NC Senate Bill 58 - a Tiered Boating Registration Fee

[Captain Smollett]

Fellers, CapnK here in blue - I'm gonna put on my "Owner Hat" and lock this one down now...

It was information which needed getting out, but the tone is starting to go "political", and sailFar from Day 1 has never been about politics.

Thanks for your contributions, no hard feelings I hope, and let's *all* hope for the best possible outcome for NC natives and transients alike. :)

----Original Post & Thread Below----

This topic could veer into political territory, so let's tread carefully.

There are some big "issues" going on in NC right now and over the past few years.  Some of it is the typical stuff...CCA vs the Commercial Fishing Industry and stuff like that.  Like often happens, these issues, and larger issues in "politics" spill over into other areas.

At issue here is the dredging of NC's Oregon Inlet.  So far as I can tell, the inlet (perpetually plagued by shoaling) has not been dredged since September of last year, and that was via a last-ditch emergency allocation.

The US federal government has stopped funding for the dredging of Oregon and several other NC inlets.  Some of these will impact cruisers directly as they lie on the ICW - Bogue, Topsail and of course Shallotte.  

In a scheme designed to insure the State can maintain revenues to purchase and operate a dredge itself, NC Senate Bill 58 was recentlyintroduced.  This bill creates  a progressive boating registration structure kinda like tax brackets for income taxes.

The longer the boat, the more the registration fee.

Some of the fee increases are over 600% from current levels.

A lot of boat owners are bent out of shape over this due to the fact that they will never pass through that (or any other) inlet.  I personally find that view narrow minded - commercial and coastal recreational fishing are intrinsic to NC economy, and the inlets of course play a big role in that.  Healthy fishing industries ensure fishing and boating remain a priority for the State government.  But oh well.  (Can't say I'd be happy to pay 2, 3 or more as much per year to register my boats).

But the part that I find far more troubling is that the Federal government has also taken steps to place Atlantic Sturgeon in the Endangered Species List, and under those laws, no dredging of Oregon Inlet will be allowed.  SB 58 is written to earmark that revenue for dredging, but if the feds cease dredging via the ESA, where will the money go then?  I've written my State Senator to ask that very question.

This whole thing is a mess.  It's a mess pure and simple.

I have to confess that I cannot even discern whose really behind what and what all the various motivations are.  It's just a mess.

So, without getting too political in the discussion, I just wanted to let you guys know...there's a lot going on "politically" here, and it may well impact traveling through NC by boat.  I can see within a year or two major additional inlet closings (Bogue has been "dangerous" since 2011's Hurricane Irene, for example) encroaching on safe ICW passage.

Add to these real safe navigation problems, the attempts the State has made in recent years to regulate things like pumping out.  I'm not talking about regulating pumping the boat out, but for fining boats for not LOGGING when and where they were pumped out.  That's kind of hard to enforce for transient boats.  So far as I know (I have not checked), that one died, but Bad Bill Resurrection seems to be an affliction in this state.

Like the NC Commercial fishing industry, The Ditch through NC may well be "dying."  The Snowbird Fleet may do well to start brushing up on offshore passage making.  If so, this is going to make Cape Hatteras a major player in East Coast boating again.  I'm not trying to be alarmist, but dredging the ICW near the inlets has long been a problem.  With less money, it can only get worse.

(For the record, I'm all for the State of NC paying for its own dredging of it's inlets...I'm not trying to imply the feds pulling the funding on the dredging is the source of the problem.  I do, however, believe it could be a majorly big deal if the ESA is used to stop certain dredging no matter how the dredging is funded).

[Captain Smollett]

Follow-up note since it may come up:

There is debate regarding whether the sturgeon really is endangered as well as any role Oregon Inlet plays in its life cycle. 


The answer you get on these questions depends on who you ask.  The problem, according to one source I read (a fisherman) is that basically little is known about the sturgeon.  The feds are taking a "what if" approach and calling them 'endangered' just in case...according those on this side of the fence.

So, toss a coin and take your pick who to believe on that question.  I'm sure I don't know.

