# 2020 Overnight Anchoring Restrictions in Georgia



## arisatx (Sep 2, 2004)

(Photo Credit: Craig Rowdon. s/v Grace at Anchor, Fort Frederica, GA "Grace Under Fire in Georgia")

I haven't been active here in a while. My searches did not find any threads on these new regs that went into effect Jan 1, 2020.

Here is BoatUS's press release today, 2/6/2020 with a strong statement against the new restrictive laws.

https://www.boatus.com/news-room/release/boatus-calls-on-georgia-governor-to-fix-draco


----------



## wsmurdoch (Jan 23, 2007)

The map. A lot of traditional (Skipper Bob's & Waterway Guide) anchorages are outlawed.

https://coastalgadnr.org/Liveaboards

Bill


----------



## arisatx (Sep 2, 2004)

wsmurdoch said:


> The map. A lot of traditional (Skipper Bob's & Waterway Guide) anchorages are outlawed.
> 
> https://coastalgadnr.org/Liveaboards
> 
> Bill


Indeed. Some of us over at the Facebook Group Save Georgia's Anchorages inventoried the anchorages in Active Captain, Waterway Guide and Cruisers' Net. The impacts were assessed and tabulated as attached in the spreadsheet. Come join our growing membership (1100+) and join the discussion on these new regulations.


----------



## Blewtooth (Nov 21, 2018)

I am on anchor now Bradley Creek behind Ossabaw. I was planning on heading to St Catherine's and Walburg Creek tomorrow but after looking at the chart it appears one of the docks is halfway down. Now I'm wondering if it will be a good spot since we are not allowed within a 1000 feet?


----------



## Don L (Aug 8, 2008)

GA is going to need the Buy a lot of boats and hire a lot of new watercops to polce these anchorages in middle of nowhere


----------



## arisatx (Sep 2, 2004)

Blewtooth said:


> I am on anchor now Bradley Creek behind Ossabaw. I was planning on heading to St Catherine's and Walburg Creek tomorrow but after looking at the chart it appears one of the docks is halfway down. Now I'm wondering if it will be a good spot since we are not allowed within a 1000 feet?


There is space both N and S of the 1000ft exclusion zone caused by the dock. I know of 2 vessels that anchored there a few nights ago. If you want to go there, you should. It is a great anchorage.


----------



## arisatx (Sep 2, 2004)

Blewtooth said:


> I am on anchor now Bradley Creek behind Ossabaw. I was planning on heading to St Catherine's and Walburg Creek tomorrow but after looking at the chart it appears one of the docks is halfway down. Now I'm wondering if it will be a good spot since we are not allowed within a 1000 feet?


Blew - take a look at this overlay I did in Google Earth on NOAA RNC's. Just avoid the pink area.


----------



## arisatx (Sep 2, 2004)

Don L said:


> GA is going to need the Buy a lot of boats and hire a lot of new watercops to polce these anchorages in middle of nowhere


As I understand, it will be only "complaint-driven".


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

What a bummer. This trend only seems to be going one way. Can anyone recall winning anything back lately, or are we just holding off the landlubbing barbarians at the gate. 

I’d be curious of any backstory here. Were the commercial fisherman complaining? Too many squatters? These look like narrow channels, where there recurring issues with impeding traffic. I read the accusation that waterfront landowners may have lobbied for this. 

1000 feet seems arbitrary and capricious. If you’re not anchoring inside a shellfish bed or a hazard to a structure or shoreline, what’s the logic of being so far away. It seems only to the be exercise of one’s will and not a defensible distance. One would think a legal action could be brought forward, but I’m surprised that BoatUS doesn’t do more of that.


----------



## arisatx (Sep 2, 2004)

Minnewaska said:


> What a bummer. This trend only seems to be going one way. Can anyone recall winning anything back lately, or are we just holding off the landlubbing barbarians at the gate.


So there was a proposed bill in FL, not state wide, but around the areas of Ortega and Cedar River, to restrict anchoring. Enough boaters voiced their opposition that the council backed off. Good government in action, I say! And thanks to all the boaters who took the time to speak. Read more here: 



__ https://www.facebook.com/kris.l.fletcher/posts/10221385298082652





Minnewaska said:


> I'd be curious of any backstory here. Were the commercial fisherman complaining? Too many squatters? These look like narrow channels, where there recurring issues with impeding traffic. I read the accusation that waterfront landowners may have lobbied for this.


