# Free mooring in FL



## Frogwatch (Jan 22, 2011)

Someone in another thread was bemoaning the cost of slips in SE FL so I'd like to discuss the possibility of mooring for free. Now, I am not sure it'd work in crowded SE, FL but I do see boats anchored long term on the west coast of FL. Most of em look bedraggled and poorly kept but maybe the owner comes by every couple of months and goes sailing. I'd be nervous as hell during hurricane season and I'd also have some good liability coverage.
It is tempting to try but I like my boat too much even though losing her would not be a financial setback for me (She is old and looooooong ago paid for). Way up here in NW, FL, near TAllahassee, I see boats far up rivers tied to the banks and some moored in mid-river long term for free. I once went waaaaaay up the New River above Carabelle and found a small community tied to the bank. Far up the Apalachicola River at Ochessee Landing, I found actual houses built on floats in the water for free, no shore connection except a tiny gangplank. You often see small houseboats along the riverbanks tied long term. If I had such, I guess in Hurricane season I'd go up river further above the dam and into lake Seminole.
In South FL, I think you could easily find places along the Okechobee Waterway to tie long term in back water places.


----------



## creedence623 (Mar 8, 2006)

From what I understand, Florida doesn't limit the length of mooring in state waters. All that is changing with the mooring field program that's gaining traction throughout the state though. Basically a few pilot cities agreed to put in mooring fields (moorings cost about $15 a day, or $350 per month), and they now limit where you are allowed to drop anchor.

St Pete for example had 3 yacht basins. They turned the northern most into a mooring field, and made it illegal to anchor in the other 2. Clever. 

Incidentally, what's the point of a yacht basin if you can't anchor a yacht in it? They say you are free to anchor anywhere else along the east coast of St Petersburg, but glance at a chart and you'll see there really are no protected anchorages in the area; so you're no left to pay $15 a day or $350 a month for what used to be free.

Having said that, the mooring field program hasn't reached the majority of Florida cities yet, so you're still free to anchor for extended periods assuming you're not blocking navigable waterways.


----------



## jerryRiggin (Jul 7, 2011)

*Mooring can have local regulations*

Careful about mooring though without checking the local regulations. I live in a south Florida east coast town and we have sailboats anchored in our icw and canals. So sseems like mooring is allowed right? But the catch is that the boat cannot stay in the same place for more than 48 hours. So every two days the boat owners havee to move the boat a few feet so as to be in compliance.


----------



## HarborRat (Jun 14, 2012)

*Re: Mooring can have local regulations*

I always see a few of boats moored at the very upper end of Charlotte Harbor. After some research I found it to be 100% legal, and free. There were some stipulations but I can't remember what they were....something about live-aboard.

The state, Punta Gorda and a local marina just put in a very nice mooring field with taxpayer money...only problem is it is on the wrong side of the Punta Gorda bridge. Not a problem for small boats like mine, but small boats like mine don't need to be moored. The bridge is about 39' tall I believe (maybe less), near the famous Fisherman's Village. I fish under the bridge and watch big sailboats practically scrape their masts all the time. I'd feel safer mooring for free on the "right" side of the bridge.


----------



## hellosailor (Apr 11, 2006)

"In South FL, I think you could easily find places along the Okechobee Waterway "
Frogwatch, I don't think you understand the basic concept of capitalism and property ownership. SOMEone owns EVERYthing and like they wre supposed to teach you in kindergarten, you don't touch anything unless you get permission first. Or have real good reason to think no one else already owns it.

In the case of waterfront property, especially a navigation canal operated by the Army Corps of Engineers for the purposes of commerce, you'd better think twice. The ACE recently put out a policy on using the Okee and if I remember correctly, they said boats in the process of transit/navigation are allowed to tie up for ONE NIGHT in any location. Then you're expected to move on, because that canal belongs to them, not you, and it was dug for the purpose of moving things, not giving you a free berth.

