Liveaboard boaters, recent legislation... more...

[skysailor]

Hi!

The Seattle City Council was scheduled to have a meeting today (Monday, July 29) to vote on, or at least discuss, a bill which will modify the Seattle Municipal Code. The proposed legislation will accomplish several things for the City in an effort to "clarify" the City's jurisdiction and improve their ability to enforce compliance with the Washington State Shoreline Management Act (SMA) and the Seattle Shoreline Master Plan (SMP). The bill will authorize the Director of the Department of Design, Construction and Land Use (DCLU) to compel conformance by all "vessels" to these laws based on his interpretation of the SMA and the SMP without establishing any clear guidelines about how this is to be done. The SMA is also being rewritten at the state level to include wording that will classify living aboard boats as a non-water-dependent use - as the SMA and the SMP mandate priority for water-dependent uses, this will leave people living aboard their boats in a much more vulnerable legal position, and more legislation at various levels (state, county and local) will probably soon follow in the government's headlong rush to build revenue. Claims of concern for the environment (pollution issues) as a justification for evicting liveaboard boaters are based on VERY sketchy data, and when one compares the 'pollution' contributed to the environment by boaters with that from agricultural runoff, industrial waste, raw sewage spills from overloaded upland processing centers, and so on, it's a ludicrous and patently false rationale. The real issue here is revenue for the state. Revenue is even listed as one of the primary considerations in the guidelines for interpreting the SMA. They're upset because people who live aboard their boats are taking up all that space in the water without having to pay for it, and they've got dollar signs in their beady little eyes, and they're looking at liveaboard boaters, moorages, marinas, docks, shorelines, and any other use of the public waters as possible sources of income. More taxes and levies, license fees, processing fees, permit fees, special use fees, money from fines for violations, and so on. Can you see the writing on the wall?

I'm on the mailing list of the Liveaboard Association of Puget Sound, and there's been a lot of discussion through our mailing list about this, and copies of emails to and from City Council members, relevant documents emailed as attachments to some of the messages, and so on. We're trying to get the city to include wording in their bill that will assure that the various applicable laws won't be interpreted in a way that will negatively impact the liveaboard lifestyle, as it is one that is beneficial rather than harmful. I'm not sure exactly where this stands at present, and haven't heard a report on the City Council's meeting… I don't even know if they met or postponed in view of the input our liveaboard community has provided in the last few days. Things are (again) at a critical juncture in the ongoing battle to preserve some of our rights, and if anyone would like to learn more about this issue, or perhaps get involved in some way, e.g. write a letter or otherwise express your opinion, you can go to the Liveaboard Association of Puget Sound's website at: http://www.liveaboards.org/ and sign up for the mailing list. I don't think the information on the website is really current, as we haven't had anyone with the time to devote to it (there's nothing about this recent development, for instance), but the mailing list has been active. You can also email me (SkykoSailor@hotmail.com) for more information. I have copies of all recent mailings to the liveaboards' list, and if you're interested I can forward them to you so you can get caught up on what's transpired thus far.

May you be blessed with fair winds, smooth seas, and good friends…

Daniel

[Steve P]

It's hard to believe they could see many dollars flowing from livaboards.

The pollution thing is a joke. Every time I go out from Elliot Bay marina there is a white foam offshore of the poop factory at magnolia. This is the only place in the sound where I see this. Not to mention there is often a smell ascociated with the foam. It seems like more than coincidence to me. And how much oil and fertilizer washes down the cities storm drains right into the Sound untreated? A lot I'd guess.

In principle the grey water issue of livaboards has merit but in fact I suspect it is a non issue. Other than that all boats pollute equally.

I had hoped the storm had blown over on this one, but apparently not.

[skysailor]

Hi, Steve!