During the public hearing held in the summer of 2019 where the public was invited to comment, Rep Hogan, sponsor of House Bill 201, made a reference to 4 people on a docked yacht, throwing trash overboard, pumping black water overboard, etc. When challenged on how he knew they were pumping overboard, he acknowledged he could not know for sure. The channels are narrrow in some places yes (not as narrow as Rock Pile) so its even more egregious to give 1000ft radius control to the land owner.



Minnewaska said:


> 1000 feet seems arbitrary and capricious. If you're not anchoring inside a shellfish bed or a hazard to a structure or shoreline, what's the logic of being so far away. It seems only to the be exercise of one's will and not a defensible distance. One would think a legal action could be brought forward, but I'm surprised that BoatUS doesn't do more of that.


If you assume it's a semi circle, that's 36 acres of navigable waterway that the homeowner now controls. These waterways are owned by the state but held in the public trust for all to use.

There is a Facebook Group dedicated to the discussions around these regs. If it can happen in FL and GA, it can happen next anywhere. I encourage all boaters to come be part of this discussion: https://www.facebook.com/groups/SaveGeorgiasAnchorages/


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

arisatx said:


> So ......These waterways are owned by the state but held in the public trust for all to use.....


Is that really the case, or would these be federal waters, where an old act from the 1800s (I can't recall the name) delegated rights to the States to regulate. Not sure this matters, more than who you might be leveraging.

The trash thing is indefensible, if true. The black water thing is more frustrating. Want to bet the homeowners septic system is having a notably more negative impact on the adjoining waterway than any recreational boats discharge every would. Of course, recreation boats should not do it and, in significant quantity, would be worse. However, shoreside properties typically put large amount of nitrogen in the waterways from septic leaching and lawn fertilizer.


----------



## arisatx (Sep 2, 2004)

Minnewaska:

I forgot to comment on BoatUS. They've recently come out with a strong letter to Governor Kemp in this press release.


----------



## arisatx (Sep 2, 2004)

How big is a 1000ft radius semi-circle? I wrote this open letter and sent it to several cruising oriented publications.
*
Taking The Bat and The Ball & Going Home*
So my friend James Newsome (co founder of Facebook Group "Save Georgia's Anchorages" and I were ruminating about the impact of a single structure of a waterfront property owner now taking exclusive control of a huge swath of waterway and prohibiting anchoring.

We believe the structure now causes unreasonable obstruction to navigation and have started discussions with US Army Corps of Engineers as they have a role in administering the permitting process for these waterfront structures under PGP0083 - but that's a topic for another day.

A semi circle defined by a radius of 1000ft off a waterfront property owner's structure is 36 acres.

So how can we picture one acre? A football field is approximately 1.32 acres.

(Ref: https://www.stack.com/a/how-many-acres-is-a-football-field)

So 36 Acres / 1.32 Acres per football field = 27.3 football fields!

I've heard about unsportsman like conduct when one kid takes the bat and ball and goes home and ends the game for everyone. Looks like this time the one kid is taking the bat the ball and 27 football fields away to end the game for everyone.

*Addendum:*
For those of you interested in the math:

A semi circle with a 1000ft radius from a structure is equivalent to 36 acres.

Area of a circle = p r2 so 3.14 * (1000ft)2 = 3,140,000 square feet

1 acre = 43560 square feet

So the area of that semi circle = 3,140,000 sq ft / 43560 sq ft per acre / 2 = 36.0 Acres

A football field is approximately 1.32 acres.

(Ref: https://www.stack.com/a/how-many-acres-is-a-football-field)

36 Acres / 1.32 Acres per football field = 27.3 football fields


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

The math makes an even better case for arbitrary and capricious. I’m surprised legal action hasn’t ensued to force the State to explain their rationale for these specific limits. Have they already tried to make clear why they picked 1000ft? It would far from the first time that a law was passed, knowing it could be challenged, but the legislature takes its chances.


----------



## arisatx (Sep 2, 2004)

Minnewaska said:


> The math makes an even better case for arbitrary and capricious. I'm surprised legal action hasn't ensued to force the State to explain their rationale for these specific limits. Have they already tried to make clear why they picked 1000ft? It would far from the first time that a law was passed, knowing it could be challenged, but the legislature takes its chances.


I have not seen any logical rationale for 1000ft, other than "to reduce conflicts between homeowners and boaters". I guess if you get all the boaters "outta my sight from my house" there will be fewer conflicts. Ironically if "distance" is the solution to "conflicts", the law specifically excludes recreational fisherman who are going to be close to their docks and fishing the structures.

