can't figure out why people are surprised things are getting worse... there will be a peak of waterway restrictions, then they will recede like the high tide and the corona virus....natural cycles.


They did in FL and now Georgia.


As long as there are two sides to the fight...middle ground will be found.


Even in NC where no wake zones exploded with new waterfront development, the state recognized the need to have strict control over LEGAL no wake zones.


It was a victory over the inevitable, not yesterday's reality.

 

[Alaskan Sea-Duction]

I will fly the quarantine flag while in GA waters next month. Maybe the water cops will think CV and leave us be.

Good chance they may not even know what a quarantine flag looks like!!

 

[slowgoesit]

HB-833 takes back the power from DNR to establish anchoring zones, and instead statutorily sets the setback where anchoring is not allowed at:
300-feet from a marina
150-feet from marine infrastructure other than a marina
500 feet from approved commercial shellfish beds and designated public harvest area.

Curious what the definition of "marine infrastructure" is . . .

Example: Assuming it eventually passes the senate, I would like to key in on the above. Let's assume that I own property, not necessarily even with a house on it, with, say, 500 feet of water front. Not sure about a "legal" definition, but common sense would seem to say that a mooring buoy is "marine infrastructure". I could place three private mooring buoys 150 feet off my property, 150 feet apart, and still effectively prohibit anyone anchoring within a 600 foot wide x 300 foot off shore area . . .and if the bottom slopes down at any rate at all a cruiser having to anchor 300 feet off shore, might be anchoring in 50 or 60 feet of water, only allowing a three to one scope to their ground tackle . . . , Still gives WAY too much power given to the property owners IMHO . . .

 

[CaptTom]

... there will be a peak of waterway restrictions, then they will recede like the high tide and the corona virus....natural cycles.

I mostly agree, except that unlike the tide, regulations never recede completely. It's far easier to get new laws passed than old ones removed.

This GA law is the perfect example. They over-reached, and some of the worst parts were removed. But the end result is more regulation.

I think your point is that this is inevitable, as more and more people try to share the waterways. And I agree. But I don't think we'll ever be able to simply relax and wait for bad laws to go away.

 

[psneeld]

I mostly agree, except that unlike the tide, regulations never recede completely. It's far easier to get new laws passed than old ones removed.

This GA law is the perfect example. They over-reached, and some of the worst parts were removed. But the end result is more regulation.

I think your point is that this is inevitable, as more and more people try to share the waterways. And I agree. But I don't think we'll ever be able to simply relax and wait for bad laws to go away.

That's why I also posted this......

"As long as there are two sides to the fight...middle ground will be found."

 

[arisatx]

HB833 Lobbyist Interview

Kimberly Russo of America's Great Loop Cruisers' Association interviews our lobbyist Scott Draper, for insights into how we were able to shape the replacement for HB201 and get it approved in the House.

https://www.blogtalkradio.com/aglca...an-update-on-anchoring-regulations-in-georgia

 

[Steve91T]

Hey guys. So the chart showing places you and can’t anchor from January is still valid at this time, correct? Anyone who’s familiar with the area from Jekyll Island to Isle of Hope Marina just south of Savannah have any recommendations for good places to anchor the the night that are still legal? We’re looking to stop about halfway for the night.

Thanks.

 

[arisatx]

HB833 Lobbyist Interview

Kimberly Russo of America's Great Loop Cruisers' Association interviews our lobbyist Scott Draper, for insights into how we were able to shape the replacement for HB201 and get it approved in the House.

https://www.blogtalkradio.com/aglca...an-update-on-anchoring-regulations-in-georgia

 

[arisatx]

HB-833 takes back the power from DNR to establish anchoring zones, and instead statutorily sets the setback where anchoring is not allowed at:
300-feet from a marina
150-feet from marine infrastructure other than a marina
500 feet from approved commercial shellfish beds and designated public harvest area.

Curious what the definition of "marine infrastructure" is . . .

Example: Assuming it eventually passes the senate, I would like to key in on the above. Let's assume that I own property, not necessarily even with a house on it, with, say, 500 feet of water front. Not sure about a "legal" definition, but common sense would seem to say that a mooring buoy is "marine infrastructure". I could place three private mooring buoys 150 feet off my property, 150 feet apart, and still effectively prohibit anyone anchoring within a 600 foot wide x 300 foot off shore area . . .and if the bottom slopes down at any rate at all a cruiser having to anchor 300 feet off shore, might be anchoring in 50 or 60 feet of water, only allowing a three to one scope to their ground tackle . . . , Still gives WAY too much power given to the property owners IMHO . . .

Marine structures include private docks under HB833. Something to fight for removal in the next round. A homeowner would not be able to place moorings in the waterway that he does not own. But agree with you that this still favors homeowner's rights over the boaters' rights.

 

[arisatx]

Hey guys. So the chart showing places you and can’t anchor from January is still valid at this time, correct? Anyone who’s familiar with the area from Jekyll Island to Isle of Hope Marina just south of Savannah have any recommendations for good places to anchor the the night that are still legal? We’re looking to stop about halfway for the night.

Thanks.

Yes, HB833 has not passed yet in the Senate and has not yet been signed by Gov Kemp, so the maps shown on the GA DNR site are still valid.

You could anchor on Duplin River off Sapelo,
https://activecaptain.garmin.com/en-US/pois/38990

or in Walburg Creek off Saint Catherines.
https://activecaptain.garmin.com/en-US/pois/17499

 

[OldDan1943]

MAYBE the intent of the bill was to improve the occupancy rate in the privately owned marina?
Per private docks.... I believe that falls under the purview of the US Govt. If you have permission to install a dock, there is daymned little the state govt can do about it.

 

[rgano]

Good chance they may not even know what a quarantine flag looks like!!

Mine will be a black flag with CV-19 in large white letters draped over the hand rails.

 

[psneeld]

Most states I know have some control if not almost all control over private docks...they usually like to tax the sh** out of them. The feds might have permitting requirements when in or near federally controlled waterways.

 

[OldDan1943]

Most states I know have some control if not almost all control over private docks...they usually like to tax the sh** out of them. The feds might have permitting requirements when in or near federally controlled waterways.

And, again to my understanding, the ICW is a federally controlled waterway. If not, why would the feds spend lots of money dredging it?
Remember, the interstate system was designed for troop movement and bridges were 1 mile apart for emergency landings Well we all know that is a thing of the past. LOL
I suspect, the ICW was for troop movement in smaller boats, out of sight of ships and subs at sea.