This ambiguity muddies the waters further.  If it were a case of demonstrable near-extinction for the species, the motivations of that side would be clearer.

[s/v Faith]

I wonder what the fees will be?

Faith was registered in NC, until I figured out FL (with no income tax) was almost 95% cheaper!

NC is terrible with their taxes, I hope they are able to honor the agreement to earmark these funds if the bill passes.  Eastern NC has a long history of being overlooked.

I appreciate your position that what is good for fisheries may benefit cruisers, but from a purely selfish perspective Oregon inlet is not high on my list since I do not consider it viable even when it is dredged.  I have run New River inlet and would rather go through it then Oregon.

WRT cruisers, I suspect that as long as Cape Fear and Beaufort remain open there will likely not be much impact either way.

Of course, sailfar sized boats with their correspondingly more shallow draft are less affected by restricted dredging on the ICW.... Although I can attest we can still find the bottom from time to time.

Outside interests are indeed our best bet, commercial traffic is a much more proven revenue stream and higher in the order of things politically then snowbirds making their migration (historically overlooked, since they spend money but vote in smaller numbers in the state).

Any idea what the fee structure might be? Is it included in the bill?

[Captain Smollett]

I wonder what the fees will be?

Here you go (lifted straight from the current version of the bill):

(a1)      Fees. ? The fees for certificates of number are as set out in this subsection:

(1)        The fee for a certificate of number for a one‑year period is:

a.         Fifteen dollars ($15.00) for a vessel that is less than 14 feet in length.

b.         Twenty‑five dollars ($25.00) for a vessel that is 14 feet or more in length but less than 20 feet in length.

c.         Fifty dollars ($50.00) for a vessel that is 20 feet or more in length but less than 26 feet in length.

d.         One hundred dollars ($100.00) for a vessel that is 26 feet or more in length but less than 40 feet in length.

e.         One hundred fifty dollars ($150.00) for a vessel that is more than 40 feet in length.

(2)        The fee for a certificate of number for a three‑year period is:

a.         Forty‑five dollars ($45.00) for a vessel that is less than 14 feet in length.

b.         Seventy‑five dollars ($75.00) for a vessel that is 14 feet or more in length but less than 20 feet in length.

c.         One hundred fifty dollars ($150.00) for a vessel that is 20 feet or more in length but less than 26 feet in length.

d.         Three hundred dollars ($300.00) for a vessel that is 26 feet or more in length but less than 40 feet in length.

e.         Four hundred fifty dollars ($450.00) for a vessel that is more than 40 feet in length.

Faith was registered in NC, until I figured out FL (with no income tax) was almost 95% cheaper!

NC is terrible with their taxes, I hope they are able to honor the agreement to earmark these funds if the bill passes.  Eastern NC has a long history of being overlooked.

Indeed.  As I said, Topsail and Shallotte are two examples that are always harped on on the cruising related sites.  Bogue Inlet is essentially closed now, and it's only a matter of time until that shoaling reaches back to the ditch.

I appreciate your position that what is good for fisheries may benefit cruisers, but from a purely selfish perspective Oregon inlet is not high on my list since I do not consider it viable even when it is dredged.  I have run New River inlet and would rather go through it then Oregon.

I've been to Oregon Inlet, and I have no interest in ever passing through there.  The currents are wicked; at least the ones I saw.

I do, however, know a cruising/sailing family on a 40-ish foot cat that has been through there several times.  

My "issue" is not Oregon Inlet itself, though that one is economically important, but that this politics spills over to other inlets.  It seems like it is; Topsail and Mason are two in particular that I've seen also mentioned in online discussions.

The law itself (see link above) identifies "Shallow Draft Inlets," not Oregon Inlet by name.

WRT cruisers, I suspect that as long as Cape Fear and Beaufort remain open there will likely not be much impact either way.

I seriously doubt Cape Fear or Beaufort would ever be closed...especially with the military presence/motivations to keep them open, as well as larger (than fishing) commercial interests.

But, can we imagine boating on the NC coast with only these two inlets?

Wrightsville would die as a destination community, would it not?  

