Coast Guard---Inland lakes - Moderated Discussion Areas

  ContinuousWave
  Whaler
  Moderated Discussion Areas
  ContinuousWave: The Whaler GAM or General Area
  Coast Guard---Inland lakes

search | FAQ | profile | register | author help

Author Topic:   Coast Guard---Inland lakes

Binkie posted 03-26-2007 09:26 PM ET (US)
What authority does the Coast Guard have on inland lakes that have no access to the open sea. If they do have some authority on these waters, is their a limit to the lake size, such as, do they have authority on a pond. I`ve never been able to resolve this question.

Rich
kglinz posted 03-26-2007 09:57 PM ET (US)
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode14/ usc_sec_14_00000089----000-.html
jimp posted 03-26-2007 10:07 PM ET (US)
For starters we need the definition of navigable waters of the US. This includes waters that were historically used for commerce, (a)(3)(i) below. This includes your lake or pond that was used back in Revolutionary War times, it includes Lake Tahoe - between two states; it includes Lake Winnipesaukee, entirely within New Hampshire.
"Commerce" is another big word for the USCG. Up here in Alaska jet boats were using a supposedly "unnavigable" section of an Interior river for jet boat tours and making tens of thousands of dollars. Guess what? That's commerece and the CG determined that due to the commerce that the river was now "navigable" and the tour operators had to comply with CG regulations. It's the CG's call. Worth a phone call to the waterways management branch of the local Marine Safety Office or District HQ in which you reside.
33 CFR Ch. I (7–1–06 Edition)
2.36 Navigable waters of the United States, navigable waters, and territorial waters.
(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, navigable waters of the United States, navigable waters, and territorial waters mean, except where Congress has designated them not to be navigable waters of the United States:
(1) Territorial seas of the United States;
(2) Internal waters of the United States that are subject to tidal influence; and
(3) Internal waters of the United States not subject to tidal influence that:
(i) Are or have been used, or are or have been susceptible for use, by themselves or in connection with other waters, as highways for substantial interstate or foreign commerce, notwithstanding natural or man-made obstructions that require portage, or
(ii) A governmental or non-governmental body, having expertise in waterway improvement, determines to be capable of improvement at a reasonable cost (a favorable balance between cost and need) to provide, by themselves or in connection with other waters, as highways for substantial interstate or foreign commerce.
(b) Navigable waters of the United States and navigable waters, as used in sections 311 and 312 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended, 33 U.S.C. 1321 and 1322, mean:
(1) Navigable waters of the United States as defined in paragraph (a) of this section and all waters within the United States tributary thereto; and
(2) Other waters over which the Federal Government may exercise Constitutional authority.
So that's your simple answer.
JimP
jimp posted 03-26-2007 10:09 PM ET (US)
And seeing kglinz' post above my first, 14 USC 89 allows the CG to board any time, any where to check for compliance of ALL federal regualtions.
JimP
Binkie posted 03-28-2007 05:34 PM ET (US)
Sounds like they got even the small puddles covered.
Rich
contender posted 03-28-2007 07:50 PM ET (US)
How about a large private lake?
jimp posted 03-28-2007 07:59 PM ET (US)
Good question. My guess, and it's just a guess, is that if it's a private lake and being used for commerce, i.e. paid boat rides or rentals, then maybe they have jurisdiction. What if it's a private lake with a camp on it that people pay to visit, AND boats are included? I don't know. You'd have to get a "navigability" determination from the USCG. If it's totally private, I'd guess "no" they don't have jurisdition.
JimP
devildog posted 03-28-2007 11:16 PM ET (US)
I don't know the legality but I had a conversation with a passenger ferry "captain" in Disney World. He told me they are not required to hold a Coast Guard Captain's license because they operate on private property. I was amazed as I was told this while riding on a vessel that carries thousands of paying customers a day.
I know this doesn't answer the question but this thread reminded me of the conversation.
gnr posted 03-30-2007 03:19 PM ET (US)
Big controversy in these parts a couple years back when the court upheld , against a lawsuit filed by the ACLU, the CG's right to search passengers and vehicles on the three ferries that cross from New York to Vermont.
