Boaters defend free anchorage in Old Harbor
By Abby Fox



The Friends of Old Harbor, a group representing mostly mainland
boaters, filled the community center some 30 strong on Wednesday, May
24, to tell the Town Council that they're alarmed about Harbormaster
Chris Willi's proposed renovation of Old Harbor because it would take
away free anchorage there.

The council listened, thanked the objectors, and made little comment.
Ahead of it are difficult decisions about changes in the harbor, which
most islanders see as necessary, and about financing the changes. Also,
any town plan would need assent from the Coastal Resources Management
Council and the Zoning Board.

The financing issue

As Town Manager Nancy Dodge defined the discussion early in the
meeting, the issue is whether the maintenance and management of Old
Harbor should be "self-funded" by revenue from slips, or subsidized at
least partly with taxpayer dollars.

Harbors Committee member Gary Hall said the committee's goal is to
"find a way to help fund repairs without going to the taxpayers," to
improve a harbor that's a "disgrace."

Furthermore, committee member Pete Tweedy said, "the Chief has had
difficulty managing the area." Chief Vin Carlone said that indeed,
"it's a difficult area to police" and that some people's behavior
"creates a great deal of aggravation" for the police department.

Beth Rousseau, the rescue squad captain, said in her experience "it's
not safe for us to be carrying patients over boats" that are rafted
together and that a facility with more decking would make it "easier
and safer" for the rescue squad to reach boaters.

Another issue, Harbors Com-mittee members said, was establishing a
legal right of way to Water Street.

Boaters' complaint

The boaters' group challenged Willi on every ground - legally,
aesthetically and financially.

John Nomer, a Narragansett boater and the group's spokesperson, said
he's been coming out to Old Harbor "for many years." The group fears
losing its "freedom to anchor," he said, as well as "the unique charm
and character of Old Harbor, by turning it into a commercial
enterprise." Isn't it contradictory for the town to oppose the
Champlin's Marina expansion in one harbor and then develop town
facilities in the other, he asked.

Member Dan Farnsworth, a boater from East Greenwich, argued with
Willi's projections of revenue from his renovation proposals. They're
"unrealistic," he said, because although Old Harbor occupancy probably
will reach 100 percent on weekends, it's likely to be only 10 percent
during the week. He questioned the proposed charge of $4 a foot for a
slip, which he said is higher than rates at Champlin's and in Vineyard
Haven and Oak Bluffs.

Even if the town charged $3.50 a slip, he said, he doubted the town
could get the revenue Willi anticipates. It would be wiser for the town
to support the renovation, he said.

Farnsworth also thought the $5,000 flat fee for a resident slip space
was too steep.

Darryl Paquette, the group's attorney, argued that the "right to anchor
is a fundamental component of navigation" and that it would take an act
of Congress to "remove the right to anchor in a federal harbor of
refuge."

After the three main speakers had their say, several boaters spoke up.
"I don't think it [Old Harbor] is as reckless as people think it is,"
one said. Another agreed that "I haven't seen a lot of dangerous
situations," and that Old Harbor has a "family atmosphere among the
boaters there." Most of the congestion and behavior problems the town
has brought up occur in the inner harbor, not in the outer anchorage,
they said.

Nomer suggested that the town should deal with bad behavior by handing
out a "handbook" about proper rules and etiquette, and by educating
people.

Carlone, however, suggested the safety concerns demanded more than
that. "We definitely need some help," he said. "We're trying to prevent
a fatality here." And Councilor Ned Connelly, who is also the fire
chief, said he sees "great potential" for a hazard in the future.

Councilor Mary Jane Balser spoke at length. She said, "I do realize
that you pay an awful lot for your boat," but with small boats "zooming
around" and the increasing fast-ferry traffic in Old Harbor, safety is
becoming a larger concern. "We have to rationally look at what our
needs are," she said, and find a way to "service our residents and our
guests in the safest way possible."

On Wed, 31 May 2006 17:46:54 GMT, Mys Terry
wrote:

The local folks who want to close this area to anchoring (for their
own personal gain) just finished killing Champlin's plan to enjoy the
fruits of free enterprise on the other side of the same island, saying
building more docks at the expense of anchorage areas for tourists was
the WRONG thing to do.

Follow the money. If Champlain's expanded their docks it would not
cut into the anchorage area, it would cut into the town's mooring area
which is generating a tidy bit of revenue at almost no cost.

Same issue at Old Harbor. Folks are anchoring for free. Imagine
that, something for free in this day and age.

On Wed, 31 May 2006 19:09:36 GMT, Mys Terry
wrote:

Did you read the argument that boats that are rafted become a safety
hazard? Have you ever seen how many boats are rafted at Champlains?
Why was that never considered a problem for the town?

Follow the money.

Mys Terry wrote:

This is a
FEDERAL harbor of refuge.


It is? Why isn't that mentioned on the chart? Why does the coast
pilot only say "frequently used as a harbor of refuge" rather than
saying it has some official designation?

In fact, perhaps you could point us to an official definition of a
"harbor of refuge" and what that actually implies.