Yes, I agree that they probably don't expect to see a river of money flowing in from the liveaboards, but this legislation affects ALL activity around the water, not just liveaboards. I think the liveaboards, having been involved with this issue last year, are certainly more informed about the issues, and because they have more at stake (their 'homes,' not just their recreational life!) are more personally concerned than most others (and we are still in touch with the lawyers who were working the case for us last year and the year before, and they kind of keep us posted on this stuff), but the SMA and SMP apply to ALL shoreline activities, and if modified as they're intending, ALL activities on vessels, and this bill will impact everyone on the waterfront, not just liveaboards. They will no doubt be hit harder than others, but I suspect the government envisions revenue from other sources as well.

I'm in total agreement with the idea that we need to eliminate as much pollution as possible, and that liveaboards should be very careful about what they let get into the water - they should of course never discharge black water, always use environmentally friendly soaps, minimize gray water discharges, and so on... but most liveaboards I know are really pretty conscious and careful about this. When compared to waterfront commercial operations, industrial waste, agricultural runoff and other pollution that flows down our rivers, fuel spills from commercial and recreational boaters, gross violations of the ecosystem like the Magnolia plant you mentioned, and all the other things we dump into the water, it just seems totally ludicrous to think kicking liveaboards off their boats is going to do anything to clean up the environment... or even to think that the public would fall for this insanity! Then again, the 'public' has demonstrated time and again that they're quite willing to be led down just about any old path... sheesh!

Anyway, thanks for the note, and I hope you're having an excellent day!

Daniel

[CaptTobey]

I am a Loan Officer at a Commercial Bank in Ballard--many of my customers are marine-oriented businesses. Daniel is correct that more than liveaboards are affected by some of the DCLU's plans or proposals. Much of this comes from perceived pressure regarding Endangered Species Act and salmon. At some point one of the local/regional salmon "breeds" will inevitably become extinct--a "run" of one type of another. Anticipating this, bureaucrats are posturing themselves to answer the "what did your city/county/state do to save the salmon?" Prohibiting living aboard on fresh water in Seattle may become a sacrificial lamb to preserve the Issaquah Creek or Cedar River salmon runs. Beware, Liveaboards!
Similarly, your favorite boatyard may have to become more and more restrictive in what is allowed to happen, or how it happens, when your boat is undergoing routine maintenance--call it "knee jerk" but it will happen. Recognize that it is so much easier to tackle Joe Boater than the charity-car-wash-in-the-street or lawncare-put-too-much-powder-on-your-roses and wash-into-the-stormdrain industries! Everyone has to take a little more environmental responsibility--not just Boaters!

[rusty]

Soooo ... what can we do to help with this? While I realize this is a small site right now, I would like to think we can do something to help spread the word.

Rusty

[skysailor]

Hi!

Thanks for asking! I think the best way to influence things (for those of us who aren't politicians, attorneys, business owners with lots of clout, news anchors, radio talk show hosts, or otherwise in a position to have some direct or substantial influence) is just to let a lot of people know about it. Public awareness is good! Posting a note on other websites you belong to where there might be an interest, mentioning the situation to the guy who works behind the counter down at the yacht club or your local marine store, and so on. If someone seems like they might want to get involved, suggest they contact the City Council (or... ???) to put in their two cents worth. Mention the liveaboards' website and suggest they join the mailing list if they're interested. Let them know that the mailing list is really the active thing at that website - there is also a list with some contact information.

Also, if anyone out there has a connection with 48° North or other 'boat' publications, even with regular media outlets like the PI and Times, or one of the local TV stations, etc. - the more light we can focus on the issue, and pressure on the bureaucrats to consider more reasonable and sensible solutions to their perceived difficulties in managing OUR shoreline areas, the better.

Have a Great Day! Thanks for being concerned!

:Daniel

"It is dangerous to be right in matters on which the established authorities are wrong."
-- Voltaire

[skysailor]

I just got an email sent to the liveaboards' mailing list, and it had some really good news in it! The DNR's latest draft of the proposed amendment to the SMA (Shoreline Management Act) does include reclassification of living aboard a vessel as a water-dependent use. It also has other modifications prompted by input from citizens at the various meetings held for that purpose between January and July. It appears that the DNR is listening and willing to be reasonable. For a very thorough review of the history of this issue and the current situation, visit:

http://www.wa.gov/dnr/htdocs/aqr/residentaluse/qa.html

If you would like further information you can email me at:

skykosailor@hotmail.com

and I'll answer any questions I can and/or send you more information.