The CG keps a very low profile on Champlain in my experience. I don't recall every being approached by the Coasties even though I spend a good bit of time in the spring fishing within sight of the station.
It's my understanding through nothing more then word of mouth that the CG can do pretty much whatever the hell they want regardless of probable cause.
The State Police and Fish and Game are far more visible but don't have the same authority.
Binkie posted 03-30-2007 03:39 PM ET (US)
Obviousally the GC can search your boat at any time, but many people don`t know that they are the only government agency that can enter your home and search it without probable cause OR a search warrant. They just need to believe you are a smuggler. Kind of like the gestapo.
Rich
Landlocked posted 03-30-2007 04:00 PM ET (US)
We deal with the definition of "Waters of the US" all the time in my field - wetlands. The Corps of Engineers has jurisdiction over Federal Waters from an environmental standpoint. They have basically stated that they not only have jurisdiction over "navigable waters" but also any waters that are directly connected to those waters. By this definition - they could actually regulate the water flowing from the downspouts of your gutters if they could prove that water flowed directly to a tributary of a tributary of a navigable water...
Ll.
jimp posted 03-30-2007 04:30 PM ET (US)
Landlocked -
Now you're entering dangerous ground! The environmental stuff! During WWII, the military built many airfields in Alaska, one, for example, is in Yakutat, along the north Gulf of Alaska coast. To drain the water off the runway, they added drainage ditches alongide the runway. The drainage ditches connected to local streams and rivers as that stuff runs downhill, and now salmon swim into the drainage ditches, and you guessed it! The drainage ditches are now considered salmon streams and all environmental regs are applicable.
JimP
Landlocked posted 03-30-2007 04:37 PM ET (US)
I recently did a stream survey for a highway project. The roadside ditches had been dug to the point where they intercepted groundwater. Not flowing water, mind you; just seepage. There was enough water however to support a few aquatic insects. You guessed it - it was determined to be a jurisdictional stream.
Ll.
mcole posted 04-05-2007 05:34 PM ET (US)
I have been a CG Boarding Officer in the Massachussetts area for 12 years now. I have never heard of the CG having jurisdiction in Lake Winnipesaukee. Unless the locals or staties ask for mutual aid. There are old CG boats that are operated by police up there, 41' UTB's.
The CG have jurisdiction on internal waters that are part of a federal reservation or a lake that is between two states/ countries. Lake Champlain borders more than one state VT/NY and Canada. Thats why.
Basically if there is a CG Station in the area, then they have jurisdiction.
Also the Coast Guard can not search any boat they wan't. They can board any boat to conduct a safety inspection in US Waters but the Boarding Officer needs probable cause to conduct a "search" for evidence of a crime or contraband in an area where a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy.
MKCOXN
jimp posted 04-05-2007 10:57 PM ET (US)
mcole -
I think if you look at it closely, Lake Winnipesaukee falls under CG jurisdiction as a navigable water. 1. Historically used for trade. 2. Any charter boats or dinner cruises on the lake carrying passengers and for hire? I don't know, I don't live there. But I'm guessing yes to both. The CG has jurisdiction, but doesn't chose to have a presence - the locals and the state do it.
When the tour boat "Ethan Allen" (I think that was the name) sank with loss of life on Lake George a few years ago, she had a Certificate of Inspection (COI) from the CG - CG jurisdiction on a small NY lake.
As for boardings, congrats on being a Boarding Officer - MLE school is not easy.
You don't need a warrant to go aboard. You can board any U.S. flag vessel in U.S. waters any time to check for compliance of federal regualtions. 14 USC 89 says so, that's the CG's in to everybody.
JimP
phatwhaler posted 04-06-2007 12:30 AM ET (US)
The CG can board any US flagged vessel anywhere in the world. They can also board any foreign flagged vessel in us waters. They can board foreign flagged vessels in Customs waters for the purpose of enforcing Customs laws, and they can board foreign flagged vessels in the Exclusive Economic Zone for the purpose of enforcing fishing/living marine resources laws. The CG can board foreign flagged vessels on the high seas with permission from the foreign vessels home country. Finally, the CG can board "stateless vessels" on the high seas and in US waters. Stateless meaning the vessel is showing no flag, or there is a discrepancy as to what country the subject vessel is from.
