Association Forum - Pending legislation

Assn Members Area · Join

Home.

Association Forum

Ships Store

Cruising

Racing

Technical Tips

Photo Gallery - New

Boat Search - Updated

Manuals & Brochures

Swap Meet

Links

Officer Flag Line & Staff

Bylaws & Constitution

Members Area

Join the Association

Notice:
The advice given on this site is based upon individual or quoted experience, yours may differ.
The Officers, Staff and members of this site only provide information based upon the concept that anyone utilizing this information does so at their own risk and holds harmless all contributors to this site.

Association Forum

Username:	Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?

All Forums

Catalina/Capri 25/250 Sailor's Forums

General Sailing Forum

Pending legislation

New Topic

Topic Locked

Printer Friendly

Author

Topic

DanM
Captain

Member Avatar

USA
256 Posts

Initially Posted - 02/09/2008 : 08:14:32

Just passing along a newsline:
The Washington Wave -- January 17, 2008: Congress Must Act Quickly Before Costly, Unneeded, and Complex Permits Hit Recreational Boaters Nationwide

The New Year has brought something closer to reality for the nation's boaters: starting in September, for the first time in U.S. history, 73 million boaters will be required to have a national permit to enjoy their right to boat. This will seriously impact boating participation and the $40 billion U.S. boating industry unless Congress acts quickly to avert this unneeded requirement.

This is because of a 2006 federal court ruling on commercial ship ballast water that will also require national permits for the 18 million recreational boats in the U.S. by September, 2008-despite the fact that 99% of recreational boats do not have ballast tanks. These costly permits-intended for commercial ships and supertankers that have brought harmful invasive water species into U.S. waters-are currently being developed by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to tax boat engine cooling water and deck runoff.

Recreational boats are already well regulated by existing laws and stringent U.S. Coast Guard regulations, and the water-based runoffs that will be permitted by the EPA have been deemed non-pollutants essential to the safe and normal operation of a boat. NMMA is rallying public support to pass legislation currently before Congress, the Recreational Boating Act of 2007 (H.R. 2550 and S. 2067), to stop recreational boat permitting.

Support for the Recreational Boating Act is growing in Congress, with 70 cosponsors for the House bill sponsored by Reps. Gene Taylor (D-Miss.) and Candice Miller (R-Mich.); and 11 cosponsors for the Senate bill sponsored by Sen. Mel Martinez (R-Fla.). September 2007 also saw two Senate leaders, Sens. Bill Nelson (D-Fla.) and Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), speak out publicly on the issue and their views on why boaters should not be permitted.

But, with eight months to go before the court ordered deadline, time is running out for Congress to act. NMMA is hopeful the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee will take action soon to address the issue.

Take Action On-Line - You can visit www.BoatBlue.org to learn more about this important issue and to send a message to Congress to pass responsible, common-sense legislation to stop unnecessary national boat permitting

DanM _/)
'85 C25 4870
Buffalo, NY-Pt.Abino, ON
www.buffalocanoeclub.com

Edited by - on

Dave Bristle
Master Marine Consultant

Members Avatar

Djibouti
10005 Posts

Response Posted - 02/09/2008 : 22:21:04

Thanks for the reminder, Dan... I strongly suspect that the agencies involved will work to get this squashed--people like EPA, Interior, and the Coasties actually want to do important things, and this isn't one. They aren't going to want to spend a dime of their squeezed budgets on this nonsense. But it never hurts to add your voice. I also suspect it's not a bright target on the congressioal radar screens.

Edited by - on

britinusa
Web Editor

Members Avatar

USA
5404 Posts

Response Posted - 02/10/2008 : 10:22:51

Not exactly an Election issue even down here! (not that our delgates count!)
Totally agree with Dave, but FWIW, last year when we launched at a state park (John Pennekamp State Park Key largo Florida) we pulled the boat out and drained the ballast on the hard rather than hold up the only ramp open at the time. A park service guy came up to us and started to cite rules and regs for water ballast. I explained that it was water from the marina and he was ok.

If the water ballast restrictions came into play then it really would be an issue! How would they (authorities) handle the discharge before trailering! Imagine the cost to each park to provide drainage facilities (run off would probably be forbidden) They would have to have some service (I spy pump out or ground sump) to collect the water, then there is the treatment to prevent release of organisms. It just becomes a nightmare!

paul

Edited by - on

Dave Bristle
Master Marine Consultant

Members Avatar

Djibouti
10005 Posts

Response Posted - 02/10/2008 : 11:19:55

Interesting... As I've thought about this subject (but not much), I haven't been considering water-ballasted sailboats. My C-25 and my current $+!nkp*+ didn't have any water in the bilge or in ballast tanks, so these regs seemed ludicrous. But water-ballasted sailboats going from one lake to another is an issue--this is how zebra mussels, for one, are migrating between fresh-water lakes. And that's a significant problem. What is a practical solution? Perhaps this group, which sees it up-close, should propose something that could help break a logjam at state as well as federal levels.

I think a piece of it is to get everyone to take the focus off salt water venues... I'm not aware of this being an issue there. Some other problems have caused the introduction of species of wildlife in places like The Everglades, but I'm not aware of freighter ballast being the cause. (It clearly was with zebras in the Great Lakes.) And there's probably no way to prevent freighters from ejecting ballast a few miles out in the ocean. The St. Lawrence provides a gateway for the Great Lakes--there's no such thing in the oceans.

So, if we're talking about lakes, what's the practical solution?? You Kansas and Texas and Tennessee and Ohio other sailors don't want these things happening to your inland lakes--trust me!

Edited by - Dave Bristle on 02/10/2008 11:22:59

John Russell
Master Marine Consultant

Members Avatar

USA
3444 Posts

Response Posted - 02/10/2008 : 11:28:14

I wonder if it wouldn't be something as simple as chlorinating the ballast tanks on a small, recreational vessel. Or, some other bio-toxin that has a relatively short life and would be rendered harmless before ejection from the tanks. Any bio-chemists out there?

Edited by - on

Topic

New Topic

Topic Locked

Printer Friendly

Jump To:

Association Forum

Notice: The advice given on this site is based upon individual or quoted experience, yours may differ.
The Officers, Staff and members of this site only provide information based upon the concept that anyone utilizing this information does so at their own risk and holds harmless all contributors to this site.