Anchor Wars come to Georgia

[Woodland Hills]

The impetus for the ICW was the German U-boat campaign of 1942/43, the idea was to be able to move oil and other heavy cargo north and south away from the high seas. Troops were always moved by train just as in the Civil War and WW1. The U-boats were also the reason many oil pipelines were built. It was all done after the war was over, but militaries and governments are good at fighting the last war, not the next one.

 

[psneeld]

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.

That's why I said the ACOE might require a permit...but my understanding is states are heavily involved too.

From Wikipedia.....

The Rivers and Harbors Act of 1909 set national policy for an intracoastal waterway from Boston to the Rio Grande,[4] and the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1910 authorized a 9-by-100-foot (2.7 m × 30.5 m) channel on the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway between the Apalachicola River and St. Andrews Bay, Florida, as well as a study of the most efficient means to move cargo.

 

[slowgoesit]

militaries and governments are good at fighting the last war, not the next one.

Too true, however if you can give the military an accurate, in-depth, and GUARANTEED description of what the next war will be like, I'm sure they will be happy to plan for fighting it!


In the absence of the above, they can only muddle on doing the best they can . . . planning for what they THINK the next war will be like . . .

 

[arisatx]

HB833 has passed today. Was livestreaming the bill as presented on the Senate floor this afternoon. Now onto the Governor for signature. Thanks to everyone in the cruising community for the support.

Here is our announcement on our FB Group: https://www.facebook.com/groups/SaveGeorgiasAnchorages/

The Georgia Senate has just passed HB 833, and the Bill now awaits the governor's signature.
As all of you know, HB833 essentially reverses the onerous anti boating provisions that were passed into law this past January. That bill caused widespread anger amongst cruising boaters and resulted in the formation of this grassroots group to fight it.
HB 833 removes the ability to require permits for all overnight anchoring, removes the requirement to keep records of pump outs, and perhaps most importantly, removes the requirement that boats not anchor within 1,000 feet of waterfront structures and within 300 feet of marinas.
HB833 changes those set-back distances to 150-feet from waterfront structures, 300-feet from marinas, and 500-feet from commercial shellfish beds for short-term anchoring, which is defined as anchoring in the same place for up to 14 cumulative nights per calendar year. Long term anchoring (over 14 days in the same place) will require a permit.
This was a major undertaking and it could NOT have happened without the support you gave the Save Georgia's Anchorages team who put in countless hours looking out for your interests.
What is especially important to remember is that SGA worked alongside and as an equal partner with other, more established groups - the AGLCA, NMMA, Waterway Guide, BoatUS and also Scott Draper, our lobbyist.
And let's not forget the contributions of Cruisers Net, the MTOA and SSCA in this effort. It was a helluva team and they got it done.
In particular however, the efforts of SGA members and co-founders James H. Newsome, Jack White, Ted Arisaka and Bob Keller were instrumental in getting 'er done. Someday, perhaps when I've had one beer too many, I'll tell some of the backroom stories about how hard these guys worked and the late hours they put in to protect our rights to anchor in GA.
But - and I mean this sincerely - when all is said and done, all of our work at the pointy end is worthless without the support of you, the boating public. We did the talking, but the State of Georgia was hearing you, listening to you speak through our words.
Thank you from all of us at SGA for your support.​

 

[RT Firefly]

Greetings,
Thank you for your work on our behalf.
One of my favorite tunes...

 

[Alaskan Sea-Duction]

Awesome. Thank you to all that worked hard to make this happen. I bet there are some upset dirt dwellers right now.

 

[caltexflanc]

Kudos! Georgia is one of the great gunkholing destinations on and (yes!) off the magenta line; thank you and everyone involved in making this happen!

 

[arisatx]

Greetings,
Thank you for your work on our behalf.
One of my favorite tunes...

There was work done by many beyond me - but will convey everyone's appreciation to the team.

Now as far as "Little Wing" is concerned - you have impeccable taste

A young lady at the yard where she was being built asked me about the meaning behind her name. I told her it was a song by Jimi Hendrix. She looked at me with a blank stare and said she never heard of him. It was a short converstation :lol:

 

[arisatx]

Kudos! Georgia is one of the great gunkholing destinations on and (yes!) off the magenta line; thank you and everyone involved in making this happen!

Some hate Georgia. I love it. And I love our right to either anchor there or to sail around.

 

[arisatx]

Awesome. Thank you to all that worked hard to make this happen. I bet there are some upset dirt dwellers right now.

Sea-Duction:
Hopefully not too upset, as there is still a (more reasonable) setback as well as the need to apply for a permit if you stay anchored in one place for more than 14 days. It's not perfect, but I feel far better than what we have now.

 

[Larry M]

Thanks for your work and keeping us posted. It looks like a reasonable solution.

 

[High Wire]

Thank you for the effort.