As for small lakes, jimp and mcole have pretty much summed it up. A CG Inspected vessel, no matter where it is sailing can be boarded. And if there are inspected vessels running around a lake then there is commerce going I don't know of any "inspected" Boston Whalers though. Most small lakes and ponds are left up to the locals to deal with. One other thing I was taught was that if a body of water is subject to tidal influence then the CG has jurisdiction.
BMENG
pw out.

mcole posted 04-13-2007 07:11 PM ET (US)
Check out this discussion on a NH Forum:
http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/showthread.php?p=37849
Go down to #34
Good stuff!!
contender posted 04-13-2007 09:08 PM ET (US)
Can the coast guard do an inspection of/on your boat while on a trailer on land? say at the ramp before launch?
jimp posted 04-13-2007 10:29 PM ET (US)
The CG may do you the courtesy of looking at your boat - at your request, but they cannot "board" you if you're not yet in the water - if you haven't launched yet. BUT, I do believe that if they see you operating your boat and then take the boat out of the water, they can "board" you and it would likely be official. Whether from the continuation of "hot pursuit" for something, or whether the ramp is congested and it makes sense to pull the boat out of the way. Different circumstances may give you different answers.
As for the New Hampshire's Lake Winnipesaukee, a bit more research into the history of the "agreement" between the the USCG and the state is warranted. What does the Memoradum of Agreement between the state & CG say? Is there a MOA? It's not a simple yes or no. Navigable waters have historicity. Another job for the lawyers to figure out the when and why. Maybe NHMP has it now, but what's the rest of the story?
JimP
norm posted 04-14-2007 12:49 AM ET (US)
Ok, so I'm having trouble following the tone of this thread. It starts out about the authority of the CG which is reasonable, then a few posts down Binkie tosses out "kind of like the gestapo". Overall, I'm reading a neutral to negative response about the USCG. I may be wrong, and if so it's on me.
I'm not saying that members USCG never strays under the color of authority (I've experienced it), but on the whole they are a superb, highly trained group doing a hell of a job under difficult to downright hellish conditions. If I interpreted the thread wrong, I apologize. If on the other hand, the USCG are the bad guys, then call the ACLU when your boat is sinking.
placerville posted 04-14-2007 01:18 AM ET (US)
So well put Norm!
Binkie, what's the point of your thread?
Binkie posted 04-14-2007 06:41 AM ET (US)
placerville, well the point of this thread was to find out if the GC had authority on inland lakes, as the first thread clearly states. As far as the gestapo post, there was no intent to make the GC out as the bad guy, it was just info, as to their authority. I thought most of the posts were interesting and informative reading. I have no bone to pick with the the CG, I was in the CG Reserve for 8 years in the early sixties. Our duties were geared more to lifesaving, but then drugs were not a problem back then.
As far as using the ACLU as a tow service, that might be a good idea, as one of their lawyers might even tow you in, but you can rest assure the CG won`t.
Rich
phatwhaler posted 04-14-2007 08:53 PM ET (US)
This is about the umpteenth time that Binkie has made remarks about the USCG not wanting to tow people in. The fact of the matter is that every Boatswains Mate I know loves to do tows. The problem is that the commercial towing industry complains that we are taking food off their table when we tow in a vessel. The bottom line with the Coast Guard and towing is that if you are in distress, the USCG is responsible to save your life first. After that, if you need to be towed, it will usually happen. If you're just disabled in the ICW and in no distress whatsoever the USCG is required to let the tow boats respond to your needs. If no commercial assistance is available, the Coast Guard is ready to assist whoever needs it. Even old cranky snipes.
Binkie posted 04-14-2007 11:45 PM ET (US)
phat, Yes that's true, and its that loophole in the law that prevents the Federal Govt. with interfering with private business, that enabled private business to get into the towing business in the first place. It is not the CGs fault, but I`m sure they were glad to let private business take over what was part of their duties.