Without Oregon Inlet open, I can imagine a big part of the draw to Nag's Head to be diminished.  A lot of the big fishing holes are easily  accessible from there...it's a LONG WAY to the stream and the big holes from Beaufort.

Of course, sailfar sized boats with their correspondingly more shallow draft are less affected by restricted dredging on the ICW.... Although I can attest we can still find the bottom from time to time.

Outside interests are indeed our best bet, commercial traffic is a much more proven revenue stream and higher in the order of things politically then snowbirds making their migration (historically overlooked, since they spend money but vote in smaller numbers in the state).

I agree that commercial interests do drive a lot of these issues most of the time, but from where I sit, I see what seems to me a very clear, organized effort under way to completely eliminate commercial fishing from NC.  Last year's HB 353 would have essentially outlawed gill nets, with a lot of folks thinking trawl nets would be soon to follow (goodbye shrimping).

And, that Bill was over saving 2% of a catch that goes to the commercial boys now.

It's coming back, too.  The bill died last year (after what, it's THIRD attempt by those behind that movement), but there is already talk of introducing a new version of something similar.

Interestingly, this talk is coming from INLAND (not coastal) representatives.  I could say more on this, but it's veering OT from the boat registration issue.

Any idea what the fee structure might be? Is it included in the bill?

See above.

[Captain Smollett]

For reference, I now pay $40 for a three year registration.

This law would up that to $300 for three years on the Alberg 30!

[SalientAngle]

This topic could veer into political territory, so let's tread carefully.

Yes it could, and, it is political... ironically, it is sponsored by State Senator Harry Brown {R} of Jacksonville, and co-sponsored by State Senator Norman Sanderson {R} who represents Pamlico-Craven-and-Carteret counties...

As if fighting the ferry toll issue wasn't enough....

Imagine if car registrations increased by a factor of TEN...

The outrage would be palpable... the "tea party" would revolt, lol...

feel free to delete as "political"... or, weigh in with these republicans:

Norman.Sanderson@ncleg.net

quick edit to note US documented vessels and the lack a clarity regarding commercial fishing... sigh

[Captain Smollett]

Yes it could, and, it is political... ironically, it is sponsored by State Senator Harry Brown {R} of Jacksonville, and co-sponsored by State Senator Norman Sanderson {R} who represents Pamlico-Craven-and-Carteret counties...

This has a lot of folks befuddled.  I was very surprised to see Sanderson's name on this bill.

I was told (by an acquaintance) that his office was flooded with input over last weekend.  As I'm in his district, he's heard from me as well.

It's also my understanding that BOAT US put something out about it.

There's more at stake here than just "how much *I* pay for a boat registration," but no good cause in this is helped by the thorny threads that permeate the many layers.  Too many 'interests' have a hand in the pot, and it just SEEMS TO ME that none of them are being entirely forthcoming about what is really going on.

I call this a bad bill, but not just because it might mean I must pay more for registering my boats.  It's far bigger than just my bank account.

[Captain Smollett]

exactly, captain.... and, again, using that tea party mentality, howze 'bout a bill to put just a 10 dollar tax on firearms to support game land management.... lol, imagine the outrage !!!

quick edit to mention: I used to sail the michelob cup every year on lake norman...

Tea party, no tea party...not sure this boat registration and dredging is a "party" issue at all.  Best I can see is that it is complicated.

We have a thread around here for discussion of firearms...and cheese.

[rorik]

Just so that we're all clear that I'm blaming every political stripe - the whole darn rainbow, if you will - here's some info that doesn't normally make it into the standard news channels.
And it's why bills in many states are asking for new, or higher, user fees, etc.
There isn't enough money to do half of what is being asked of the federal government.
The US Treasury has been borrowing roughly $85 billion a month for the last year or so.
And the individual states are, for the most part, in worse shape than the federal government.
Those of us living in little boats cooking on kerosene stoves are light years ahead of our own government in terms of understanding how to make a budget and use it.

http://nationalpriorities.org/media/uploads/publications/presidents_budget_fy2013/chart_3.jpg

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/dec/7/government-borrows-46-cents-every-dollar-it-spends/

[Captain Smollett]

OK, so up to 50% of that goes to dredging, where does the remainder go??? The general fund??? lol

edit: using dredging in the title of the bill in no way indicates the real intent

This is exactly my concern as well.  They seem to be "selling" this idea of increased fees on the basis of it being good for all, good for boaters, good for fisherman, RAH RAH RAH, but...

