High water mark ruling.

Longest running airboat discussion on the internet.
Post Reply
bentonquick
Site Supporter - VIII
Site Supporter - VIII
Posts: 234
Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2006 7:43 am
Location: Polk Co., Fl.

High water mark ruling.

Post by bentonquick »

Has anyone heard anything on the progress of HB1103? Politicians trying to take our marches, lakes and rivers away from us sportsmen. I have sent several e mails and made phone calls denouncing the bill. I hope everyone else has also.

pirate
Site Supporter - V
Site Supporter - V
Posts: 1497
Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2005 1:46 pm
Location: Hernando Fl

Re: High water mark ruling.

Post by pirate »

Compromise is failure on the installment plan.

bentonquick
Site Supporter - VIII
Site Supporter - VIII
Posts: 234
Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2006 7:43 am
Location: Polk Co., Fl.

Re: High water mark ruling.

Post by bentonquick »

Thanks Pirate :old_glory: :proud: :rebel: :florida:

User avatar
FLCGC4H2O
Southern Airboat Member
Posts: 179
Joined: Thu Jun 24, 2010 8:16 pm
Location: Live in G'ville, From Cocoa

Re: High water mark ruling.

Post by FLCGC4H2O »

I have carefully read through the bill. I have some questions that others may have as well:
Considering HB253.024:

1. Who is to say what construes as as "freshet"? It is not clearly defined anywhere I can tell, and could be determined to be whatever the lawmakers want it to be. :dontknow:
2. What is an "inundation of water" outside of a rain or snow melt? Does this mean that farmers/landowners with wiers, dams, canals or any other water control structure can now manipulate the water level on thier properties as to flood the neighboring or adjoining soverign lands so that those lands are now incorporated or covered under this bill? Whats up with that? :dontknow:
3. When restructuring/defining Ordinary High Water Mark, WHO defines what "Swamp" and "Overflow Lands" truly are? EPA, Local WMD? We ALL know these guys are on our side...(sacrasm intended). :roll:
4. One of my favorites: Part 2, section b: "At this level, a definate escarpement in the soil is generally traceable, at the top of which is the position of the boundary. How is something "definate" only "generally" traceable. Translation: WE WILL DETERMINE THE SOIL CHARACTERISTICS AND RECORD THEM HOW WE WANT AND THAT DETERMINES HOW MUCH LAND WE TAKE. Furthermore, "at the top of which" tells me that the highest level that this escarpment is found is what they are going to take. This could result in an enormous area depending on how they test the soils and when they test. Who knows? :scratch:
5. If this escarpment analysis yeilds a large area to be excluded as soverign lands, (such as lake shore or river edge) who is to say that it will not impact the environment and nobody learned anything when drying up Kissimmee River Valley or the Glades??? What about the vegitation, animals, critters, bugs, etc. that use this area to live? :violent1:
These are just questions I have about the origin of the language of the bill. I have further concern for the lack of citizens rights over the benefits of big money & taxes. :angry5: :banghead:
JMO anyways. :old_glory:
14' Alumitech 383 SBC 2.68 Rotator 3 blade 80" Sens. R
Polished sst rigging 3/8 poly goes where you want it to.

User avatar
plumcrazy
Site Supporter - V
Site Supporter - V
Posts: 8697
Joined: Thu Apr 06, 2006 10:10 am
Location: avon park

Re: High water mark ruling.

Post by plumcrazy »

heres a perfect example of sumerged land over a hundred years ago and stupid laws like this one will only make it worse
Image grafic obtained by rosobac sa member

User avatar
glades cat
Site Supporter - III
Site Supporter - III
Posts: 3042
Joined: Mon Jan 22, 2007 2:36 pm
Location: Miami, Fl

Re: High water mark ruling.

Post by glades cat »

So all public land inside the yellow should be available.
If it's navigable by an airboat, which is defined as a boat, whether wet or dry at the present time, should be considered inclusive.

Good graphic map.
"Leave a legacy...Preserve the irreplaceable"
12' x 7' sled built by Scorpion, Cont. O-470-K, 72" Whisper Tip
Rigged by Gladescat & sons in 2009

Eric Kimmel
Site Supporter - II
Site Supporter - II
Posts: 1484
Joined: Sat Jan 26, 2008 3:27 pm
Location: Miami

Re: High water mark ruling.

Post by Eric Kimmel »

I got this on my email


Don't know if any of y'all have seen Tom Goodson reply but here is how he's returning to people who inquire on House Bill 1103


> Subject: FW: HB 1103 OPPOSE
> Got this back from Tom Goodson, I don know if anyone else has received this response, but thought it would be interesting feedback.