Rich

Hop to:

Contact Us | RETURN to ContinuousWave Top Page

Powered by: Ultimate Bulletin Board, Freeware Version 2000
Purchase our Licensed Version- which adds many more features!
© Infopop Corporation (formerly Madrona Park, Inc.), 1998 - 2000.

Author	Topic: Coast Guard---Inland lakes
Binkie	posted 03-26-2007 09:26 PM ET (US) What authority does the Coast Guard have on inland lakes that have no access to the open sea. If they do have some authority on these waters, is their a limit to the lake size, such as, do they have authority on a pond. I`ve never been able to resolve this question. Rich
kglinz	posted 03-26-2007 09:57 PM ET (US) http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode14/ usc_sec_14_00000089----000-.html
jimp	posted 03-26-2007 10:07 PM ET (US) For starters we need the definition of navigable waters of the US. This includes waters that were historically used for commerce, (a)(3)(i) below. This includes your lake or pond that was used back in Revolutionary War times, it includes Lake Tahoe - between two states; it includes Lake Winnipesaukee, entirely within New Hampshire. "Commerce" is another big word for the USCG. Up here in Alaska jet boats were using a supposedly "unnavigable" section of an Interior river for jet boat tours and making tens of thousands of dollars. Guess what? That's commerece and the CG determined that due to the commerce that the river was now "navigable" and the tour operators had to comply with CG regulations. It's the CG's call. Worth a phone call to the waterways management branch of the local Marine Safety Office or District HQ in which you reside. 33 CFR Ch. I (7–1–06 Edition) 2.36 Navigable waters of the United States, navigable waters, and territorial waters. (a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, navigable waters of the United States, navigable waters, and territorial waters mean, except where Congress has designated them not to be navigable waters of the United States: (1) Territorial seas of the United States; (2) Internal waters of the United States that are subject to tidal influence; and (3) Internal waters of the United States not subject to tidal influence that: (i) Are or have been used, or are or have been susceptible for use, by themselves or in connection with other waters, as highways for substantial interstate or foreign commerce, notwithstanding natural or man-made obstructions that require portage, or (ii) A governmental or non-governmental body, having expertise in waterway improvement, determines to be capable of improvement at a reasonable cost (a favorable balance between cost and need) to provide, by themselves or in connection with other waters, as highways for substantial interstate or foreign commerce. (b) Navigable waters of the United States and navigable waters, as used in sections 311 and 312 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended, 33 U.S.C. 1321 and 1322, mean: (1) Navigable waters of the United States as defined in paragraph (a) of this section and all waters within the United States tributary thereto; and (2) Other waters over which the Federal Government may exercise Constitutional authority. So that's your simple answer. JimP
jimp	posted 03-26-2007 10:09 PM ET (US) And seeing kglinz' post above my first, 14 USC 89 allows the CG to board any time, any where to check for compliance of ALL federal regualtions. JimP
Binkie	posted 03-28-2007 05:34 PM ET (US) Sounds like they got even the small puddles covered. Rich
contender	posted 03-28-2007 07:50 PM ET (US) How about a large private lake?
jimp	posted 03-28-2007 07:59 PM ET (US) Good question. My guess, and it's just a guess, is that if it's a private lake and being used for commerce, i.e. paid boat rides or rentals, then maybe they have jurisdiction. What if it's a private lake with a camp on it that people pay to visit, AND boats are included? I don't know. You'd have to get a "navigability" determination from the USCG. If it's totally private, I'd guess "no" they don't have jurisdition. JimP
devildog	posted 03-28-2007 11:16 PM ET (US) I don't know the legality but I had a conversation with a passenger ferry "captain" in Disney World. He told me they are not required to hold a Coast Guard Captain's license because they operate on private property. I was amazed as I was told this while riding on a vessel that carries thousands of paying customers a day. I know this doesn't answer the question but this thread reminded me of the conversation.
gnr	posted 03-30-2007 03:19 PM ET (US) Big controversy in these parts a couple years back when the court upheld , against a lawsuit filed by the ACLU, the CG's right to search passengers and vehicles on the three ferries that cross from New York to Vermont. The CG keps a very low profile on Champlain in my experience. I don't recall every being approached by the Coasties even though I spend a good bit of time in the spring fishing within sight of the station. It's my understanding through nothing more then word of mouth that the CG can do pretty much whatever the hell they want regardless of probable cause. The State Police and Fish and Game are far more visible but don't have the same authority.
