||| FROM THE ONBUOY CREW |||
An integral part of OnBuoy’s mission is to reduce anchor damage through shared moorage. We just received an update on a legislative proposal we have been spearheading, which aims to reduce anchor damage and encourage better stewardship of Washington’s nearshore environments.
The bill, HB 2395, clarifies state law to allow limited, non-commercial sharing of existing private recreational mooring buoys and docks. The underlying premise is that expanding access to existing, properly maintained moorage can reduce unnecessary anchor drops—particularly in sensitive eelgrass and bull kelp habitats—without adding new structures to the water.
If you are part of the Washington boating community or an environmental advocate for our waters and also see the value in this effort , we’d really appreciate your support and input on this initiative. If you’re open to supporting the effort with OnBuoy, that support would carry meaningful weight.
|
Learn more about the bill and how to contact your representatives to share your support on our blog here. |
**If you are reading theOrcasonian for free, thank your fellow islanders. If you would like to support theOrcasonian CLICK HERE to set your modestly-priced, voluntary subscription. Otherwise, no worries; we’re happy to share with you.**
Oh good! It’s like vacation rentals for boats, leading to moorings being bought and sold as money making instruments- thus making it that much harder for locals to find a home for their boats.
How about instead of supporting this commercialization of our waters we let Reps. Ramen and Lekanoff know we oppose this bill and support instead a thoughtful look at when and where boats passing through the islands can drop their anchors.?
The article refers to “limited, non-commercial sharing” but the OnBuoy.com website states: “Find short-term guest moorage and protect the ocean floor with OnBuoy. All moorages inspected & maintained. Book and pay for moorage from your phone.”
A testimonial on the website further states: “Our mooring ball sits unused most of the year. OnBuoy makes it easy for us to share our buoy with boaters passing through our area and we earn a little money in the process.”
So what’s really going on here? Looks like a software company lobbying for legislation that would make them rich.
If you actually read the bill, you will note that this does not allow “moorings being bought and sold “. Reading further into section 3, the most an owner (who must also own the upland parcel) can collect each year is three times the annual maintenance cost of the buoy. Lastly, the land in which most buoys are installed are owned by ALL the people of Washington, not just the people of San Juan County.
All I ever hear from the “Friends” is concern about eel grass habitat destruction. Taking their argument at full face value, I would expect them to support an initiative like this. I challenge them to comment here in this comment section – what a perfect opportunity for them.
Malcolm is correct. This is a form of short-term vacation rental.
Increased pleasure boaters = increased tourism. Increasing the availability of moorings and dock spaces to pleasure boaters by allowing the rental of privately owned unused dock spaces and moorings is unacceptable to me… we have enough summer tourists, (and the impacts thereof).
I suggest that there’s a thin line between “build it and they will come,” and “allow it and they will come.” In this context I believe they are the same.
From the draft SJC Destination Management Plan (2023)
Strategies–
“Infrastructure – There is a complex interaction between visitor numbers, the quality of site conditions, and the infrastructure to handle them. If visitation continues to grow, the Islands will need increased infrastructure to maintain high quality conditions. However, it is important to recognize that improved infrastructure may also attract additional use (“build it and they will come”), so capacity analysis remains an important design element or boundary condition of any project. Infrastructure must be developed in balance with an intentional capacity.”