Read or download issue PDF - Southwinds Magazine

LETTERS Continued from page 9editor@southwindssailing.com Web site: southwindssailing.comPO Box 1175,Holmes Beach FL 34218 Fax: (941) 795-8705MORE ON THE ANCHORAGE ISSUE;A VOICE FROM CALIFORNIAIn response to your editorial on page 8 of the March, 2004,issue of SOUTHWINDS, I offer my story to your readers byyour invitation.We anchor out in San Diego Bay, CA, and have learnedover the past 15 years of litigation with our Port District thatfederal law, state law and the Constitution mean nothing tothem. Even the courts and the Coast Guard believe that thePort District is the higher power, and that is because the legislaturehas empowered the district to make and enforce itsown laws, without limitation.Most recently, the San Diego Unified Port District hasenacted five new ordinances that prohibit anchoring ormooring in any part of the bay, except in its eight designated/regulatedareas. The federal designated anchorageshave been transferred to the Port District by the CoastGuard even though it does not have such powers. The CoastGuard not only approves of a state takeover of the entirebay, but applauds it. The five new referenced ordinanceshave empowered the port’s harbor police with the authorityto board and inspect any vessel, at any time, withoutwarrant or probable cause, to search for violations of federal,state, or port district law. If a violation is found, the officercan immediately seize, tow and impound the vessel withoutdue process of law (no court hearing) and no right of appealin court. The mandatory penalty is a misdemeanor. If the vesselowner does not pay the usual $1,500 to $6,000 fine andtowing fee within 30 days, the vessel will be sold ordestroyed, usually the latter, and at the owner’s expense.Just before the final vote on these new laws, we made itperfectly clear to the port commissions that the U. S.Supreme Court held that San Diego Bay is not withinCalifornia’s geographical boundaries. This allegation wassupported by quotes from United States v. California (1977),431 US 2915, and United States v. California (1981), 449 US408, as well as the court’s reference to the Submerged LandsAct, (1953) 43 USC 1301-1315, and “The Law of The SeaTreaty,” (1958) 15 UST 1607, or TIAS 5639. A threat of possiblelawsuit was made for the trespassing on federal lands inviolation of the Submerged Lands Act, as provided in 43USC 1350, but that fell on deaf ears, as well.Subsequent to the enactment of these laws, we expectedbig trouble from the district, but to our surprise theport’s harbor police have become very friendly, courteous,and respectful of our civil rights, at least for the present.It could be that your anchorage is not owned by the stateas well. To find out, you need to research the following laws:The Submerged Lands Act of 1953 (43 USC 1301-1315, asamended at the request of Congress, by the U.S. SupremeCourt (United States v. California (1966) 382 US 448). The purposeof the act was to define and confirm federal and stateownership of this nation’s submerged lands. As for jurisdiction,no state can assume jurisdiction beyond its boundaries(Amend 4, sect. 4). The act grants the lands under the territorialseas to each coastal state, but retains U.S. navigationalservitude. This land grant does not extend into the bays,See LETTERS continued on page 1310 December 2004 SOUTHWINDS www.southwindssailing.com