On Thu, 01 Jun 2006 10:37:05 -0400, Jean Pudl
wrote:

Changing the configuration of Old Harbor will likely require the
approval of the ACOE; therefore its pretty likely that this is
anticipated by the harbormaster. If this were such an absolute issue,
why isn't it raised by the opponents?

Who do you suppose built the breakwaters
protecting Old harbor?

So, are you claiming that toll roads are illegal because they are
built with federal funds?

Jean, if you start confusing this issue with the facts, you will ruin
the fun of the rant and rave crowd.

Mys Terry wrote:
On Thu, 01 Jun 2006 10:37:05 -0400, Jean Pudl
wrote:


Mys Terry wrote:

On Wed, 31 May 2006 18:57:07 -0400, Jean Pudl wrote:



Mys Terry wrote:


This is a
FEDERAL harbor of refuge.


It is?


Is the Army Corps of Engineers a good enough source?

http://www.nae.usace.army.mil/news/2005-59.htm

Not really.


The Army Corps of Engineers is not a Federal Agency? They seem to
think it is a "Harbor of Refuge Federal Navigation project" . They
keep calling it that over and over, so I doubt it's a typo.



Can you show a source that actually says what a "FEDERAL
harbor of refuge" is, and what the implications are?



So you are really just a troll who doesn't even have a grasp of the
terms under discussion. Do your own homework. You are failing the
course badly so far.

In other words, you're just a troll who is trying to bluff his way out
of a blunder. You claim there is some special significance to the
term; show us!





Why isn't that mentioned on the chart?


It is! It is marked as a restricted area on the chart. Sometimes there will be a
note printed on the chart (Note A) that will tell you what the restriction is.
Other times there may be a number given along the restriction marking that can
be looked up in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Title 33: Navigation and
navigable Waters. Sometimes there is no number, and you have to look it up by
any means possible in CFR33. If it's marked restricted on the chart, it's in the
book. It's that simple. The rare exceptions will be found in CFR 40: Protection
of the Environment. I thought all capable sailors knew this stuff.

It isn't so marked on the latest version of chart 13217.


I have chart 13217 right in front of me, and it is clearly marked as a
restricted area. Go fish, troll.

That's odd. Here's the version on the Coast Survey Chart Viewer:
http://205.156.4.52/cgi-bin/EyeSpy.d...e/jpeg&325&250

Although the chart is old, it has been updated through at least Sept
2005, as indicted by the note on Old Harbor.

Go fish, troll.



It isn't so
listed in the Coast Pilot.

It isn't in the telephone book either, dumbass.


Yes, I suppose the phone book is the most complex reference you can
deal with.

It isn't listed in 33CFR.

No... You just can't find it.

If its so simple, why don't you just give a reference. You're losing
whatever shred of credibility you thought you had.


Capable sailors know this stuff. Others just make it up.



I think that's what I already pointed out about you.

Snappy comeback. Why don't you show us just how capable you are and
provide the reference.

....

It's a federal law, and has been since 1899. Look it up, **** for
brains.


Yes, the law is clear, you have to ask permission and follow certain
guidelines. Of course, almost every harbor manages to deal with it.


Changing the configuration of Old Harbor will likely require the
approval of the ACOE; therefore its pretty likely that this is
anticipated by the harbormaster. If this were such an absolute issue,
why isn't it raised by the opponents?



It ain't over 'til it's over, chucklehead.

what's your point? Maybe it will go through, maybe it won't.



Who do you suppose built the breakwaters
protecting Old harbor?

So, are you claiming that toll roads are illegal because they are
built with federal funds?


No, I have said nothing about toll roads, or anything else built with
federal funds. Just breakwaters. Try to focus.

So show us the law.


http://www.nae.usace.army.mil/news/2005-59.htm

Notice how they keep referring to Old Harbor as "Harbor of Refuge
Federal Navigation project"

So? All you're doing is showing that its called a "harbor of refuge"
and the its federal. Lots of harbors fall into this category and
severely restrict anchoring.

Mys Terry wrote:
On 1 Jun 2006 11:53:01 -0500, Dave wrote:


On Thu, 01 Jun 2006 16:09:59 GMT, Mys Terry
said:


33 U.S.C. § 403. Obstruction of navigable waters generally; wharves;
piers, etc.; excavations and filling in

The creation of any obstruction not affirmatively authorized by
Congress, to the navigable capacity of any of the waters of the United
States is prohibited; and it shall not be lawful to build or commence
the building of any wharf, pi er, dolphin, boom, weir, breakwater,
bulkhead, jetty, or other structures in any port, roadstead, haven,
harbor, canal, navigable river, or other water of the United States,
outside established harbor lines, or where no harbor lines have been
established, except on plans recommended by the Chief of Engineers and
authorized by the Secretary of the Army; and it shall not be lawful to
excavate or fill, or in any manner to alter or modify the course,
location, condition, or capacity of, any port, roadstead, haven,
harbor, canal, lake, harbor of refuge, or inclosure within the limits
of any breakwater, or of the channel of any navigable water of the
United States, unless the work has been recommended by the Chief of
Engineers and authorized by the Secretary o f the Army prior to
beginning the same.

