STORY TOOLS

• E-mail story
• iPod friendly
• Printer friendly

Tell us about it

• What would you add to this story? Tell us what we missed.
• Do you have photos from this event? Documents we need to see? Share with us.
• Upload photos & videos
• More ways to get your stuff online and in the paper.

More Fishing and Boating

• Angler's Outlook: Beat the heat, avoid the rain
• Fishing: World's largest shark in Gulf a whale of a sight
• Buckling up for boat safety

Share and Enjoy [?]

A Collier County judge said it would take 10 to 14 days for him to rule following a Friday hearing on the constitutionality of a Marco Island city ordinance that restricts boat anchoring in its waterways.

Judge Rob Crown listened to 8.5 hours of testimony from legal and law enforcement officials in addition to Marco residents about how the ordinance, which limits boat anchoring to a maximum six days within city boundaries, was developed and how recent changes to the state statute that governs the issue might affect local jurisdiction over anchoring.

The case has attracted substantial interest from boater’s rights groups around the country and the eventual outcome could have an impact on local anchoring ordinances across the state.

As expected, Friday’s court hearing centered on the meaning of the words “in navigation” as reflected in state law. Florida prohibits local restrictions on anchoring of vessels “in navigation.” The City of Marco Island, represented by its city attorney Dan Abbott, argued its restriction against vessels anchoring for more than a maximum six days was allowed because those boats were no longer in navigation. The defense, represented by Naples attorney Donald Day, contended a 2005 U.S. Supreme Court decision and testimony offered Friday by the lawyer who drafted the phrase “in navigation” in state law rendered Marco’s ordinance too restrictive.

The case began in January after Marco resident Dave Dumas, 65, intentionally violated the city ordinance to have it challenged in court. The ordinance itself was passed after a considerable amount of public debate by the Marco’ Island City Council in April 2006.

But the adoption of the ordinance occurred prior to a 2006 change in state law that altered the section dealing with municipal regulation of anchoring.

The lawyer who drafted the changes to the state law, Capt. Alan Richard of the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, appeared as an expert witness for the defense telephonically from his office in Tallahassee. Richard wrote the changes at the request of state Rep. Mitch Needleman, R-Melbourne, who chaired the state’s environmental regulation committee.

Richard said he changed the language to “in navigation” to reflect the original intent of the state law by mirroring a 2005 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that vessels were “in navigation” if they were capable of being used for water transport.

Richard added that definition would include Dumas’ boat in this case and testified he believed the Marco ordinance was unconstitutional.

He called the definition “crystal clear.”

From that testimony, Day argued that the legislative intent of the 2006 change was clear.

“The Legislature intended that the very thing we’re here for to argue to stop,” he said.

In response, Abbott contended the state’s definition was far from “crystal clear.” He argued that the FWCC’s recent decision to contract with the University of Florida to recommend an overhaul of the entire statute was proof of that. Instead, Abbott said, a “reasonable” understanding of the phrase should be used.

“The whole issue is, is (Marco’s ordinance) a reasonable point at which a vessel is no longer in navigation?” he said.

Additionally, Day presented nine other arguments why Marco’s ordinance was unconstitutional and focused on whether the city’s position that it was protecting its residents’ “health, safety and welfare” under the state’s “home rule” provisions was founded.

The city’s two witnesses on the matter, Bill McMullan and Dennis Morrissette who co-chair the organization which pushed for the ordinance’s adoption, presented significant anecdotal evidence of problems with pollution and damaged caused by transient boaters. But when pressed by Day, neither could produce any official documentation of problems with transient boaters prior to the ordinance’s passage.