Florida catamaran sailors' government-regulation-detection antennae went up recently, and they began preparing to go to war over a proposed regulation that sounds like all regattas and races are going to be required to get a "Consent of Use" authorization from the State Department of Environmental Protection, at a cost of $200. Plus, application would have to be made for the Consent of Use at least six months in advance of the event. And even more scary, it would require that the regatta or race organizers obtain permission from every landowner along the shoreline in case they might be violating the property owners' riparian rights.
This sounds like a death knell to the organizers of the Mug Race, a long-distance race down the St. Johns River from Palatka, Florida to Jacksonville. And as the ripples spread, people were speculating about the rather difficult task for the Worrell 1000 organizers to get permission from every beachfront owner the racers would pass on the Atlantic coast of Florida. It would effectively end all sailing events in the State of Florida.
The agitation was precipitated by an article in the Jacksonville Times-Union by Boating Editor Lawrence Dennis, and we were alerted about the article by catamaran sailor Steve Vanderbol. I immediately contacted the Florida Department of Environmental Protection and had them e-mail me a copy of the draft of the proposed amendment.
The draft covers many different types of water-related events and divides them basically into profit-making type events, like boat shows, that will require a lease for use of the submerged lands, and non-profit type events that require only a "Consent of Use" authorization. But in both cases it makes money for the DEP.
In the descriptions of events that require a "Consent of Use," there is a specific clause designating "boat regattas and races." This is what set the alarm bells off. However, there is another clause that specifically exempts events that are not going to be building or reconfiguring any physical structures, and it gives a bunch of examples into which sailboat regattas certainly fit like a glove.
So what gives? One clause appears to ask us to jump through an impossible series of hoops, and another appears to exempt us entirely.
I talked to Alice Heathcock at the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation, Bureau of Submerged Lands and Environmental Resources (this really is not a spoof on ridiculously long government names), and she said this obviously is something that has to be cleared up in the draft and it never was the intent for the clause about "boat regattas and races" to include sailing regattas and races. She thought it was meant for big powerboat events. But, heck, let's defend them, too. Do they put up "structures"? They just use a different type of power than we do. That clause should be completely removed. It should be: If no structures, no permit is required.
Alice assured me that she would be passing on all the input about this to her superiors and that she was sure it would all be straightened out in the final draft.
A public input workshop is scheduled to be held February 27th on this proposed regulation. I'm sure catamaran sailors want to be well represented at that hearing, and in the April issue we will give you a report on what happened. Because if that clause about "boat regattas and races" is allowed to stand, regardless of what kind of boat, the ambiguity will continue, and the government will be able to interpret the rule any way they want, depending whether they get out of bed on the right side or the left side.
Thank goodness for alert newspaper reporters. If Larry Dennis had not written about this, the Florida DEP would not have gotten the input, and the face of the world of sailing could have changed radically. What happens in one state seems to spread like cancer to all the other states, too.
It's scary to think about the number of government agencies that have the power to affect our sailing, and the rules and regulations and amendments, etc., that often go uncontested because we just don't know about them. The government is fond of saying, "Ignorance of the law is no excuse." That should be turned around to say, "There is no excuse for keeping us ignorant of the laws you are about to pass."
In this case the draft of the proposed amendment was published on February 12th, a public input workshop is scheduled for Feb. 27th, and the amendment is scheduled to go to the Governor and his Cabinet on March 24th (40 days from publication to passage). This gives no time for statewide dissemination of the information before the Feb. 27th hearing. Publications like Boat/U.S. Magazine, Sailing World and Catamaran Sailor can only look at the information helplessly, knowing they cannot get it to their readers in time for them to give input.
In this case you have until March 24th to send your input to Alice Heathcock, Department of Environmental Protection, Bureau of Submerged Lands and Environmental Resources. Phone is 850-921-9899 and fax is 850-488-6579, email <HEATHCOCK_A@dep.state.fl.us>.