While state and town policies vary, you can't assume you can drop a hook anywhere unless it is "publicly owned" waters with publicly owned bottoms. Yes, there are places where the bottomland itself is privately owned, and while you can pass over it--you still can't drop a hook there.

Didn't they make two movies about this? "Hey Dude, Where's My Boat?!"


----------



## Allen-deckard (Jul 26, 2011)

I dont live there but if the canal is maintained by the ary corps of eng then by definition it is public and owned by the fed gov.
I dont know the area just reading threads, but i live on a corps lake and it is indeed owned by the fed gov (to an elevation here) but anyway just commenting

Btw we have the 24hr parking rule here as well.


----------



## hellosailor (Apr 11, 2006)

"but if the canal is maintained by the ary corps of eng then by definition it is public and owned by the fed gov."

So what? The Interstate highway system, more properly called the Interstate and Defense Highway System, is also "owned" by the fed, but that doesn't mean you can set up a tent and go camping in the median. Or anyplace else. And while the design specifications provide for courier traffic (i.e. plain cars) to run at 90mph, and straight stretches to be able to double as emergency landing strips for aircraft, you might find those activities to be somewhat limited as well.

The "airwaves" are owned by the public, but try setting up your own broadcasting company without an FCC license.

Or, try stopping by for dinner in the federally owned White House Dining Room. 
"Michelle, would you please pass the broccoli?" (VBG)


----------



## Frogwatch (Jan 22, 2011)

I am sure there are exceptions but in FL any navigable waterway belongs to the state. Yes, there may be canals owned by pvt individuals and waterways belonging to the feds. However, most rivers do belong to the state so in most cases, one can anchor for a long period. A municipality may make exceptions but here in NW FL, that is uncommon.
So, is the entire Calloosahatchee River owned by the COE? What about the entire Lake Okechobee?


----------



## creedence623 (Mar 8, 2006)

Frog is correct. For proof, look down the Manatee River. There is a collection of boats (ex commercial trawlers down to small day sailers) that have been there for YEARS. There's no push to have them move, and honestly they aren't that big of an issue where they are. (That las tpart is just my opinion of course)


----------



## Allen-deckard (Jul 26, 2011)

hellosailor:885223 said:


> "but if the canal is maintained by the ary corps of eng then by definition it is public and owned by the fed gov."
> 
> So what? The Interstate highway system, more properly called the Interstate and Defense Highway System, is also "owned" by the fed, but that doesn't mean you can set up a tent and go camping in the median. Or anyplace else. And while the design specifications provide for courier traffic (i.e. plain cars) to run at 90mph, and straight stretches to be able to double as emergency landing strips for aircraft, you might find those activities to be somewhat limited as well.
> 
> ...


The point i was making is about your point of capitalism and waterfront ownership. You can own the waterfront you however do not own the water in front of your home. Trust me i own waterfront on a corps of eng lake while its not entirely the same thing unless its a privately owned lake you dont get to say what happens on the water.

No more than you get to determine what the speedlimit is on the road in front of the house.

Again i dont live there but from what ive read in news reports it looks to me like some very wealthy people own some very expensive waterfront property and arent happy with having boats possibly that arent of the same quality as there homes and want them moved out and have the political muscle to make it happen.


----------



## hellosailor (Apr 11, 2006)

"You can own the waterfront you however do not own the water in front of your home. "
You've got me confused with someone else. The water does not necessarily belong to whoever owns the land abutting it. However, the bottomland may very well belong to someone (private or government) AND the waterway itself may be controlled by some entity, often a government.

There was just a big kerfluffle in Florida about exactly that problem. The canals in one community were dredged by the land developer, who retained ownership rights to the canals and the bottomland under them. The property owners built docks next to their property and guess what? Now many years later, they're unhappy that the company that owns the bottomlands in the canals is saying "remove your docks, or else buy the bottomland".