That section, of course, says absolutely nothing about charging for
anchorage behind a federal breakwater. So you were blowing smoke out your
ass again.


A few points to be considered:

Where are you premitted to anchor, and where are you not permitted to
anchor in navigable waters?

Who can legally prohibit anchoring in navigable waters?

If the Federal government has jurisdiction over navigable waters and
has not made a prohibition, you can anchor in any navigable waters in
the United States without charge.

That means that the only way you could charge someone to stay in
navigable waters within Federal breakwaters would be to rent them a
mooring or slip. Unfortunately, the Federal government says you can't
do those things, because to install moorings or dockage they would be
in violation of... 33 U.S.C. § 403. Obstruction of navigable waters
generally; wharves;piers, etc.; excavations and filling in

Oh, MY!!!


So you're claiming that all of the marinas and mooring fields in
Inland Waters are illegal??? Oh, MY!!!!

In reality, all this says is that the Feds have to approve any such
projects. Try, for example, to anchor in Scituate MA. Navigable
waters, breakwater built and maintained by the Feds, who recently paid
for major dredging. No anchoring permitted, but you can rent a mooring.

Mys Terry wrote:
On Thu, 01 Jun 2006 14:02:32 -0400, Jeff wrote:
....
That section, of course, says absolutely nothing about charging for
anchorage behind a federal breakwater. So you were blowing smoke out your
ass again.


A few points to be considered:

Where are you premitted to anchor, and where are you not permitted to
anchor in navigable waters?

Who can legally prohibit anchoring in navigable waters?

If the Federal government has jurisdiction over navigable waters and
has not made a prohibition, you can anchor in any navigable waters in
the United States without charge.

That means that the only way you could charge someone to stay in
navigable waters within Federal breakwaters would be to rent them a
mooring or slip. Unfortunately, the Federal government says you can't
do those things, because to install moorings or dockage they would be
in violation of... 33 U.S.C. § 403. Obstruction of navigable waters
generally; wharves;piers, etc.; excavations and filling in

Oh, MY!!!


So you're claiming that all of the marinas and mooring fields in
Inland Waters are illegal??? Oh, MY!!!!

In reality, all this says is that the Feds have to approve any such
projects. Try, for example, to anchor in Scituate MA. Navigable
waters, breakwater built and maintained by the Feds, who recently paid
for major dredging. No anchoring permitted, but you can rent a mooring.




No, I'm claiming that New Harbor is presently designated as
restricted. As it stands right now, the town cannot do what it wants.

New Harbor? I thought we were talking about Old Harbor. They are
different places; you would know if you had ever been there. And the
restriction listed on the chart near New Harbor are "local ordinances"
not Federal restrictions. In fact, I've found no mention of
restrictions on Block Island in 33CFR or the Coast Pilot.


Wheter or not they can get Federal permits for any or all of what they
want to do is a matter of pure conjecture. The Harbormaster has
already personnally run afoul of the Corps of Engineers in another
matter. They probably are going to look at this VERY carefully. That
might take a while. How long are you planning to live?

Pretty pathetic backpedal here. Obviously any waterfront changes
require a passel of approvals. This is quite different from your
claim that its completely illegal to charge in any navigable water.

Personally, I don't care one way or t'other - I never much cared for
Block - the Vineyard is more to my liking.

Mys Terry wrote:

So despite your purported knowledge of 50 years you can't answer his
question.


Incorrect, Davey. I have no need to help Jean Poodle understand
what a harbor of
refuge is, and it has no bearing on the facts I have stated. He was
a fool to
try and enter the conversation without knowing what a harbor of
refuge is. He
has already made a complete arse of himself, and it appears he was
at least wise
enough to vacate the thread before doing himself further damage.
You are not
even that smart.

In other words, you admit you were completely wrong. Everyone knows
the general implication of "Harbor of Refuge;" you have been claiming
some vague yet all all-encompassing legal implication.


Please, sir, define Harbor of Refuge (as it relates to Federal
Designation) for
me. I assume you can answer this question? You could hardly have
any legitimate
opinions on the subject if you can't answer this simple question.
Simple, after all, is your specialty.

In other words, you're clueless, but desperately trying to trip up Dave.

Mys Terry wrote:
It isn't so marked on the latest version of chart 13217.

I have chart 13217 right in front of me, and it is clearly marked as a
restricted area. Go fish, troll.

Well, just out of curiosity I pulled up the copy of 13217 I downloaded from
NOAA a couple of months ago. Not marked restricted. So unless you've got a
more recently updated 13217, that's simply another lie.


That dashed line that marks out the entire harbor including the channel means
restricted, dumbass. Do you even have a boat?

Omigod! Terry now admits he doesn't know how to read a chart!
Please, for everyone's sake, enroll in a Power Squadron course before
you get in a boat again!

If anyone wants to check this, they can go to Chart No. 1 and download
Section N, areas and limits.
http://nauticalcharts.noaa.gov/mcd/chart1/chart1hr.htm

The simple dashed line implies "Maritime limit in general usually
implying: Permanent obstructions." In this particular context it is
simply the limit of the dredged harbor. The giveaway is the little
"see note" next to the "Old Harbor" label. The note describes the
controlling depth.