> From: Slocum, Kerensa [mailto:Kerensa.Slocum@myfloridahouse.gov]

> Subject: RE: HB 1103 OPPOSE

> Thank you for contacting me regarding your concerns with HB 1103. As your State Representative, I take your concerns into consideration when making a decision that will affect all the residents of Florida. I have taken this opportunity to explain further what HB 1103 would accomplish is passed.
>

> In 1845, when Florida gained statehood, the federal government conveyed to Florida ownership of all lands lying beneath the navigable waters in the state, up to the ordinary high water line (OHWL).1 The state Constitution provides that navigable waters in the state must be held in public trust for the people of Florida.2 Florida statutes currently do not define the OHWL, nor do they provide any guidance for how the location of the OHWL should be determined.

> In all fairness, HB 1103 has been misunderstood to be a bill that would define the "Ordinary High Water Line" as a line that is not consistent with current case law. As a matter of fact, that is false; the cases determined by the Florida Supreme Court of Tilden and Martin uphold the criteria for determining the location of the Ordinary High Water Line that has historically been the standard. This bill clearly states its intentions in defining that line which would be the highest reach of a water-body as it normally stands throughout the year. The Ordinary High Water Line is not regarded as the highest point during the wet season or the lowest point during the dry season. All HB 1103 seeks to do is to codify those findings into law.
>
> Unfortunately there are certain groups resorting to scare tactics when it comes to this very clear and simple piece of legislation. HB 1103 does not permit the development of environmentally sensitive lands as some of these groups claim, nor does it alter the public's right to use navigable waters and sovereignty submerged lands for public trust purposes up to the Ordinary High-Water Mark. Environmentally sensitive lands would still be protected, and the ownership, by the public, of sovereignty submerged lands lying below the mark as defined in the bill would not be changed if HB 1103 should pass.
>
> Please take the time to review HB 1103 and its staff analysis. Each link is provided below. http://myfloridahouse.gov/Sections/Docu ... ssion=2012
>
> http://myfloridahouse.gov/Sections/Docu ... ssion=2012

bentonquick
Site Supporter - VIII
Site Supporter - VIII
Posts: 234
Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2006 7:43 am
Location: Polk Co., Fl.

Re: High water mark ruling.

Post by bentonquick »

I do not believe Tom Goodson

crackercwboy
Site Supporter - III
Site Supporter - III
Posts: 390
Joined: Wed May 24, 2006 7:26 pm
Location: Cocoa, Fl

Re: High water mark ruling.

Post by crackercwboy »

bentonquick wrote:I do not believe Tom Goodson
I dont know Goodsons stance on this but I do know he is a big hunter and outdoorsman.

User avatar
MarshRider
Site Supporter - VIII
Site Supporter - VIII
Posts: 684
Joined: Sat Aug 04, 2007 11:58 am
Location: Tallahassee, FLorida
Contact:

Re: High water mark ruling.

Post by MarshRider »

I am proud to say that FAA lead the way to kill this bill
"Black Flag Dead.!
"

I testified of behalf of all sportsmen and against the bill in its only hearing and followed it
every step of the way. At one point, there were 13 other bills that could have been amended
with this language. I watched them all.

We were joined by a number of environmental organizations and as of 12:00 midnight
Friday, session ended and the bill is dead....for this year....

I think they will try again but FAA is always in the capitol doing
our best to protect the rights, freedoms and interests of airboaters and
all sportsmen.

bonnie
FAA Corporate Member
TexasAirboatAssociation 099
NebraskaAirboatAssociation Life Member
NEVER GIVE UP!!
http://www.marshridermagazine.com

User avatar
Tony480
Site Supporter - I
Site Supporter - I
Posts: 5277
Joined: Sun Sep 10, 2006 5:52 pm
Location: lake county

Re: High water mark ruling.

Post by Tony480 »

MarshRider wrote:I am proud to say that FAA lead the way to kill this bill
"Black Flag Dead.!
"

I testified of behalf of all sportsmen and against the bill in its only hearing and followed it
every step of the way. At one point, there were 13 other bills that could have been amended
with this language. I watched them all.

We were joined by a number of environmental organizations and as of 12:00 midnight
Friday, session ended and the bill is dead....for this year....

I think they will try again but FAA is always in the capitol doing
our best to protect the rights, freedoms and interests of airboaters and
all sportsmen.

bonnie
Thank you very much for all you guys do!!!!!

User avatar
radtech
Site Supporter - II
Site Supporter - II
Posts: 2317
Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 6:48 pm
Location: Bonaire, GA
Contact:

Re: High water mark ruling.

