Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Maritime Navigation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee approves bill letting deepwater seaports seek 5,000-foot anchoring buffers; boaters, cruising groups oppose
Summary
CS for SB 594 would allow any of Florida’s 14 deepwater seaports to apply to FWC for a no-anchoring/no-mooring buffer adjacent to port channels and turning basins; the committee adopted an amendment clarifying FWC review and rulemaking authority and reported the bill favorably.
Senator Rodriguez explained CS for SB 594, a bill that would let the governing body of any of Florida’s 14 deepwater seaports apply to the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) to establish a buffer zone around port channels and turning basins that would prohibit anchoring or mooring within the zone.
The sponsor said ports are not required to create such zones; rather, the bill creates a process for ports that want additional protection for channels. Senator Rodriguez explained a strike‑all amendment (01/5998) that clarifies the seaport governing body may apply to FWC, provides a 90‑day review period for FWC consistent with existing boating-ordinance practice, requires ports to notify FWC of annual reviews of prohibitions, gives FWC rulemaking authority to implement the law and provides for enforcement of any prohibition adopted.
Public testimony included lengthy opposition from boating and cruising organizations. Raymond J. Saroy, representing the Marine Trawler Owners Association and the Great Loop Cruisers Association, and Wally Moran, president of Cruisers Race Network of North America, both urged rejection, saying the bill would impede safe anchoring for smaller craft and displace large numbers of boats with nowhere viable to relocate. Moran said that in Biscayne Bay alone hundreds of anchored craft would be affected and that local marinas and mooring fields cannot absorb those boats.
Kingsley Ross (Boaters Rights Coalition) called the 5,000‑foot maximum “excessive” and said the bill did not require FWC to weigh impacts on recreational and cruising interests; Ross urged that FWC criteria be balanced to include boating interests. Eugene J. Rakowski (Coast Guard Auxiliary) testified that many small craft anchor in shallower water that large ships do not use and said proximity to an inlet can be critical for fatigued mariners seeking safe egress.
John Moyle, representing the Florida Inland Navigation District, asked the committee to consider mitigation—such as new mooring fields—so the state does not create a net loss of anchorage; Moyle did not take a position but requested planning for mitigation measures.
Port representatives including Richard Pinsky (Port of Palm Beach) and the Florida Ports Council supported the bill as written; Pinsky said the bill targets ports lacking existing protected channels and is intended to prevent large commercial‑vessel disruptions when smaller vessels stray into channel markers.
Committee action: The committee adopted the sponsor’s amendment (01/5998) and, after debate and a recorded roll call in which Senator Davis voted no, reported CS for SB 594 favorably.