Binkie	posted 03-30-2007 03:39 PM ET (US) Obviousally the GC can search your boat at any time, but many people don`t know that they are the only government agency that can enter your home and search it without probable cause OR a search warrant. They just need to believe you are a smuggler. Kind of like the gestapo. Rich
Landlocked	posted 03-30-2007 04:00 PM ET (US) We deal with the definition of "Waters of the US" all the time in my field - wetlands. The Corps of Engineers has jurisdiction over Federal Waters from an environmental standpoint. They have basically stated that they not only have jurisdiction over "navigable waters" but also any waters that are directly connected to those waters. By this definition - they could actually regulate the water flowing from the downspouts of your gutters if they could prove that water flowed directly to a tributary of a tributary of a navigable water... Ll.
jimp	posted 03-30-2007 04:30 PM ET (US) Landlocked - Now you're entering dangerous ground! The environmental stuff! During WWII, the military built many airfields in Alaska, one, for example, is in Yakutat, along the north Gulf of Alaska coast. To drain the water off the runway, they added drainage ditches alongide the runway. The drainage ditches connected to local streams and rivers as that stuff runs downhill, and now salmon swim into the drainage ditches, and you guessed it! The drainage ditches are now considered salmon streams and all environmental regs are applicable. JimP
Landlocked	posted 03-30-2007 04:37 PM ET (US) I recently did a stream survey for a highway project. The roadside ditches had been dug to the point where they intercepted groundwater. Not flowing water, mind you; just seepage. There was enough water however to support a few aquatic insects. You guessed it - it was determined to be a jurisdictional stream. Ll.
mcole	posted 04-05-2007 05:34 PM ET (US) I have been a CG Boarding Officer in the Massachussetts area for 12 years now. I have never heard of the CG having jurisdiction in Lake Winnipesaukee. Unless the locals or staties ask for mutual aid. There are old CG boats that are operated by police up there, 41' UTB's. The CG have jurisdiction on internal waters that are part of a federal reservation or a lake that is between two states/ countries. Lake Champlain borders more than one state VT/NY and Canada. Thats why. Basically if there is a CG Station in the area, then they have jurisdiction. Also the Coast Guard can not search any boat they wan't. They can board any boat to conduct a safety inspection in US Waters but the Boarding Officer needs probable cause to conduct a "search" for evidence of a crime or contraband in an area where a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy. MKCOXN
jimp	posted 04-05-2007 10:57 PM ET (US) mcole - I think if you look at it closely, Lake Winnipesaukee falls under CG jurisdiction as a navigable water. 1. Historically used for trade. 2. Any charter boats or dinner cruises on the lake carrying passengers and for hire? I don't know, I don't live there. But I'm guessing yes to both. The CG has jurisdiction, but doesn't chose to have a presence - the locals and the state do it. When the tour boat "Ethan Allen" (I think that was the name) sank with loss of life on Lake George a few years ago, she had a Certificate of Inspection (COI) from the CG - CG jurisdiction on a small NY lake. As for boardings, congrats on being a Boarding Officer - MLE school is not easy. You don't need a warrant to go aboard. You can board any U.S. flag vessel in U.S. waters any time to check for compliance of federal regualtions. 14 USC 89 says so, that's the CG's in to everybody. JimP
phatwhaler	posted 04-06-2007 12:30 AM ET (US) The CG can board any US flagged vessel anywhere in the world. They can also board any foreign flagged vessel in us waters. They can board foreign flagged vessels in Customs waters for the purpose of enforcing Customs laws, and they can board foreign flagged vessels in the Exclusive Economic Zone for the purpose of enforcing fishing/living marine resources laws. The CG can board foreign flagged vessels on the high seas with permission from the foreign vessels home country. Finally, the CG can board "stateless vessels" on the high seas and in US waters. Stateless meaning the vessel is showing no flag, or there is a discrepancy as to what country the subject vessel is from. As for small lakes, jimp and mcole have pretty much summed it up. A CG Inspected vessel, no matter where it is sailing can be boarded. And if there are inspected vessels running around a lake then there is commerce going I don't know of any "inspected" Boston Whalers though. Most small lakes and ponds are left up to the locals to deal with. One other thing I was taught was that if a body of water is subject to tidal influence then the CG has jurisdiction. BMENG pw out.