Post by radtech »

bentonquick wrote:Has anyone heard anything on the progress of HB1103? Politicians trying to take our marches, lakes and rivers away from us sportsmen. I have sent several e mails and made phone calls denouncing the bill. I hope everyone else has also.
marches????? where are you marching? I think you mean marshes. Sorry, just getting tired of reading illiterate posts

User avatar
MarshRider
Site Supporter - VIII
Site Supporter - VIII
Posts: 684
Joined: Sat Aug 04, 2007 11:58 am
Location: Tallahassee, FLorida
Contact:

Re: High water mark ruling.

Post by MarshRider »

Tony480
You're welcome.

We are all in this together and there are a lot of S.A. members who pitched in
and wrote letters and made phone calls and reported back to me about what they were hearing.

This is a team effort - and it was really great to have legislators tell me about the calls
and emails they were receiving. You guys really helped make the point that the state should never
be in the position of taking our sovereign land away from us, the citizens, and give it to private
landowners.

Bonnie
FAA Corporate Member
TexasAirboatAssociation 099
NebraskaAirboatAssociation Life Member
NEVER GIVE UP!!
http://www.marshridermagazine.com

Olf Art
Site Supporter - VIII
Site Supporter - VIII
Posts: 11851
Joined: Sat Jun 03, 2006 6:33 pm
Location: Plant City, FL

Re: High water mark ruling.

Post by Olf Art »

Thank you, Bonnie ..... again. I know that a lot of what both you and the FAA have accomplished together is often overlooked, usually by a bunch of whiners like the current bunch looking for ways to skirt the State muffler law. The law very clearly says 'mufflers', but for reasons only they would know they keep trying to come up with some cheapass substitute in hopes that they can fool an enforcement officer into thinking that they have somehow complied with the regulation. The whole original idea of 'getting quieter' be damned .... the object of the game seems to be to try and fool enforcement into thinking that they're somehow 'legal' and good to go, no matter how loud their pig is.

I'm done with it. I'm over it. I've been beating the 'quiet boat' drum since '97 and very few have listened, so it is what it is I quess, and I at least have the satisfaction of knowing that I tried.

Anyway ..... Thank You for all you do!

Olf
"I know not what tomorrow may bring, but I know Who brings tomorrow."
Member: KRVSA, FAA, TAA, and life member NRA and VFW

User avatar
Crazy Frog
Southern Airboat Member
Posts: 749
Joined: Sun Dec 21, 2008 7:19 pm
Location: Ocala, Fl.

Re: High water mark ruling.

Post by Crazy Frog »

MarshRider wrote:I am proud to say that FAA lead the way to kill this bill
"Black Flag Dead.!
"

I testified of behalf of all sportsmen and against the bill in its only hearing and followed it
every step of the way. At one point, there were 13 other bills that could have been amended
with this language. I watched them all.

We were joined by a number of environmental organizations and as of 12:00 midnight
Friday, session ended and the bill is dead....for this year....

I think they will try again but FAA is always in the capitol doing
our best to protect the rights, freedoms and interests of airboaters and
all sportsmen.

bonnie
A big THANKS' to ya! Bonnie and all of the other's that step up and fight for our rights! :usa:
Last edited by Crazy Frog on Mon Mar 12, 2012 10:57 am, edited 1 time in total.

makinwaves
Southern Airboat Member
Posts: 229
Joined: Tue Dec 16, 2008 7:57 pm
Location: desoto county,fla

Re: High water mark ruling.

Post by makinwaves »

thanks Bonnie, Bishop and all who werk hard for our rites.
i also wont to reckognize the individuels hoo spend ther valuble time spellchecking our posts. thaxs.

caveman
Southern Airboat Member
Posts: 226
Joined: Sat Feb 19, 2011 11:13 am

Re: High water mark ruling.

Post by caveman »

Thanks rddtec, I guess correct spelling is more important to you than the bill. I will try harder to make you happy. Great job MarshRider, thanks. Well put makinwaves.

PANAMA RED
Site Supporter - IV
Site Supporter - IV
Posts: 209
Joined: Thu Apr 17, 2008 6:23 pm

Re: High water mark ruling.

Post by PANAMA RED »

Once again " THANK-YOU " , Bonnie , and all of "FAA" , for the work you all do behind the scenes , that most of all of us never realize is happening , until we find a ramp closed or off limit sign . It's good to know we got folks working for us to keep our sport alive and able . THANKS AGAIN :!: :cheers:

Now we just have to fiqure out a way for "all " ( meaning a select few ) , airboaters to work together , and not ruin it for ourselves :scratch: ( J M O ) .
PANAMARED

Post Reply

Return to “Airboat Talk”