Today’s harbormaster doesn’t handle much ice, except in a glass, but has the job of maintaining an orderly port and harbor where the mix of vessels is diverse. For, in the end, every statute, every legal opinion and every casual discussion that has to do with harbor management focuses on harbormasters. For, no matter who it is that makes the regulations, it is the harbormaster that must apply and enforce them. Diverse responsibility is an understated description for the harbormaster’s duties, which intersect a web of federal, state and local laws. The Army Corps of Engineers’ authority is paramount for all navigable waters from high tide out to the territorial one sea limit. The U.S. Coast Guard is responsible for navigation laws. And the job of harbor, ports and local ordinances falls to the harbormaster. The days of ‘big push’ and ice are gone; shorefront condos and aquaculture leases that enlarge the harbormaster’s duties replace them. Harbormasters are essentially law enforcement officers who must deal with oil spills, waste discharge, theft, vandalism and vessel accident reports. The demands of a harbormaster’s job are great and inescapable, and are recognized by the feds and by state statute under Title 38. To do their worth they have been given recognition by the feds and by state statute under Title 38 known as the “harbormaster’s law.” There has been controversy and confusion over the title as to the distribution of harbor management authority, and it continues even today. But, in 1986 the Maine Legislature enacted a law confirming a town’s prerogative to regulate the assignment of moorings and other harbor management matters. That remains a legal right of Maine municipalities today, though somewhat misunderstood generally and challenges persist. Local harbor ordinances came about through the Maine Constitution as amended in 1971. It granted a Maine municipality the authority to adopt regulations on virtually anything occurring within its jurisdiction. This authority is commonly referred to as “home rule.” Specifically, “home rule” Article VIII states, “The inhabitants of any municipality shall have the power to alter and amend their charters in all matters not prohibited by Constitution or general law which are local and municipal in character.” When Constitutional or general law seem to challenge home rule the “more stringent” prevails. But in relation to other laws, nothing may be construed to be a limitation on the authority of municipalities to enact ordinances to regulate the assignment or placement of moorings and other activities in their harbors. State statute is specific that harbormasters are appointed; not elected. Title 38 states, “The municipal officers of a town, on request by any person desiring mooring privileges for boats or vessels, shall appoint a harbormaster for a term of not less than one year... and establish the harbormaster’s compensation.” This section of the law has been challenged more than once. In their duties, harbormasters oftentimes rile the “good ‘ol boys,” who insist they be replaced with someone of their own liking. But there was another challenge this year concerning the “any person requesting a mooring” wording of the law. It seems that some cottage owners on a Western Maine lake wanted a local ordinance for their waters, and so drew up an ordinance that the town selectmen refused. So the cottagers dredged up Title 38 and demanded a harbormaster. The town fathers complained to their State Senator and the brouhaha began. It was assumed that appointed harbormasters had authority over all waters, including inland lakes and ponds, when it came to moorings. Why anyone would want a mooring on a non-tidal lake was beside the point. So the whole mess got into the government hopper, where it was discovered that there were statutes that covered harbormasters in both salt (territorial) and freshwater. A harbormaster had been enacted in Title 12, which was concerned with invasive species such as milfoil weed. Eureka! The Saga of Siamese Harbormasters! The whole mess continued for weeks until statutes separating the two were enacted. Freshwater harbormasters can have their milfoil and authority, and Title 38 stays intact as always for the territorial waters out to three miles. When the harbormaster separation occurred so did something the Maine Harbormaster Association had been fighting for years: mandatory training for all new harbormasters, which involves an annual comprehensive training session at the Maine Maritime Academy at Castine. Public Law 525 requires this course, which, on completion, is certified by the Maine Criminal Justice Academy. Title 38 determines two categories of harbormasters, as well. The municipal officers may prohibit a harbormaster from making arrests or carrying a weapon. However–and this is the majority of harbormasters–they can issue summonses. Harbormasters authorized to carry firearms and make arrests must complete a course at the Criminal Justice Academy. Harbormasters have considerable, and sometimes unique, authority. Title 38 states that a person is guilty of failure to obey an order of a harbormaster if the person intentionally, knowingly or recklessly fails to obey any lawful order of a harbormaster. The penalty of disobeying a harbormaster is a Class E crime and is prosecuted by the District Attorney’s office. This failure to obey law is used as a last resort by most harbormasters after repeated warnings go unheeded. There is a case in one coastal municipality where the vessel owner refused to obtain a $20 mooring permit because he allegedly “didn’t like the harbormaster.” The offender moored his vessel anyway, after repeated warnings by the harbormaster not to. Subsequently, the harbormaster filed charges, including failure to obey, and after trial the defendant offender was ordered by the court to pay fines, penalties and attorney fees of over $8,000. Harbormasters have the state authority to designate mooring sites and change those sites from time to time in the event of crowding. Local ordinances, again, may prevail on mooring sites. And harbormasters have the authority, also under statute, to refuse to grant a mooring to anyone who fails to pay fines or fees.
|