mcole	posted 04-13-2007 07:11 PM ET (US) Check out this discussion on a NH Forum: http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/showthread.php?p=37849 Go down to #34 Good stuff!!
contender	posted 04-13-2007 09:08 PM ET (US) Can the coast guard do an inspection of/on your boat while on a trailer on land? say at the ramp before launch?
jimp	posted 04-13-2007 10:29 PM ET (US) The CG may do you the courtesy of looking at your boat - at your request, but they cannot "board" you if you're not yet in the water - if you haven't launched yet. BUT, I do believe that if they see you operating your boat and then take the boat out of the water, they can "board" you and it would likely be official. Whether from the continuation of "hot pursuit" for something, or whether the ramp is congested and it makes sense to pull the boat out of the way. Different circumstances may give you different answers. As for the New Hampshire's Lake Winnipesaukee, a bit more research into the history of the "agreement" between the the USCG and the state is warranted. What does the Memoradum of Agreement between the state & CG say? Is there a MOA? It's not a simple yes or no. Navigable waters have historicity. Another job for the lawyers to figure out the when and why. Maybe NHMP has it now, but what's the rest of the story? JimP
norm	posted 04-14-2007 12:49 AM ET (US) Ok, so I'm having trouble following the tone of this thread. It starts out about the authority of the CG which is reasonable, then a few posts down Binkie tosses out "kind of like the gestapo". Overall, I'm reading a neutral to negative response about the USCG. I may be wrong, and if so it's on me. I'm not saying that members USCG never strays under the color of authority (I've experienced it), but on the whole they are a superb, highly trained group doing a hell of a job under difficult to downright hellish conditions. If I interpreted the thread wrong, I apologize. If on the other hand, the USCG are the bad guys, then call the ACLU when your boat is sinking.
placerville	posted 04-14-2007 01:18 AM ET (US) So well put Norm! Binkie, what's the point of your thread?
Binkie	posted 04-14-2007 06:41 AM ET (US) placerville, well the point of this thread was to find out if the GC had authority on inland lakes, as the first thread clearly states. As far as the gestapo post, there was no intent to make the GC out as the bad guy, it was just info, as to their authority. I thought most of the posts were interesting and informative reading. I have no bone to pick with the the CG, I was in the CG Reserve for 8 years in the early sixties. Our duties were geared more to lifesaving, but then drugs were not a problem back then. As far as using the ACLU as a tow service, that might be a good idea, as one of their lawyers might even tow you in, but you can rest assure the CG won`t. Rich
phatwhaler	posted 04-14-2007 08:53 PM ET (US) This is about the umpteenth time that Binkie has made remarks about the USCG not wanting to tow people in. The fact of the matter is that every Boatswains Mate I know loves to do tows. The problem is that the commercial towing industry complains that we are taking food off their table when we tow in a vessel. The bottom line with the Coast Guard and towing is that if you are in distress, the USCG is responsible to save your life first. After that, if you need to be towed, it will usually happen. If you're just disabled in the ICW and in no distress whatsoever the USCG is required to let the tow boats respond to your needs. If no commercial assistance is available, the Coast Guard is ready to assist whoever needs it. Even old cranky snipes.
Binkie	posted 04-14-2007 11:45 PM ET (US) phat, Yes that's true, and its that loophole in the law that prevents the Federal Govt. with interfering with private business, that enabled private business to get into the towing business in the first place. It is not the CGs fault, but I`m sure they were glad to let private business take over what was part of their duties. Rich