 

[BandB]

Sea-Duction:
Hopefully not too upset, as there is still a (more reasonable) setback as well as the need to apply for a permit if you stay anchored in one place for more than 14 days. It's not perfect, but I feel far better than what we have now.

It's exactly the type agreement that must be reached. You start with a small number of people who want no anchoring, anywhere, anytime. On the other side you have those who think they should be able to anchor anywhere they want, anytime. As long as either side sticks to a demand such as those, you'll never find the negotiation necessary to reach a reasonable solution. Fortunately, we keep seeing workable solutions arrived at that both sides can live with. It doesn't happen without effort nor without leaders on both sides who are willing to compromise.

 

[Frosty]

Thank you! I sailed (actually mostly motored) through GA on the ICW about 20 years ago. I remember it as being magical and was bummed that I could never potentially do it again. Now I can imagine it again

I remember how at low tide it was like sailing through a private waterway with high sides, maybe seeing a mast or two in the distance, presumably doing the same thing. Then at high tide the far view. So neat! And lovely anchorages, private and wild.

You and the team put so much effort into this, and it is deeply appreciated.

 

[Steve91T]

Our anchorage last week just north of saint simons island. So far love GA!

 

[CaptTom]

Appreciate all the great work. It's nice to see our democracy working once in a while. It seems like a reasonable compromise was struck, with maybe some future tweaks for both sides.

I happen to believe that the 14-day limit is reasonable. There has to be a line drawn somewhere between "navigation" and "homesteading." And a way (the permit process) to address any special circumstances which may come up.

 

[OldDan1943]

There was a small anchorage at the mouth to Chapman's School in Stuart FL. As I recall, there was a 3 day max. The man who owned and live in the house on the point of land, would log the boats in and on the 4th day, he'd report the boat.
Last time I was at Chapman's I asked it the guy was still reporting boaters. I was informed, "He died."

 

[rslifkin]

Yeah, it sounds like it's a pretty minor inconvenience for most people at this point, but if someone is trying to do what they're trying to avoid, it gets a bit more inconvenient.

 

[angus99]

Brilliant advocacy; thanks to all who pursued this.

I understand the pump-out log provisions but does the bill address Georgia waters essentially becoming an NDZ?

 

[catalinajack]

I just read the bill as passed. The following is the last provision of Section 1 in the bill.

"No part of this Code section shall restrict the ability of vessels to seek safe harbor in the event of dangerous weather or mechanical failure. A reasonable period of time whereby a vessel owner may seek safe harbor shall not exceed seven days."

The bill takes pains to define the meaning of terms in the bill. It does NOT however define the meaning of "dangerous" weather. Not good. Ambiguity is never good in a law or regulation. It leads to inconsistent enforcement. Some folks are averse to travelling in windy conditions but "windy" is relative to the captain who is ultimately responsible for the boat and its crew. Does anyone trust a local LEO to understand these nuances? I don't.

And, mechanical failure is a license to anchor wherever one pleases assuming, of course, there has been a mechanical failure.

As a practical matter my concerns may not ever become a problem but do not be surprised if, at some point in the future, some boater is cited by a local LEO unwarranted and in contravention to the law and common sense. And remember, new boaters are added to our ranks every day. We, as a group, are well-informed about this law. Will a new boater two years from now even know about the "special" Georgia rules which I think are still in contravention of laws and regulations that govern Federal waterways.

Yes, we are all happy with the result because the rules are something that our groups, all transients, can work around. Still, the law is patently illegal.

 

[catalinajack]

Why?

Appreciate all the great work. It's nice to see our democracy working once in a while. It seems like a reasonable compromise was struck, with maybe some future tweaks for both sides.

I happen to believe that the 14-day limit is reasonable. There has to be a line drawn somewhere between "navigation" and "homesteading." And a way (the permit process) to address any special circumstances which may come up.

 

[Woodland Hills]

That’s nice to hear. We are north of Ga. now and made a point of essentially bypassing the state. We stopped @ Cumberland Island and then went outside to Savannah where we anchored a couple of miles up the ICW north of the Savannah River. Proud to say that we didn’t spend a penny at any of their marinas or other businesses.
Given that no marina seems to have joined the fight against this discriminatory bill, we will continue to boycott them. We will probably start anchoring there again, but I’ll spend as little as possible in Ga. in the future.
The folks who own Georgia marinas have shown what they really believe by (not) putting their money where their mouths are. Their trade associations and individual marinas were conspicuously absent from the outrage and the public debate over this monstrously unfair legislation. I, for one, will not forgive and forget. These businesses that profit from us should own their decision to not fight discrimination against their customers.