We had an attorney on our FB Group raise his hand and offer to defend, pro bono, the first boater arrrested / charged under the new law. Sadly that is what it may take...


----------



## bigdogandy (Jun 21, 2008)

arisatx said:


> I have not seen any logical rationale for 1000ft, other than "to reduce conflicts between homeowners and boaters". I guess if you get all the boaters "outta my sight from my house" there will be fewer conflicts. Ironically if "distance" is the solution to "conflicts", the law specifically excludes recreational fisherman who are going to be close to their docks and fishing the structures.
> 
> We had an attorney on our FB Group raise his hand and offer to defend, pro bono, the first boater arrrested / charged under the new law. Sadly that is what it may take...


So is a potential work around to the law to have a fishing pole handy?


----------



## arisatx (Sep 2, 2004)

bigdogandy said:


> So is a potential work around to the law to have a fishing pole handy?


:grin Just make sure you have a state fishing license! But seriously, one can claim safe harbor, i.e. the need to anchor to make repairs.


----------



## bigdogandy (Jun 21, 2008)

It is an overreach by the state - appreciate you taking the time to raise awareness of the issue. Hopefully the BoatUS campaign will help the governor see the light and spur a change in the regulations. If not - at some point I have to believe this will be challenged in court and hopefully it will be heard in a court with a judge that will rule based on matters of law......


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

arisatx said:


> ....We had an attorney on our FB Group raise his hand and offer to defend, pro bono, the first boater arrrested / charged under the new law. Sadly that is what it may take...


Many have this romantic hippie with a cause image about civil disobedience, but this is really what it's tactically used for. If the legislature just passed the law, there is absolutely no way one will refocus their attention on changing it. Unless the governor hasn't singled it yet, the BoatUS letter is only going to make their membership feel like they are doing something. If it's signed law, I'm pretty disappointed in BoatUS after the fact. It's little more than pandering.

The way signed law is modified is through the court system. It's very intentionally designed that way. Legislatures pass laws they know are not fully detailed or supported and expect those details will be sorted out in the courts. The cause often needs someone to suffer an injury (arrest, fine, penalty) in order to bring the action forward. If no one has been injured, it's harder to get the courts to simply take up a constitutional matter.


----------



## arisatx (Sep 2, 2004)

Legislators must rely on subject matter experts and lobbyists to understand what is put before them, I get that. But how did House Bill get overwhelming support in the House (Yea 162 Nay 1 NV 8 Exc 9) and Senate (Yea 45 Nay 0 NV 4 Exc 7)? 
(Ref: HB*201*2019-2020 Regular Session)

Here is how HB 201 Sponsor Rep Hogan presented it in the House. Video by Georgia Public Broadcasting


----------



## arisatx (Sep 2, 2004)

Here is a nice video put together by Kim Russo of AGLCA and The National Marine Manufacturers Association (NMMA):


----------



## arisatx (Sep 2, 2004)

As you've heard, last year's House Bill 201 became law on 1/1/2020 and now Georgia has the distinction of having the nation's most restrictive anchoring laws, stripping away the right to freely navigate on the waters the state holds in public trust. This impacts not only Georgia boaters but every boater, both domestic and international, who plans to navigate through Georgia waters.

HB201 was a complex and flawed hodge podge of regulations, but was sold in the House and the Senate at an absurdly high level of simplification, leaving out key components that were objectionable to boaters, and focusing instead on water quality and revitalization of a local shellfish industry.

So as we look to HB833 to remedy the wrongs of HB201, we must be able now to sell those points to our legislators under the gold dome of Atlanta. *A core group of boating rights advocates have started a Georgia Anchoring Advocacy Fund to engage the services of a lobbyist to do exactly this. * So far we have received support from:

America's Great Loop Cruisers' Association (AGLCA), 
Facebook Group Save Georgia's Anchorages
Waterway Guide

This is every boater's fight. What is happening in Georgia can happen in your cruising waters. No amount is too small. Please consider supporting the fund at: http://www.greatloop.org/georgia


----------



## arisatx (Sep 2, 2004)

News of the Georgia Anchoring Laws continue to spread outside the US. Noonsite, known by many in the international cruising community and sister site to worldcruising.com, who organize the ARC Rallies has now issued a warning to cruisers to be wary of the new laws which are now a criminal offense. https://www.noonsite.com/news/usa-georgia-new-regulations-for-overnight-anchoring-and-waste-disposal/


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

How quickly did this move through the legislature down there? It seems the post-law reaction is greater than the pre. None of it will likely matter, however. Cetainly not until the legislature turns over and the community isn't asking the same folks who voted it in to vote it back out. I think it will need to be modified in the courts.