Thanks, everybody, for your interest in this... and keep in mind that we've got to keep this in mind... there are more DNR public input meetings around Puget Sound coming up in August.

Take care all...

Daniel

[Chuck Gould]

I've been furnished a "comment copy" of the proposed new DNR rules.

The new rules specifically define living aboard as a water dependent activity, a "secondary" activity on a vessel primarily intended for navigation.

Under the DNR rules, up to 10 percent of any slips located above DNR property *can* be set aside for liveaboard use. A marina is under no obligation to provide any liveaboard moorage, of course.

In some cases, a marina can apply for a conditional use permit to increase the percentage of liveaboard slips.

The rules effect only those slips above DNR lands. If a marina has 140 slips, with 40 over privately owned land and the remaining hundred over
DNR property, the rules would allow for up to 50 liveaboards at that marina. (All 40 slips over private property could be liveaboard and ten percent of the remaining 100).

Within the proposed DNR regulations, the most restrictive new demand is that all grey water shall be contained and discharged into a pump out
system.

Anchored liveaboards, (i.e. Eagle Harbor), will have twelve months to relocate unless the local governing authority elects to apply for a conditional use permit and manage the anchorage like a marina.

This certainly doesn't address any attempt by local municipalities to further restrict liveaboard boaters beyond what the new DNR guidelines will call for, but the DNR had the capacity to eliminate liveaboard moorage throughout the state and it looks like the liveaboards have dodged that bullet for the time being.

[skysailor]

Hello, Chuck, and everyone...

Right, the new proposed rules are more favorable to liveaboards in some respects... I didn't realize the 10% restriction didn't apply to sites on private land... are you sure about that? As you point out, marinas can impose greater restrictions, or lobby the local government for permission to exceed the 10% limit - I don't know what conditions must be met to apply for a permit to exceed the 10% standard. I think it's regrettable that some liveaboards who anchor out will no longer be able to, and will have to move into marinas or make other arrangements to insure that they're "supervised," but it could have been a lot worse! Anyway, thanks for the update; let us know again if you hear anything new on this!

Best To You And Yours...

Daniel

[Steve P]

Does anybody know what the skinny is on anchoring and living aboard in Poulsbo or Port Ludlow? I'm guessing the biggest trick is parking the car I would need to get to work, and the dinghy to get to shore. I use my boat all the time so it would only sit in one place during the week.

[skysailor]

Hi, Steve...

Go to this DNR page for the latest on residential use of state-owned aquatic lands... if the land you're anchoring over is privately owned there are different restrictions. I believe Poulsbo and Port Ludlow are state-owned but I'm not sure.

Daniel


http://www.wa.gov/dnr/htdocs/aqr/residentaluse/qa.html

[Chuck Gould]

To Steve P:

Under the proposed new rules, nobody will be able to live aboard a boat over DNR lands unless the local governing body, (city, county, etc), applies for a conditional use permit and agrees to manage the anchorage
as a marina.

This is unlikely to happen, anywhere. The new requirement that grey water will have to be disposed of "upland" is most likely unenforceable when a boat is anchored, and the DNR could proceed against the holder of the conditional use permit if the rules are not followed.

[skysailor]

Say, Steve (and anyone else concerned)...

Chuck is right, there are no provisions for people being allowed to live aboard their boat outside of a marina... UNLESS they can get a local government agency to agree to manage the site, ensure enforcement of all rules and regulations, and, by the way, charge you rent.