Where is the money ACTUALLY going to end up?

Seems to me like even 50% is optimistic.  No matter what THIS law says, if they feds say "No Dredging, sturgeon use that inlet," are the fees going to revert back to what they are now?  If you believe that, there's this famous bridge for sale....

Those of us living in little boats cooking on kerosene stoves are light years ahead of our own government in terms of understanding how to make a budget and use it.

But that leaves the question...what of the inlets and the industries (commercial and recreational based) that utilize them?  Can't see a Nag's Head charter boat skipper screaming about the cost of fuel now being too happy about having to motor down to Beaufort every time he wants to take a client out.

And, what client would do that? 

Bang on.  Living a tight, KISS lifestyle pays many, many dividends.  Though we personally are drifting away from that right now, it's still in the core.  Some lessons once learned, never go away.

Thank goodness.

[Kettlewell]

You have to remember that most politicians are not boaters and have no clue about boating things, so illogical laws are rampant in our states. At least this proposal is somewhat progressive in that the larger the boat the more someone pays, keeping things reasonable for the smaller boats. But, the big illogical part I see is that those inlets you speak of, for the most part, are only used by smaller fishing craft. Deeper draft boats don't dare try them as they are. So, this really doesn't impact most sailboat cruisers at all. The ICW is a different thing altogether, and I believe there is still some federal funding for dredging that, but of course not enough. In fact, if some of these inlets mostly closed up it would alleviate a lot of the silting in of the ICW. So, this is a mixed bag. The bottom line with any politician is you have to find out where the money is coming from and who will benefit. I can guarantee you that somewhere there is a financial supporter of this politician that stands to benefit from this somehow. My guess is it's someone in the sportfishing boat or commercial fishing boat business who wants to keep these inlets open--maybe a manufacturer who needs the inlet to get his boats out to sea. They don't care about anyone else, just how to come up with the money to keep their inlet open.

[Captain Smollett]

Couple of thoughts:

You have to remember that most politicians are not boaters and have no clue about boating things, so illogical laws are rampant in our states.

Sad, but true.  In this case, though, what's puzzling is that Sanderson is a co-sponsor, and he represents three coastal counties with very long (300 year +) fishing and boating traditions.

If he doesn't understand boating things, he's representing the wrong district.

At least this proposal is somewhat progressive in that the larger the boat the more someone pays, keeping things reasonable for the smaller boats.

The 'brackets' start awfully small and are finely tuned on the low end.

0-14 feet
14-20 feet
20-26 feet
26-40 feet
over 40 feet.

The 0-14 foot bracket goes UP $5 per three years compared to it's current value.  By the logic of "big boats are more likely to use the inlet and/or need dredging," why should it effect boats 0-14 feet at all?

The Over 40 ft  bracket goes from the current value of $40 to $450 for three years.  That's a lot of money to register a pleasure craft of what is a rather "nominal" size. 

Shoot, half the marina we used to live in was populated by live aboards on +40 footers, and they griped about a property tax bill each year that was less than $200.

But, the big illogical part I see is that those inlets you speak of, for the most part, are only used by smaller fishing craft. Deeper draft boats don't dare try them as they are. So, this really doesn't impact most sailboat cruisers at all. The ICW is a different thing altogether,

Sort of.  The ICW passes awfully close to some of these inlets, as in go straight, it's ICW, turn and it's ocean.

Bogue inlet is a good example.  It's not really "usable" by cruising sailing craft, but shoaling in the inlet almost equals shoaling at the ICW channel.  Ditto three or four others, and they ALL have important to the commercial and recreational fishing fleets.