----------



## arisatx (Sep 2, 2004)

Minnewaska said:


> How quickly did this move through the legislature down there? It seems the post-law reaction is greater than the pre. None of it will likely matter, however. Cetainly not until the legislature turns over and the community isn't asking the same folks who voted it in to vote it back out. I think it will need to be modified in the courts.


HB*201*2019-2020 Regular Session

It sailed right through 
Mar/29/2019 - Senate Vote #342 Yea(45) Nay(0) NV(4) Exc(7)
Mar/04/2019 - House Vote #120 Yea(162) Nay(1) NV(8) Exc(9)

The boating community did not have visibility until after passage. Many came to speak at the GA DNR Public Meeting on Jun 17, 2019 which you can see here: 




Speakers
Doug Haymans - GA DNR CRD Director 00:00
Kim Russo - AGLCA, SSCA and Coalition (MTOA, DeFever Cruisers) 29:22
Wally Moran - Marine Journalist, ICW Rally Leader 33:25
Jack White - Sailor, Looper, Pilot, Former GA State Representative 36:45
Ed Tillett - Editor in Chief, General Manager Waterway Guide 42:49
David Kennedy - Government Affairs, BoatUS 45:51
Charlie Waller - Owner Isle of Hope Marina and GAMBA President 49:26
Neil Davies - Part time Georgia resident 51:52
Amy Thurman - Georgia Association of Marine Business 57:35
Edwin Longwater - Georgia resident, Captain, Naturalist 59:18
Lee Gatts - National Marine Manufacturers Association 1:03:00
Fred Anderson - DeFever Cruisers 1:06:26
Fred Meyling - Cruiser 1:10:45
Tim McNair - Retired Law Enforcement, Full Time Cruiser 1:13:40
Brand Wyrick - Georgia Resident, Part Time Cruiser 1:18:20
Steve White - Resident, Retired Military 1:21:58
Charles MacMillan - Non Boater, Georgia Conservancy 1:24:18
Joe Green - Georgia Resident, Retied Educator, Sailor 1:26:11
Jerry Morris - Georgia Resident Boater 1:29:57
Walter Clayton - 1:31:51
Dana Rutland - TowBoatUS 1:32:26 
David Bosworth - Georgia Resident 1:35:11
Bubba Strickland - Owner Operator Hogan's Marina 1:38:04
Mark Mueller - 1:42:51 / recording ends as battery is depleted

Video courtesy of: J. Gannon, attendee


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

arisatx said:


> ......
> Mar/29/2019 - Senate Vote #342 Yea(45) Nay(0) NV(4) Exc(7)
> Mar/04/2019 - House Vote #120 Yea(162) Nay(1) NV(8) Exc(9)


Bi-partisan support with hardly a vote against. This fight's been lost. Courts.

I was more interested in when the Bill was first introduced and what organization was behind it, but it's moot now.


----------



## arisatx (Sep 2, 2004)

Minnewaska said:


> Bi-partisan support with hardly a vote against. This fight's been lost. Courts.
> 
> I was more interested in when the Bill was first introduced and what organization was behind it, but it's moot now.


Georgia DNR Coastal Resources Division was the main driver, from what I understand. This my require court action.


----------



## arisatx (Sep 2, 2004)

*IMPORTANT UPDATE ON GA ANCHORING ISSUE*
Thanks to all who have supported our effort to establish the Georgia Anchoring Advocacy fund to retain Scott Draper, a professional lobbyist. We have reached 63% of our funding goal in a matter of days with your help. In less than a week Scott has come up to speed with the issues we have identified in HB201, Georgia's anchoring law that took effect January 1st, 2020. He was able to broker a conference call with GA DNR Commissioner Mark Williams, his team and our anchoring coalition which we just conducted today, Feb 25, 2020.

Over the course of almost two hours, we had open dialogue on the problems DNR was trying to address with HB201 as well as some of the issues the cruising community had with its incarnation as law. All parties felt the call was productive and there is agreement in principle to refine Rep. Ron Stephens' HB833 to best achieve our mutual objectives and to push the legislation through the current session in the next few weeks. HB833, if it passes, is expected to replace most parts of HB201.

