Stricter Boating Ordinance Proposed in San Joaquin

Flutterby

Active member
Joined
Jul 14, 2004
RO Number
14378
Messages
9,320
This is about a meeting taking place this Wednesday in San Joaquin County, the time and place are at the end of the message. But, it seems to me to be a larger issue, that of taking away the rights of boaters overall. The regulation I mention below has already been passed in Contra Costa Co., and I have been told, in Sacramento and Alameda Counties.

An FYI to all boaters who boat the Delta. You may be unaware that some time ago, Contra Costa passed a boating ordinance that stated, among other things, that:

410-8.002 General restriction.
Except as otherwise permitted by this chapter, no vessel shall be moored, anchored, grounded, placed or otherwise located in any waterway for a period exceeding ninety-six hours. (Ord. 2005-02 В§ 12).

The CC boating regulation is on line at the CC county web site. I was unaware of this government imposition on the rights of responsible boaters to use what is usually referred to as public waterways. Now, San Joaquin County is proposing to adopt a similar ordinance, one that will limit vessels from anchoring in San Joaquin County waters for longer than 96 hours, unless that vessel is a houseboat, in which case, if it has an approved sanitation device, will be allowed to anchor for a limit of 30 days. The regulation is very difficult to decipher and what it states may be incorrect as it may just be sloppy writing. But, does this mean that all of us who boat at Mandeville Tip area (which is in San Joaquin County) for the 4th of July could be breaking the law if we stay longer than 4 days?

The draft ordinance also talks at great length about sanitation devices and requires vessels and housboat/floating homes to have such a device, but the wording is very unclear and separates houseboat/floating homes from other vessels. I believe the intent of these ordinances is to stop "squatters" from defiling our waterways. I think the goal is a good one, but the action being taken by all of these counties punishes responsible boaters along with those who are not responsible.

Current law allows law enforcement to board a boat if the officer believes that the boat is not equipped with a proper marine sanitation device, so there is already a law to stop the illegal dumping of sewage. Officers do not do this now, so I'm not sure how putting in a stricter law will assure that they do this after the law changes.

The SJ County ordinance also states that "Within visual distance of any law enforcement vessel with activated blue lights and or siren in accordance with H&N code 652.5" a boat must slow down to 5 miles per hour, this goes above and beyond what the H&N code requires, so that if you were on the Deep Water Channel at a point where you could see a long distance away, you would be required to slow your boat down to 5 miles per hour because you could see a law enforcement boat underway with activated lights, even if you were literally a mile or two away. This is overkill to the maximum.

The proposed SJ law states that a houseboat/liveaboard must have one of three choices for a marine sanitation device: an operable CG certified device, a self-contained portable reception system (which someone from DBW told me could actually amount to a bucket!), or a legal connection to a sewer or it cannot be docked at a marina or anchored on the water. So, if you had a floating clubhouse your club used, and everyone used their boats when they needed to use the head, you would be illegally docking your floating clubhouse.

I absolutely believe that every boater should have the proper marine sanitation device on their boat and that NO ONE should dump raw sewage or sewage that is not properly treated as per the law. But, this regulation goes beyond what is reasonable, as does the already passed Contra Costa regulation. This proposed regulation requires that if such a boat is docked or anchored it must show proof of sewage disposal (such as a receipt from a marina), no matter that many systems legally discharge sewage and there would be no need of such proof. I can only assume that the people who wrote this regulation are unaware of the types of legal sewage disposal systems used in boats.

This regulation is poorly written by people who do not understand how responsible people use their boat. It is intended to punish all of the responsible boaters along with the few who act irresponsibly and illegally. I've tried for two days to talk to someone in the SJ County Boating Unit and no one would respond to me. I'm now also trying to get someone from Contra Costa to call me back and have had no luck so far. This is simply irresponsible government.

I urge you to show up for the Wednesday meeting at the SJ County Sheriff's Department, Multipurpose Room, at 6:30 p.m. The building is located in French Camp on Canlis Blvd., near San Joaquin General Hospital off of I-5, south of Stockton. Or, if you cannot attend, at least call the SJ County Sheriff Office Public Information Officer to obtain a copy of the proposed regulations so that you can review then and respond in writing. Please pass this on to whomever you think might be interested. Thanks,

An interested boater,

Connie Cassinetto
 
Hmmm wonder what they're going to do about all the little boats that have NO toilet? Put out floating Porta-cans???
 