If you're concerned about these issues and haven't joined the Liveaboard's mailing list yet, you really should. Representative Jim Dunn is on our list, and just a day or two ago responded (albeit briefly) to a question posted to the group... also there are a number of other state and local officials on the list and they too often respond to specific questions. Updates on the status of the process (the current rewriting of legislation) are posted to the list pretty regularly.

http://www.liveaboards.org/

Daniel

[skysailor]

Hey, Guys...

Let's move this thread from "General Discussions" to "Liveaboards," as Rusty thoughtfully provided that topic in the forums. I probably should have posted it there in the first place, but didn't think it would grow this long. Thanks!

Daniel

[Jack Tyler]

First, I'll admit I'm confused about how this thread stands separate from the liveaboard 'DNR Regs' thread to which I was offerred a link via email. Reading the posts on 8/9/02 - and following the suggested links to the DNR site - left me wanting to reply on that 8/9 thread yet it was marked 'Closed'...and left me coming here, where the same 8/9 info is not included. How this topic is being managed within the Forum section is not readilyapparent to me, and perhaps Rusty could either straighten me out and/or consider posting the updated content here along with the other Liveaboard Regs comments. The 8/9 thread contents are certainly relevant to this discussion.

For Cruising Sailors: I'm posting this specifically because there may be other sailors visiting here, like my wife & I, who are using the site to help us sort out whether we wish to cruise in the Pacific NW. That means we're not looking at this issue exclusively from a 'long-term marina tenant' viewpoint - altho' that is one possible circumstance we could seek out for a winter season - but rather we're predominantly interested in what the proposed DNR Regs mean to the cruising sailor (aka: visiting, with short-term stays, various Puget Sound areas). Here's what I can make out - admittedly from a distance - based on the info that's being offered via the LAPS & DNR recommended links. If someone thinks I've got it wrong after reviewing those sites (and especially the Q&A piece of the DNR site) as I did, I'd genuinely welcome their comments here.

First, cruising sailors living on their boats are not defined as 'liveaboards' for purposes of the proposed DNR Regs unless they remain in the 'same place' for more than 30 days out of 40, or for more than 90 days out of a year's period. 'Same place' is defined as an anchorage, mooring, etc. that is within one mile of the original anchorage, mooring etc. location at which the boat arrived (and presumably received a receipt, check-in notice or whatever from a local authority). During the boating season, that suggests to me that folks who intend to move a bit and see the area will never fall under these regulations. Second, and related to the fact the DNR Regs cover only 'liveaboard' issues as they define them, the DNR exclusion of liveaboards from anchorage areas NOT managed by a local municipality also do not apply to cruising sailors. The proposed DNR Regs exclude water bodies from liveaboard use anywhere these bodies are not state managed or licensed to be managed by local authorities but, again, this only applies to boats that fall within the DNR definition of 'liveaboard'. And third, cruising sailors who wish to remain in the PA area as the season comes to a close - and who therefore need a marina or dock at which to plug in and enjoy protection from winter conditions - MIGHT then slip back into the 'liveaboard' definition, depending on how long they choose to remain aboard their boat (90+ days over a winter season) vs. only residing aboard for interim periods when not e.g. returning to a land residence.

Other thoughts: This 'liveaboard' issue is far from a new one, and has surfaced in places as diverse as Santa Barbara CA, Annapolis MD, Grand Cayman, and many local areas on both coasts of Florida - all while we've either been shoreside residents with a boat and/or liveaboard sailors. To capsulize what I think I learned from these prior experiences, the biggest mistake people (boaters, non-boaters and liveaboards) make when trying to address what's OK to permit re: living aboard is to focus on the individual boat owner and boat. I'm sorry some folks don't like potted plants but I don't think that's relevant to the issue. Neither are dogs or dirty decks. And isn't it a slippery slope when any regulation imposes restrictions against boat appearance based on definitions like 'ratty' or 'unseaworthy' or 'clean'? My boat is spotless; the varnish gleams. But that hardly justifies me placing these 'requirements' on others. If the issue is water & coastal management, I just don't think it's relevant nor reasonable to 'go there'.