Bogue has been "closed" for going on two years, and that's even to very small craft.

and I believe there is still some federal funding for dredging that, but of course not enough.

Not always in NC.  NC has several of the chronic ICW shoaling areas and these can go long times without federal dredging.  There were some rumors/news stories flying around last year (I think it was last year) that the feds no longer see any commercial reason to put money into keeping the ICW open.

Maybe Craig can correct me on this, but I think some areas of the ICW in NC have gone years to a decade or more without needed dredging.  The ICW at Shallotte Inlet was reported at 3 feet, I THINK, a couple of years ago.  That ain't much water for ANY cruising boat.

Claiborne Young's Site chronicles problem areas, and NC always has it's share.

In fact, if some of these inlets mostly closed up it would alleviate a lot of the silting in of the ICW. So, this is a mixed bag. The bottom line with any politician is you have to find out where the money is coming from and who will benefit. I can guarantee you that somewhere there is a financial supporter of this politician that stands to benefit from this somehow. My guess is it's someone in the sportfishing boat or commercial fishing boat business who wants to keep these inlets open--maybe a manufacturer who needs the inlet to get his boats out to sea. They don't care about anyone else, just how to come up with the money to keep their inlet open.

All true as far as it goes. 

There's a very weird marriage right now in all this....the sport fishing guys have indeed hooked up with some "strange bedfellows," and the big rally cry is "it's good for NC economy, beach traffic, hotels, restaurants, etc."

Problem is, who pays for what and who/how does everyone benefit.  Then, what happens when those strange bedfellow relationships begin to unravel.

Not sure I'd agree to say let the inlets close.  I don't know that they'd close COMPLETELY to the degree that the ICW would stop shoaling there.  I think they would mostly just close to navigation.  They are still "low points" for a LOT of water to move through, and the currents can be strong.  2-3 feet of nominal low tide water is still geologically an inlet and the ICW channel 1/4 mile away is a good place for sand to 'seek equilibrium.'  I'm just speculating, though.

Interesting you brought up "follow the money."  I read on one forum...and this is just someone sounding off so no way I am representing it as factual (just "interesting") ...that one of the motivations is that some 'monied folks' need beach sand and dredging supplies it.

Whether that bit of gossip is true or not, I cannot say.  I will only repeat...what a mess.  No easy answer; nothing that satisfies all groups.  My own focus is on the question "who gets hurt?" by whatever action is put into place.

[Kettlewell]

I too have heard speculation in other places that dredging channels is often being pushed big time by nearby monied interests that want the sand for their beaches--St. Lucie Inlet and the exclusive town of Jupiter in Florida are often mentioned with this in mind. Whether or not this is the case, there is money somewhere changing hands for some reason, of that you can be sure. I've been doing the ICW since the 1980s, and shoaling has always been an issue, and always will be. Frankly, overall, it is in much better shape today than it has been in a long time. Georgia and southern South Carolina are much worse than North Carolina, but they are all better than they were a decade or so ago.

[Captain Smollett]

here are some questions towndock.net has asked, without response:

Excellent stuff.  Someone I was talking to Tuesday evening mentioned taking a look a towndock.net.

I too look forward to those answers.

Whether or not this is the case, there is money somewhere changing hands for some reason, of that you can be sure.

No doubt.

I've been doing the ICW since the 1980s, and shoaling has always been an issue, and always will be. Frankly, overall, it is in much better shape today than it has been in a long time. Georgia and southern South Carolina are much worse than North Carolina, but they are all better than they were a decade or so ago.

I have not been on the ICW in SC since moving here.

Shoaling has always been an issue.  I guess what either has changed or is changing is the fed involvement in keeping the channels open.

i don't know about Georgia (other than looking at the charts), but I don't recall many areas in SC where the ICW was as close to actual inlets as up here.  I could me wrong of course, but all I'm saying is that here (and maybe there as well), dredging the inlets and dredging the ICW are closely related.  This is less true in areas of the ICW such as near the mouth of the Alligator River where shoaling is also chronic, but there is no inlet close by.