We are not out of the woods yet, but Georgia policymakers appear to now be responsive to changing some of the most questionable facets of the laws passed last year, including restrictions for where vessels may anchor, the identity of cruising and transient vessels. Commissioner Williams is not willing to rescind the Administrative Order signed on December 30, 2019 that prevents boats from anchoring within 1,000 feet of structures throughout the coastal region of the state, until a legislative fix, HB833, is passed by the General Assembly.

We are optimistic about today's progress and look forward to working with Commissioner Williams, with his support, on HB833. Your support is needed now more than ever to assist in the funding of lobbying efforts that have helped us achieve some degree of success in having Georgia DNR and lawmakers hear our collective voice. Our fight continues in the legislature in the days ahead.

Please join nearly 100 other boaters from across the country and around the world who have supported this effort. Contribute at www.greatloop.org/Georgia

Save Georgia's Anchorages


----------



## arisatx (Sep 2, 2004)

Here is a nice piece in Cruising World by Ed Tillet, of Waterway Guide:

https://www.cruisingworld.com/story/destinations/progress-on-georgia-anchoring-situation/


----------



## 1claire (Feb 21, 2020)

Did I read right that the rules don't apply to fishing boats?
If so; that is arbitrary, discriminatory and negates many of the reasons for the setback.
Also, if true then it would appear fishing boats can anchor in sensitive areas where others cannot. Why wouldn't all boats be restricted from anchoring in these areas.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

If they're that willing to renegotiate recently passed law, they know it's vulnerable in court.


----------



## arisatx (Sep 2, 2004)

1claire said:


> Did I read right that the rules don't apply to fishing boats?
> If so; that is arbitrary, discriminatory and negates many of the reasons for the setback.
> Also, if true then it would appear fishing boats can anchor in sensitive areas where others cannot. Why wouldn't all boats be restricted from anchoring in these areas.


Yes you are correct. Ironic that since their solution to "conflicts" is "distance", why exempt a class of boaters most likely to be close to their docks, fishing the structures?


----------



## arisatx (Sep 2, 2004)

Minnewaska said:


> If they're that willing to renegotiate recently passed law, they know it's vulnerable in court.


Yes I think the many boating advocacy groups have done a good job of highlighting the many flaws in the new laws.


----------



## chef2sail (Nov 27, 2007)

Maybe they intended to exclude working vessels and this was their attempt to minimize the laws affect of people’s businesses.

In some cases it’s better to enact the law and then moderate it to take care of inconsistencies or loopholes. To try and get an all encompassing law on the first shot isn’t realistic.

Watch in arguments. Every time a politician tries to come up with a solution a certain segment will rail against it from both ends of the spectrum as it not covering all parts of the issue.

Guns are a best example. Almost all American agree with the need for background checks , loopholes in current laws , mental health issues , and maybe limits on the war like guns. However NOTHING gets done or passed despite mass shootings. The arguments are always put forth it can control every little permutation. This means that nothing gets done.

A more pragmatic approach would be to pass what we can, and then move on to the issues we can’t agree on as addendums to these laws. Not adding “pork” or unrelated topics to these laws/ bills effectively kills them.


----------



## arisatx (Sep 2, 2004)

*Georgia House Bill 833 Update:*

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 (Sep 2, 2004)

:grin


arisatx said:


> *Georgia House Bill 833 Update:*
> 
> 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:


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

arisatx said:


> .....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......


First I recall reading that motivation so overtly.


----------



## arisatx (Sep 2, 2004)

*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


----------



## Captain Ron 56 (Mar 8, 2020)

I think all boaters should band to gather and refuse to do ANY perches of fuel, or any shopping in the state. Bypass them totaly with your money. They will get the message.:crying


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

Captain Ron 56 said:


> I think all boaters should band to gather and refuse to do ANY perches of fuel, or any shopping in the state. Bypass them totaly with your money. They will get the message.:crying


I agree with the sentiment, but I think boycotts often kill the wrong target. The local marinas didn't pass this law. The State would never miss the pennies of tax revenue that a few passing cruisers would cause with a boycott, but the local marinas and stores would.


----------



## colemj (Jul 10, 2003)

And the people who pushed this law into being really want the boaters to leave the state.

Maybe the best thing to do is to band together and go to Georgia. Overwhelm them.

Mark


----------



## Blewtooth (Nov 21, 2018)

What is the real cause of this?