Now that's a good idea!!! I believe on placed like Lake Shasta they do have floating porta potties. The kind used at construction sites, etc. I have a friend who is on the Bethel Island Municipal Improvement District. She was closely involved in the formation of the Contra Costa County ordinance which SJ is trying to copy. However, SJ County may not follow it word for word, so those effected may want to keep a close eye on this as it proceeds.

BTW, the CoCoCo ordinance gave the county the "meat" to get rid of all those derelict liveaboards near Bethel Island. A lot of them moved to Mayberry Slough and other areas of SJ and Sac county......
 
Yeah - and Mayberry Slough is just where we hang out! I really wish they'd clean that place up.
 
These ordinances are pre-empted by Federal Law on all navigable waterways (of which the entire delta is one.)

If you comply with Federal Law (which allows anchoring indefinitely outside of a marked channel) and have a CG approved MSD (a tank, a porta potty, or a LectraSan as examples) you are legal. The county can attempt to issue the ticket or fine, but you can remove the case to Federal Court or ask the state court to recognize Federal Premption.

A little overview here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Admiralty_law#In_the_United_States

Make those issues known so SJ doesn't waste its time or ours.

-Gene
 
I'm far from being an expert in this area, and I certainly wish what Gene said was true, BUT,

I've been reading enough in various boating magazines about east coast folks having real problems with local anchorage regulations that I don't think it's quite that simple. I know that BoatUS and other organizations have studied the issue and the restrictive anti-anchoring regulations (which are often more severe than what has been proposed locally) remain and are enforced.

BTG
 
Gene, I'm not sure we are talking apples to apples. I'm sure you are aware of all the nonconforming liveaboards in derelict boats which have been around Bethel Island. After this ordinance went into effect, Contra Costa methodically red tagged these boats. Now they are gone, either moved by the liveaboard to places like Mayberry Slu or towed and destroyed by the county. Even nice floating homes around Bethel Island have been notified they are illegal and must move.
 
The MSD regulations are cut and dried federal preemption. Ask yourself if a County could force a foreign flagged container ship to comply with county regulations on a MARPOL treaty item (other than enforcing MARPOL.)

The anchoring regs will probably take someone taking a county/municipality to court. The issue is this. Those of us who aren't a problem and aren't derelict will not be cited and therefor will not have to challenge.

I'll do a little looking as I suspect there is some case law but its not being pressed because lawyers who know admiralty law don't anchor out in localities with anchoring restrictions.

-Gene
 
Well, it looks like these anchoring restrictions are preempted by state law. This is the Harbors and Navigation code:

Code:
660.  (a) Any ordinance, law, regulation, or rule relating to
vessels, which is adopted pursuant to provisions of law other than
this chapter by any entity other than the department, including, but
not limited to, any county, city, port authority, district, or any
state agency other than the department, shall, notwithstanding any
other provision of law, pertain only to time-of-day restrictions,
speed zones, special-use areas, and sanitation and pollution control,
and the measure shall not conflict with this chapter or the
regulations adopted by the department.  Except as provided in
subdivision (c), any measure relating to boats or vessels adopted by
any governmental entity other than the department shall be submitted
to the department prior to adoption and at least 30 days prior to the
effective date thereof.

-Gene
 
Thanks Gene. As I understand it [and I'm FAR from being an expert!], the ordinance puts legal teeth into the county enforcement of the federal sanitation and pollution laws. The key here is local enforcement. And of course the funding for that enforcement.
 
Perhaps, but anchoring is not sanitation and anchoring would run afoul of the ColRegs and state law - both of which pre-empt the county. Santa Barbara had a no anchoring within 300' of a specific wharf rule that was challenged in Federal Court here. That rule was upheld, but it doesn't claim to extend control over a large non coastal area of navigable waters. The Supreme Court case that would most apply was about Washington State trying to add additional requirements for oil tankers in the Puget Sound and Washington State lost 9-0 in the Supreme Court.

-Gene
 
Back
Top