So, for most of the 'shallow water inlets' that the bill apparently applies to, pretty much any inlet south of Beaufort except Cape Fear, ICW and Inlet are intimately connected.  Whether a cruising sailboat navigates the inlet itself or not, the sand in one is hardly "separable" from the sand in the other.

Oregon and Ocracoke are exceptions to my point...ICW is nowhere near those, of course.

[Kettlewell]

Unfortunately, dredging, shoaling, and beach renourishment all go hand in hand. You can just imagine how a beach up wind and current from an inlet will supply that inlet with lots of sand, which then washes in the nicely dredged inlet to be deposited where it gets shoal, in the ICW. Then someone decides they must either dredge the ICW or the inlet or both, and they have to put the sand somewhere, so someone says, "why not on the beach." And the cycle starts all over again. Most of these inlets, if left to their own devices, would move around, get shallower and deeper, depending on the weather and the whims of nature. The problem is, we will always be fighting nature by trying to make sand stay in one spot. It is just not natural. It takes a lot of money to fight the losing battle with mother nature.

[rorik]

I too have heard speculation in other places....... often being pushed big time by nearby monied interests that want ............

And so shall it forever be......

Here in WA, a bill was passed that phases out, and then finally bans, copper based bottom paint.
It's SB 5436.
Sounds like a good, environmentally responsible thing to do, right?

Well, there are a few "exemptions"...
The bill doesn't apply to pleasure craft over 65' LOA.
Or commercial vessels of any size, from any jurisdiction.
Or state, federal, law enforcement or military vessels.
At the same time, most boatyards in Puget Sound won't let you paint your own boat. Most of them want you to hire someone to do it.

Do the math on paint coverage of pleasure craft under 65' LOA vs. pleasure craft over 65'LOA, commercial and military vessels.
The bill was pushed to a great extent by the NW Marine Trades Association.

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?bill=5436&year=2011
http://www.nmta.net/home.asp

And so shall it forever be......

[CharlieJ]

This has been a fascinating read, and as someone who has transited the ICW north to south several times I understand the problems-

BUT-

You most bear in mind that the dredging used to be based on commercial uses of the ICW, historically, that's what it was for- to move commerce along the coast safely.

In traveling the ICW from Miami, to Norfolk  just two years ago, I saw a grand total of FIVE  tows. I see that many (or more) in a few hours on the gulf coast ICW, particularly between Galveston and New Orleans. Comparatively, there just IS NO commercial use of the east coast ICW.

So in an era of tight money ( and no matter WHY it's tight) I can definitely understand the cut back in funding for dredging east coast waterways. It simply isn't cost effective. Not that I'd not enjoy deep waters all the way, but still, it's a fact. And it's going to get worse, as long as our government tries to find ways to keep from spending money, instead of solving the real problems this country has.

Which in my opinion is the politicians ( all I'm gonna say politically)

[Captain Smollett]

the cut back in funding for dredging east coast waterways. It simply isn't cost effective.

A fair question: why not?

I have seen the numbers published (rightly or wrongly, I won't swear by their accuracy)  that Oregon Inlet alone generates something like 90 million dollars per year in NC tax revenues (and similar scale numbers for the feds) yet costs only 12 million per year to keep open via dredging.

Okay, so halve the revenue and double the cost...it's STILL a win for whichever government undertakes the responsibility to keep it open.

The problem is, as has been stated before in the thread, that money is spent elsewhere.  The revenues are spent on non-generating projects - sinks.

My children are studying the ocean right now.  They are learning about food webs and ecosystems.  They are learning about producers and consumers. 

It could be argued that Oregon Inlet (and others) being open is a producer of revenue.

Who/where are the consumers?

[Kettlewell]

Here's an interesting report on the value of commercial and sportfishing in the U.S. It says in there that sportfishing generates $2 billion in sales and is responsible for 18,000 jobs in North Carolina alone. http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/mediacenter/2013/03/07_noaa_report_finds_commercial_and_recreational.html

[Tim]

We like to be able to have discussions about these boating issues that are in the political arena, but want to keep them to the specific topic and without rhetoric.