 

[Alaskan Sea-Duction]

That’s nice to hear. We are north of Ga. now and made a point of essentially bypassing the state. We stopped @ Cumberland Island and then went outside to Savannah where we anchored a couple of miles up the ICW north of the Savannah River. Proud to say that we didn’t spend a penny at any of their marinas or other businesses.
Given that no marina seems to have joined the fight against this discriminatory bill, we will continue to boycott them. We will probably start anchoring there again, but I’ll spend as little as possible in Ga. in the future.
The folks who own Georgia marinas have shown what they really believe by (not) putting their money where their mouths are. Their trade associations and individual marinas were conspicuously absent from the outrage and the public debate over this monstrously unfair legislation. I, for one, will not forgive and forget. These businesses that profit from us should own their decision to not fight discrimination against their customers.

Good point. So other than not spending money, how do you notify the marinas of their mis-steps and let them know how they are tied to this law and cruisers?

There needs to be a campaign to inform marinas.

 

[menzies]

They probably were quietly for it as it would have driven more boaters into their marinas!

 

[CaptTom]

Why?

I think you're asking why I feel there needs to be a distinction between "navigating" and "homesteading."

There's probably a better word than homesteading. I didn't want to say "squatting" but it may get closer to my point.

In the US, navigable waters are held by the government in the public trust for all citizens. Admittedly, that isn't always followed. But it should be a starting point for any discussion about anchoring in public waters.

I just don't feel anyone should have the right to stake out a long-term claim to a plot of water that other citizens may want to use. I feel the same way about "destination" moorings which deprive people of their right to use popular anchorages.

I'm not a fan of excess government regulation, but there are times society has to protect it's rights. The way we do that is, sadly, through government regulation.

So, a well-crafted regulation which protects my right to use a popular anchorage, incidental to exercising my right of navigation, is OK with me.

 

[catalinajack]

Thank you for the explanation. But, a well-crafted regulation that violates superceding law is not okay with me. This group will be largely okay with this law simply because it does affect anything that WE generally do. Requiring a permit to anchor in any one place for more than 14 days in a FEDERAL waterway is still illegal.

As for the gentleman who posted stating that he will never again stay at a Georgia marina, I will not either. I agree that the marinas, as a group, standing idly by taking no position was based in the hope that business would be increased. Those marinas will not likely be able to quantify the affect of their decision but I can assure each and every one of them that they have lost, and will continue to lose, business from transients. Due to this nightmare, folks have learned to easily by-pass Georgia marinas and will continue to do so. And now that the law codifies the right to anchor within 150 feet of any structure, not much of a set-off at all, we can anchor just about anywhere. Bye-bye Georgia.

I think you're asking why I feel there needs to be a distinction between "navigating" and "homesteading."

There's probably a better word than homesteading. I didn't want to say "squatting" but it may get closer to my point.

In the US, navigable waters are held by the government in the public trust for all citizens. Admittedly, that isn't always followed. But it should be a starting point for any discussion about anchoring in public waters.

I just don't feel anyone should have the right to stake out a long-term claim to a plot of water that other citizens may want to use. I feel the same way about "destination" moorings which deprive people of their right to use popular anchorages.

I'm not a fan of excess government regulation, but there are times society has to protect it's rights. The way we do that is, sadly, through government regulation.

So, a well-crafted regulation which protects my right to use a popular anchorage, incidental to exercising my right of navigation, is OK with me.

 

[FF]

"I feel the same way about "destination" moorings which deprive people of their right to use popular anchorages."

The joy of a designated mooring field is there is no requirement for anchor lights, same for fish trap area , clam beds ect, considered a public good.

 

[psneeld]

FF...thought that was only in "special anchorages".


Several mooring fields I have been to require them.....I specifically remember it in the Marathon Boot Key Harbor regs and many forum discussions about the requirement.

 

[Group9]

Thank you for the explanation. But, a well-crafted regulation that violates superceding law is not okay with me. This group will be largely okay with this law simply because it does affect anything that WE generally do. Requiring a permit to anchor in any one place for more than 14 days in a FEDERAL waterway is still illegal.

As for the gentleman who posted stating that he will never again stay at a Georgia marina, I will not either. I agree that the marinas, as a group, standing idly by taking no position was based in the hope that business would be increased. Those marinas will not likely be able to quantify the affect of their decision but I can assure each and every one of them that they have lost, and will continue to lose, business from transients. Due to this nightmare, folks have learned to easily by-pass Georgia marinas and will continue to do so. And now that the law codifies the right to anchor within 150 feet of any structure, not much of a set-off at all, we can anchor just about anywhere. Bye-bye Georgia.

Exactly. You get more of the behavior you reward.

On our next planned trip north, we're going to be scooting through Georgia, as quickly as possible, and not buying anything.

 

[CaptTom]

I'm genuinely curious. What federal law allows me to set up my permanent residence in a popular anchorage somewhere?

When I say "destination moorings" I'm talking about the folks who go to the town hall and register a mooring in some remote cove, away from town or any commercial activity. These moorings fill up a previously-popular anchorage, and each mooring can only legally be used by the "owner," who only shows up for the occasional weekend get-away, denying the use of that anchorage to everyone else forever.