Derelict boat solution?

[Shrew]

I never truly understood this issue until I moved to Florida and started boating there. Initially I only saw this as greedy landowners using their property and taxes to influence local legislators to enforce ordinances to extend their land rights out to the water.

Then I started boating along the intracoastal. There are abandoned, partially sunk boats everywhere. AND......they are are now sunk in the middle of some really nice anchorages.

 

[psneeld]

Cape May Harbor in NJ attracted derelicts for years...sounds like they finally got around to making a harbormaster position which may help.

My old assistance tow company owner donated salvage time and removed something like 4 or 5 boats back a few years ago out of there.

 

[dannc]

Actually, as part of every annual boat registration in Washington State, there is a surcharge for "Derelict Vessel Removal". Each and every year. Unfortunately the funds collected are not fenced off, and they can be diverted to other purposes, which is what happened this year (2022) when the money was used to pay for fighting forest fires. Not sure what it will be diverted to next year after I pay my annual registration with next years Derelict Vessel Removal" surcharge.

My understanding is that in Florida, part of the fees from boat registration are to go for vessel removal. The money gets disbursed to the counties and disappears. Some people have asked for an accounting of how the funds have been spent and have been met with crickets.

Later,
Dan

 

[Shrew]

My understanding is that in Florida, part of the fees from boat registration are to go for vessel removal. The money gets disbursed to the counties and disappears. Some people have asked for an accounting of how the funds have been spent and have been met with crickets.

Later,
Dan

I'm not saying your right, and I'm not saying your wrong. However, I would ask that everyone consider whether they need to start a $@#$ storm of political nonsense based on unreferenced hear-say.

 

[dannc]

I'm not saying your right, and I'm not saying your wrong. However, I would ask that everyone consider whether they need to start a $@#$ storm of political nonsense based on unreferenced hear-say.

I am not making it up and I don't see why you would think it is political statement, much less start a "$@#$ storm of political nonsense."

A person active in the Florida boat community has dug into the missing money because he was involved in the derelict boating and anchoring legislation in Florida. The two issues are linked together, and since boat registration funds are supposed to help remove derelict boats at the county level, it is a fair question to ask for an accounting of the money. This person did so and got crickets. I believe the question was posed to county officials in Palm Beach.

This was covered in the Cruising Forum over the last few years in regards to the anchoring and derelict boat legislation discussions.

Later,
Dan

 

[psneeld]

Hard to say what is going on with only internet searching. The last bit I just did suggests FWC (Fish & Wildlife Commission) is now paying 100% of authorized wreck/derelict removals. But it is up to the counties it seems to properly apply for the grants.

There are some embedded fees in the Florida vessel registration process that includes vessel removal...if the process is being used correctly.

Have not seen where there is an issue with the monies not being spent...but it's possible as it is not solely designated as far as I can tell....

This popped up in one search...

"Pursuant to section 328.72 (15), Florida Statutes, the portion of vessel registration fees designated for the use of the counties, shall be used for providing recreational channel marking and other uniform waterway markers, public boat ramps, lifts, and hoists, marine railways, and other public launching facilities, derelict vessel removal, and removal of vessels and floating structures deemed a hazard to public safety and health."

This in another...

"FWC will now pay 100% of all removal costs incurred by counties and cities as reimbursement for the DV removal grant. Applicants are no longer required to match at 25% to receive assistance from the state on derelict vessel removal grants. Applications will now be accepted on a continuing basis without deadlines as long as funding is available."

 

[High Wire]

Cape May Harbor in NJ attracted derelicts for years...sounds like they finally got around to making a harbormaster position which may help.

My old assistance tow company owner donated salvage time and removed something like 4 or 5 boats back a few years ago out of there.

There’s still a new crop every spring including one a boat length from the Coast Guard base.

 

[RT Firefly]

Greetings,
Mr. ps's post of section 328.72 (15), Florida Statutes pretty well explains it all, to me, at least (only so much moneys to go around). After that portion of funds is spent on "...recreational channel marking..." etc., it's not inconceivable to assume there is little to no $$ left for "...removal of vessels and floating structures deemed a hazard to public safety and health."


So what's the answer in light of 328.72 (15)? Spend less on waterway maintenance and more on derelict vessel removal? Increase registration fees with that %age increase earmarked specifically for vessel removal? Perhaps shut down public launch ramps and use the maintenance $$ for derelict vessel removal?


Yet another of those choices...

 

[psneeld]

The second paragraph alludes to other funds... not sure where at the state level they are funded.