You can't assume ANYTHING about water rights and underwater land ownership in the US. The only federal right of passage, is exactly that: Passage, during routine navigation, on navigable waters. The argument is made that anchoring is a normal part of passage, but that could just as easily lead to "Oh, you had to anchor? You didn't carry enough crew to make a safe passage? Sorry, we're ending your voyage as manifestly unsafe." Hasn't happened yet--but wait for it to come.


----------



## tommays (Sep 9, 2008)

The rules are quite twisted up on long Island with various bottom rights belonging to the towns from colonial days stuff 

On the northshore you cant use a boat ramp unless you live in that town 

But in riverhead the worlds best ramp is on DEC controlled land SO anybody can Buy a pass for 40 bucks


----------



## Allen-deckard (Jul 26, 2011)

Well i appoligize then. The only experience i have is where i live. Currently where i live on a core of eng lake with 1400 mi. Of cost line you can anchor anwhere on the lake or pull up on shore anywhere on the lake there are no costs besides in a marina slip besides what we all pay in fed taxes to maintain the lake.

Where i used to live on a public lake much smaller a developer wanted to make some money and dredged out a pretty good area to allow for more lake front property and canals. Once it was dredged out it was connected to the origional lake and it became part of the lake and he lost all ownership making it public domain something the developer was none to happy about.

So anyway obviously the laws are different there and I spoke out of turn not realizing laws such as this were so vastly different across the us so again sorry.


----------



## Frogwatch (Jan 22, 2011)

Locally here ion NW FL I have seen an instance of a developer paying to dredge canals and then sell waterfront. He never says anything about who owns the waterbottom and the new owners just assume the state owns it and they have a right to install docks. Then he lowers the boom AFTER they have built a dock. It seems like the sort of thin you'd look into before buying property.


----------



## souljour2000 (Jul 8, 2008)

I have been mooring boat for free in Sarasota bay for 4-5 years now...regulations come and go...5 year ago I had to be at least 300 feet from a private residence..was very reasonable to me...but now that's no longer the law..you can anchor within spitting distance apparently...Most newly passed County/City statutes/laws regarding mooring/anchoring almost never stand up in courts when challenged...at least down here...It's hard to mess with Admiralty law...but lately corporations have been designated to be people (flying in the face of a hundred and twenty years of jurisprudence) so who knows where anything in American judicial system is headed anymore...


----------



## AKscooter (Jan 18, 2009)

That developer reminds me of a few of the "condo magnets" in Florida.......New condo, u like, u buy. Instead of putting all the condo fees into maintaining the condo they let it slide down hill until the condo is about 12 years old....then of course stuff really needs help, roof, siding, grounds, etc. The condo magnet then declares bankruptcy of their "corporation" steals all the money, pays off the politicians (easier to do than you might think) and sticks the owners with the mess. Now rinse and repeat and THAT is the Floriduh cockroach shuffle.


----------



## hellosailor (Apr 11, 2006)

"The condo magnet then declares bankruptcy of their "corporation" "
I don't think so. Even in Floriduh whoever built or sponsors the condo, is NOT in charge of it once it has been declared effective, typically based on the % of units sold. It is not a "condo" until it has been declared effective, and from that point on the unit owners are the ones who determine what gets spent and how, by their votes and their elected board.
Now a lot of condo owners have "tenant mentality" and I've heard unit owners refuse to levy maintenance charges and even refuse to pay for a new roof after storm damages. That's "tenant mentality" they figure the landlord should pay for it. Ooops, they ARE the landlord and they have the legal obligation to pay for it, like it or not. But they cheap out, again and again, and dig themselves into a deeper hole and sometimes bankruptcy.
That's got nothing to do with the sponsor/builder having set it up properly or improperly, that's just called Darwinian Evolution striking down people who had too much easy money and not enough brains, who paid too much to begin with and then refused to deal with the reality of upkeep. No con job needed.


----------



## souljour2000 (Jul 8, 2008)

Sorry guys...move it to another thread..we only talk floating condos in this forum


----------