In case you are wondering how the Florida DEP can regulate any of this at all, according to Alice Heathcock it's because when Florida became a state, it was declared that the state would own all the underwater "land" of the inland lakes and rivers and on the Atlantic Ocean side out 3 miles and on the Gulf of Mexico side out 10 miles (except for some bay-bottom and river-bottom properties that have been deeded to the property owners on the adjacent dry land).
An individual who owns the deed to and pays taxes on a portion of the bay bottom adjacent to his property can charge people to anchor there, if he wants to, because they are sticking their anchors into his bay bottom. The State is, in effect, now trying to do the same thing, but on a much bigger scale, since they, supposedly, own a LOT of bottom land. Their reasoning is that certain events that involve temporary structures or that, in effect cordon off areas of the water so it cannot be used freely by the public, should have to pay for the right to do that.
But how does controlling the submerged land have anything to do with controlling the water over that land? When the state claims they have a right to charge for use of their baybottom because someone is pre-empting the baybottom and blocking off the waters above to normal boat traffic, they are saying that they can control what happens on the surface of the water, as well, as long as there is some sort of connection to the bottom. This is a very dangerous precedent.
When the State starts down this road of requiring permits or leases for use of their underwater "land," it's a road that can keep getting longer and longer. Once they manage to establish rules that give them the right to collect money for events that "pre-empt" their land and block the water from normal boat traffic, what is to keep them from extending this control to anchored boats, whether transient or attached to permanent moorings? They, too, are attached to the bottom which is owned by the State, and they, too, are blocking off their particular little section of water to normal boat traffic.
I think that charging money to use the lands they are supposed to be protecting is a clear conflict of interest and smacks of "payola" or more aptly, "protection" money. Even if putting in temporary structures might otherwise damage the bottom land and vegetation in some way, if an event is going to bring in enough money, perhaps the environmental regulators will close their eyes and hold out their hands? And is there not a hint of double taxation here? The government seems to be very creative about finding additional ways to tax us for things we already supposedly pay taxes for. And a number of government agencies all seem to find ways of "taxing" the same thing. But the bottom line as it affects boating is that use of the water should be FREE. If the State owns the bottom land, it means we, the people, own the bottom land. Our taxes are paying the Department of Environmental Protection employees to protect that bottom land -- not to make money from it by renting it out
Other departments, both federal and state, are already controlling the water and charging for permits to use it. Mark Michaelsen out in California says that permits have been required there since 1982. He states, "We are forced to obtain three permits for a race we run called the Spring Marathon 40 here in the Southern California region. We are forced to obtain permits because the venue we use to launch from is owned by the City of Long Beach (#1 permit) and is looked after by the Tidelands agency (#2 permit) and crosses a commercial shipping lane controlled by the U.S. Coast Guard (as are all of the lanes throughout the United States) and this represents (#3 permit) an advisory to commercial shipping interests." (CS: That last one is pretty ridiculous. As though a freighter or a tug with tow cares about a bunch of little sailboats any more than a train engineer cares about a flock of chickens on the track. The sailors are the ones who should receive the advisory, warning them to give right-of-way to commercial vessels.)
And John Cupp e-mailed: "I don't like the word, A.C.L.U., but you better get hold of them!! We had this problem with navigation and hunting in Oregon. They cannot enact a law that prohibits you from navigating any waterway for any reason!! They tried to stop people from hunting along the shoreline of lakes and rivers in Oregon and failed! It's not your rights they want, it's your pocketbook they want! The A.C.L.U. is set up to help us fight this type of "Out-of-Control Government"! WE are the people, not the government -- they work for us! Someone has seen the $$$ in large groups and said, 'Let's make them pay for the privilege to sail.' Unite or race no more."

Not all agencies tax the public for use of public land and resources. The U.S. Coast Guard requires permits for special events involving more than a certain number of participants and/or spectators, but those permits are free and are required ostensibly so the Coast Guard can be prepared for safety problems.
The National Park Service requires permits to camp on three different islands out in the Florida Everglades, but those permits, too, are free. These permits, again, are for the safety of the campers, so the Rangers know who is camping where and for what period of time and has a record of their names and addresses.
Why does the government have to create more taxes such as this anyway? Quit spending is the answer.

Let the government know your feelings on this subject. Call 850-921-9899, or fax 850-488-6579, or email <HEATHCOCK_A@dep.state.fl.us>.