I think that Cruisers are just the collateral damage from the war with derelict boats which have nothing to do with Cruisers but everything to do with homeless people and an understaffed State DNR who could not enforce the existing laws. There was simply not enough staff to take care of these crackheads who took over an abandoned boat and let it sit on anchor while they drank beer, smoked crack and let the boat go ashore up into the marsh where it became a pollutung eyesore and threat to navigation. 
This combined with a shamefully out of touch lazy legislature who didn't discuss much of anything before passing the stupid law along with a DNR who didn't do its job by by taking the Cruisers into consideration. Why? Because the DNR also is super underfunded. In these trying times all of the agencies are understaffed because of a government that constantly wants to show everyone how they're doing such a good job of managing the budget by cutting jobs.


----------



## Don L (Aug 8, 2008)

I thought this battle was over and in the end the cruisers won.


----------



## Blewtooth (Nov 21, 2018)

Yes, I think so too. Just my thoughts on what caused many of the locals to get irritated to begin with. I remember in S FL they had a particularly bad problem with abandoned boats.


----------



## colemj (Jul 10, 2003)

Don L said:


> I thought this battle was over and in the end the cruisers won.


I doubt we are really at the end, and I can't remember cruisers ever winning in the long run.

Even in this example, cruisers gave up liberties and certain land people won restrictions.

Mark


----------



## Blewtooth (Nov 21, 2018)

Sad state of affairs continues in Brunswick 

What's really vexing is the fact that their are hardly enough marinas with transient berths available 

I tried getting one at the morning star marina there yesterday. They had shut down their transient births completely for construction reasons. 
Weather was coming in and possible gale force winds. The downtown Marina is way out of the way and I had already passed Jykle Marina. Anchored out on the other side of the bridge and have had to reset the anchor twice already in strong wind and current.
Plus too close to a cable area. 


Now with these new restrictions it's really difficult.


----------



## colemj (Jul 10, 2003)

What is the state of affairs in Brunswick you mention? The anchoring restrictions? The marina closures due to virus? Did you try Brunswick Landing for a transient slip, or is that one the downtown marina you mentioned?

If you are heading North, be aware that many of the marinas in the Savana area are closed now. The Waterway Guide website keeps a list of marina status along the ICW.

Mark


----------



## Blewtooth (Nov 21, 2018)

I am now anchored off of Kilkenny 
And I called them and they will be open tomorrow and selling fuel.


----------



## arisatx (Sep 2, 2004)

HB833 has passed! 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: Save Georgia's Anchorages


> 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.
> ...


----------



## arisatx (Sep 2, 2004)

The Georgia anchoring nightmare is over! HB833, written to replace the draconian HB201, was overwhelmingly passed by both chambers of the GA General Assembly and signed into law by Governor Kemp. It is now law!

http://www.legis.ga.gov/Legislation/en-US/display/20192020/HB/833


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

Well done.


----------



## arisatx (Sep 2, 2004)

Georgia DNR has updated their maps to show the no-anchoring zones based on the new legislation HB833 
Liveaboard Anchoring Illustrative Map


----------



## arisatx (Sep 2, 2004)

've tried to obtain the KMZ files for the various anchoring restriction areas (as were available previous for those areas defined under HB201). So far my inquiry has gone unanswered. A colleague of mine received a response stating that GA DNR had no current plans to make them available and that we should use the interactive map online - or print them out. This position exhibits disregard for the vessel operator who is trying to assess compliance, as well as the LEO who must enforce it.
As a second best alternative to show the "old" and "new" shellfish beds, I've taken screen shots off the DNR website and compared them to the previous KMZ areas in this photo album. You can see before / after shellfish areas in the pairs of photos.
The expansion is significant. The various boaters' rights organizations have come back together to draft a communication to the GA DNR that will be published later today.

Georgia Shellfish Areas 2019 / 2020 (Before and After Pairs)


----------



## arisatx (Sep 2, 2004)

Here is a letter jointly sent by our boater's groups to the Georgia DNR Commissioner:

Commissioner Mark Williams,
On behalf of the group of boaters who worked with the GA DNR to create replacement HB 833 earlier this year, we seek some clarification on its implementation. You may recall that during our conference call, we stated our concerns about the shellfish harvest areas and you directed your team to follow up with James Newsome as our representative on this matter. This has not occurred to date and we would like to avoid another confrontational situation such as when HB201 was developed without stakeholder involvement.
The areas designated as shellfish harvest area buffers in the current map on the GA DNR website (Ref 1) are greatly increased vs those previously defined.
· Is GA DNR CRD representing the green shaded areas as currently approved shellfish growing areas?
Terms and Conditions preceding the map state (emphasis mine) "_Anchorage restriction areas means those areas within the estuarine areas of this state in any location that lies within 300 feet of a marina, 150 feet from a marine structure other than a marina, or within 500 feet of *approved commercial shellfish growing areas* and designated public harvest areas as determined by the department._"
· As much of the expanded shellfish growing areas include federally defined navigable waterways below the low water mark, has the US Army Corps of Engineers approved the designation USACE Nationwide Permit 48 (Ref 2 and 3) ?
· How much of the shellfish zones will be below the intertidal zone and be set aside for the mariculture technique utilizing cages suspended in the water column by floats?
· HB501 specifies that subtidal harvest zone leases must first be evaluated for impact against other public uses. (Ref 4). Has this been completed? If so, may we examine the evaluations? If not, what opportunity for public comment will you make available?

" _Prior to offering a subtidal water bottoms lease, the department shall consider compatibility with other public uses of the marine and estuarine resources in proximity of the lease area that include, but are not limited to, navigation, fishing, swimming, and other forms of recreation_."
· GA DNR has adopted the federal framework of National Shellfish Sanitation Program (NSSP), requiring shellfish waters meet the NSSP requirements before being designated as approved. Have these assessments been completed for all indicated areas? (Ref 5)
The boating group members seek a balance of interest among public access, waterfront property owners, and a resurgent shellfish industry.
Your feedback to clarify the above points would be most appreciated.
Coalition is comprised of:
America's Great Loop Cruisers Association
CruisersNet
DeFever Cruisers Association
Marine Trawler Owners Association
National Marine Manufacturers Association
The Waterway Guide
Save Georgia's Anchorages
Reference:
1- https://gcmp.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html...
2 - *USACE Nationwide Permit 48 *Commercial Shellfish Aquaculture Activities (Sections 10 and 404)
3 - Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Appropriation Act of 1899 https://www.epa.gov/.../section-10-rivers-and-harbors...
4 - HB 501 lines 341-346 http://www.legis.ga.gov/Legislation/20192020/185110.pdf
5 - US Food and Drug Administration - National Shellfish Sanitation Program https://www.fda.gov/media/98328/download


----------



## colemj (Jul 10, 2003)

A quick look at those charts show that at least some of these new shellfish harvest no anchor areas are places with signs posted "do not eat the shellfish" because of pollution and other health reasons. Strange that...

Mark


----------



## arisatx (Sep 2, 2004)

colemj said:


> A quick look at those charts show that at least some of these new shellfish harvest no anchor areas are places with signs posted "do not eat the shellfish" because of pollution and other health reasons. Strange that...
> 
> Mark


Agreed. Shellfish waters must meet standards established by the National Shellfish Sanitation Program (NSSP) and I am skeptical these have all been tested and passed.


----------



## arisatx (Sep 2, 2004)

I have written this letter of inquiry to the USACE just now. Their contact information may be found here: https://www.sas.usace.army.mil/.../Regulatory-Program/

US Army Corps of Engineers
Savannah District
Regulatory Division
Dear Sirs:
I am a recreational boater who enjoys the coastal waters of our East Coast and in particular, the coastal waters of Georgia. I have followed with interest, the evolution of Georgia's regulations around navigation / anchoring in their estuarine waters, starting with House Bill 201 in 2019 and replacement House Bill 833 in 2020.
As a result of HB833, GA DNR has updated their definitions of no-anchoring zones as published on their website:
https://gcmp.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html...
Among the various zones, one in particular, "shellfish harvest" areas (shaded in green) have expanded dramatically between 2019 and 2020. These shellfish harvest areas are portrayed as "approved" on the GA DNR website and among the multiple requirements for approval is to receive a permit from US ACE for those areas in navigable waters. If one examines the published maps, there are many areas in navigable waters as well as established channels demarcated by Aids To Navigation by USCG and charted by NOAA. This also includes portions of the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway, which as you know is important not just for recreational boaters but also for commercial navigation.
The reason for my email is to inquire as to the status of USACE approval of these shellfish harvest zones.
Thank you,
Ted Arisaka