Instead, I'd suggest the following logic gets at some of the same concerns but in a defensible way:
1. It's clear to all of us that coastal areas and water access are finite things, and these resources need to be shared - and their quality managed - thoughtfully.
2. Since boats are one clear type of use of these finite resources, they too deserve some form of management. And let's not overlook that the reason boats should be assured some access is because of their nature - they are boats. Not RVs, not barges, not pup tents on the shoreline, but mobile and at least somewhat self-contained vessels that are regulated and therefore permitted by a host of agencies (DNR, State, USCG).
3. Good public policy would suggest that management (of boat use) should reach as egalitarian a nature as possible, without disenfranchising someone because of wealth or lack of it, boat size, boat type, age, or any other peripheral issue unrelated to water & coastal health and access.
4. Based on the above, doesn't it make sense to manage access (including liveaboard access, as otherwise defined and managed) of these waters based on the boats being used as boats? Meaning that boats must leave their slip, mooring, or dock on some regulated interval (annually? twice in a season?) and motor or sail, under their own power, some regulated distance (the next town? another marina?) for some period of time (overnight?) in order to earn the right to be considered a boat?

This is the way other communities have addressed the 'unseaworthy', connestoga wagon-like appearance issues and it avoids some deciding what others should look or act like. To those who wonder about how workable it is, I've seen it easily managed - especially when compared to some of the Q&A details I've read on the DNR site. And besides, as boaters aren't we all concerned that the limited capacity of marinas, docks, anchorages, mooring fields, etc. be given first priority to real boats? This approach does not address house boats and other 'floating residences', a topic with which I'm inexperienced.

BTW, I found the LAPS site to be very unhelpful. I finally found a section where they explained why they've pulled all their updates, Q&A, etc. - their attorney doesn't want them muddying the waters during the negotiation period and follow-on public hearings and public comment period being administered by the DNR. That's fine...but it isn't much of a resource for those of us trying to understand the issues, IMO.

Jack
St. Pete, Florida

[skysailor]

Hi, Jack!

This thread doesn't "differ" at all from the other one - I started it here under General Discussions and then moved it to the "Living Aboard" section, figuring that might be a more appropriate place for it... and I don't think it's a closed thread, I just looked at it. I tried to close THIS thread so the other one would be the only active one, but I don't have admin privileges for the site and can't. I'll post my answers here in this thread, as it really doesn't matter, but would suggest we move back to the other thread under Living Aboard for future postings.

I think your interpretation of how it will affect cruising boaters as opposed to those who live aboard year round is correct, and that if you're staying somewhere for less than 90 days out of the year (or 30 out of 40) you won't be asked to move. Your questions about particular applications of this, with regard to cruising for the summer and tucking into a marina for the summer are good ones, and would probably give some official a headache trying to figure out how to interpret the law - off the top of my head I'm not sure if the 30/90 day limit applies to people staying in one place for that long or living aboard for that long no matter if they move. I'll have to go back and read some more!

I agree with the logic of your arguments about requiring boats to be seaworthy, too; it WOULD solve some of the derelict problems, but separate rules for houseboats wouldprobably have to be written.

Ha! I warned you about the LAPS site! Again, it's the mailing list that's the active thing there, the site itself seems to be semi-permanently on hold.

There are a lot of people who cruise the waters of Puget Sound in the summer, and anchoring out is common. I don't think you'd have any problems, and if you decide to spend the winter in a marina your only problem would be finding one with an opening for a liveaboard. I haven't looked this year, so I'm not sure what the status is right now, but I think you'd be able to find accomodations without too much trouble... there are waiting lists at some marinas, though, and if it's going to be very important I'd do some more research before taking the plunge. The Liveaboard mailing list (the one you can sign up on through the LAPS website) would be a good resource... you could send a message to all the liveaboards asking about liveaboard slip availability, and would probably get some good (and perhaps 'marina-specific') information back.

Wherever you decide to go for your trip, I hope you have an absolutely great time.

Daniel