----------



## arisatx (Sep 2, 2004)

Georgia Rep Ron Stephens contacted James H. Newsome (as a representation of the boating coalition group) this afternoon and stated that he and the Commissioner have talked about our concerns with the maps showing the overbearing shellfish lease areas, and that DNR will make an internal rule change to address the problems we have pointed out. 
DNR and Rep. Stephens will introduce legislative changes in the next session of the General Assembly to permanently correct the problem. 
No timeline was given on how long the rule change will take. James asked if the map could be removed while we await the revised rules. Rep. Stephens contacted the Commissioner and was told that the map must stay up for now, but there will be no enforcement of anchoring violations in these areas. We assume this to mean other than the setbacks as defined in HB833 (150' private docks, 300' commercial marinas, & 500' shellfish harvesting areas). 
While this is welcome relief for boaters and cruisers, and we are hopeful for a quick rule change and resolution to this problem, we must also caution boaters that they should obey the directive of any local DNR Law Enforcement officer if approached while anchoring in one of these areas as defined by the map on DNR's website. 
We have seen instances in the past where information about recent directives has not trickled down to the local level. If necessary, read this information to the officer, but follow his/her instructions. And then please contact Ted Arisaka, Kim Russo, or James H. Newsome afterwards. We will forward your information to our contacts at Georgia DNR.


----------



## jim2ksb (Jul 28, 2012)

I just compared the Georgia "Liveaboard Anchoring Illustrative Map" with the anchorages I have either used in the past or tagged as possible fallback alternatives to the anchorages I have used. Here are the results:

Herb River: ICW584 32°00.85' 81°02.30' BANNED
Turner Creek: ICW586 32°00.92' 80°59.44' BANNED
Moon River: ICW595 31°55.76' 81°04.67' BANNED
Vernon River: ICW597 31°56.26' 81°07.36' BANNED
Queen Bess Cr: ICW606 31°50.35' 81°08.60' OK
Redbird Creek: ICW607 31°51.16' 81°09.74' OK
Cane Patch Creek: ICW609 31°49.35' 81°07.51' OK
Big Tom Creek: ICW613 31°46.56' 81°09.20' BANNED
Kilkenny Creek: ICW614 31°46.72' 81°11.04' BANNED
Newell Creek: ICW616 31°45.87' 81°08.73' BANNED
Walberg Creek: ICW619 31°40.59' 81°09.56' BANNED
Cedar Creek: ICW620 31°42.55' 81°11.97' BANNED
Cattle Pen Creek: ICW626 31°38.72' 81°10.94' BANNED
Wahoo River: ICW630 31°36.01' 81°13.18' BANNED
Crescent River: ICW644 31°30.20' 81°20.15' BANNED
Shellbluff Creek: ICW644 31°28.54' 81°20.08' BANNED
New Teakettle Cr: ICW646 31°27.61' 81°18.07' BANNED
Duplin River: ICW649 31°25.97' 81°17.64' BANNED
Back River: ICW651 31°23.71' 81°19.37' OK
North River: ICW651 31°23.62' 81°20.48' OK
Darien River: ICW652 31°23.13' 81°20.58' OK
Rockdedundy River: ICW653 31°22.40' 81°20.91' OK
South Altamaha R: ICW662 31°18.71' 81°24.45' OK
Wally's Leg: ICW666 31°15.59' 81°23.94' OK
Fort Frederica: ICW667 31°14.64' 81°23.23' BANNED
Epworth By-The-Sea:ICW673 31°10.81' 81°24.83' OK
Brickhill River: ICW606 31°53.31' 81°27.16' BANNED
Plum Orchard: ICW704 31°51.54' 81°28.03' BANNED
Sea Camp: ICW711 31°45.88' 81°28.35' OK if away from dock

In all of Georgia's roughly 140-mile stretch of ICW there are now basically two clusters of safe anchorages: one near ICW mile 607, and the other near ICW mile 652. (Epworth and Sea Camp are OK in moderate conditions, but you probably wouldn't want to spend a frontal passage with widely shifting wind directions anchored at either one due to fetch and wind-against-current conditions.)

A shallow-draft, high-speed powerboat could cross the kind of distances required to make it between allowed anchorages in one day, but for deep-draft displacement-speed boats (i.e. sailboats and trawlers) that have to wait for high tide to pass through the shallow parts of the ICW, Georgia's waters are now effectively closed.

This is the time of year that many boats start migrating south through this part of the ICW. It will be interesting to see what happens over the next few weeks.


----------



## arisatx (Sep 2, 2004)

Thanks for your analysis. I looked at the unique 150 anchorages as published by Waterway Guide, Active Captain and CruisersNet and found 50 now in prohibited shellfish zones. I did not assess the other 100 anchorages for setback from marine structures, marinas. Going N to S:


----------



## arisatx (Sep 2, 2004)

Here is an update from Ed Tillett in Cruising World PressReader.com - Your favorite newspapers and magazines.


----------

