Abandoned vessels, what's the solution?

[rwsandersii]

Expand the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund. As it exists if the Captain of the Port deems the vessel a threat to the environment based on the presence of hazmat or oil that may cause a sheen, sludge or emulsion, the COTP is authorized to remove the vessel. Most won't take this step but the authority is there. The Coast Guard just doesn't want the responsibility for abandoned vessels to fall on them.
I used the authority as a FOSCR (Federal On-Scene Coordinator's Representative). In this case I took a less drastic step and identified the owner and asked them to sign a document stating that they understood their vessel posed a risk to the environment and the best way to mitigate the threat is to have the vessel removed and disposed of. One vessel that looked like it had nothing aboard spewed a gallons of lube oil on the dock from the engine when it was removed by clamshell crane.
Currently vessels and facilities have to contract with a Oil Spill Removal Organization (OSRO) in case they have a spill, but since most are not full time employees, it causes delays in response. I think if the OSLTF was expanded, some of the money could be used to remove abandoned vessels and to clean the beaches.

 

[capta]

I did that with my old hobie cat. The town dump charges me by weight for the disposal of the hull and the salvage yard down the road paid me for the aluminum and steal. I made about $40. Chainsaws are easy tools to use on fiberglass. Can reduce a hull to pickup bed size chunks pretty quickly.


Not a bad idea. However, don't shipyards take a deposit against abandonment when they accept a boat into their yard? My guess is they pocket the abandonment deposit and let the abandoned boats sit in their yards even though they have already mitigated the cost of disposal on the front end. Then, they complain that it is too expensive to have that boat hauled away.
-Will

It would

As soon as you think it is simple, it is not. The deposit cost will be higher than the value of the boat, resulting in a huge dump of boats that are untraceable. Secondly, how to you enforce it for trailer sailors? I have a couple of boats that have not seen water in years. if such a rule came about, who is going to come after me. These are small boats that at some point I will take a sawsall to them, once I strip for parts. But why should I pay a security deposit for a boat that is not in the water?

If you register it, you should have to pay the bond. If you can prove the boat has been destroyed or sold you get your bond back, with interest. If you don't register it, then its a double whammy, if you get caught.

 

[dlochner]

Expand the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund. As it exists if the Captain of the Port deems the vessel a threat to the environment based on the presence of hazmat or oil that may cause a sheen, sludge or emulsion, the COTP is authorized to remove the vessel. Most won't take this step but the authority is there. The Coast Guard just doesn't want the responsibility for abandoned vessels to fall on them.
I used the authority as a FOSCR (Federal On-Scene Coordinator's Representative). In this case I took a less drastic step and identified the owner and asked them to sign a document stating that they understood their vessel posed a risk to the environment and the best way to mitigate the threat is to have the vessel removed and disposed of. One vessel that looked like it had nothing aboard spewed a gallons of lube oil on the dock from the engine when it was removed by clamshell crane.
Currently vessels and facilities have to contract with a Oil Spill Removal Organization (OSRO) in case they have a spill, but since most are not full time employees, it causes delays in response. I think if the OSLTF was expanded, some of the money could be used to remove abandoned vessels and to clean the beaches.

At least in Florida many of the abandoned boats are in areas governed by a captain of the port. They are along the ICW and in the channels leading through marsh lands and the bays and backwaters near towns.

Owners of derelict vessels across Florida could soon have a free option for disposal

A program through the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission is aimed at quickly removing privately owned boats that have been abandoned or wrecked.

wusfnews.wusf.usf.edu

 

[jviss]

I abhor the bond idea, I think it would have far-reaching negative consequences, including many unintended consequences and opportunities for corruption. We don't do that for cars, yet folks abandon these, push them into ponds, and there are vast tracts called "junk yards" full of junk vehicles.

I think one solution might be to put a bounty on them, allow private bounty hunters to figure out who owns them and pursue them financially. Sure, many who abandon boats are broke, I imagine, but not all. Perhaps those who have assets and are caught could be assessed an additional amount, a "tax," to help defer the cost of disposal of abandoned vessels of the destitute.

By the way, if those abandoned vessels had any value, why wouldn't salvors grab them?

I had a friend who owned a boatyard in NYC, and he had lots of abandoned vessels there - meaning, boats on which the owners, who he knew, hadn't paid their bills. A few times he went to court to take legal possession so he could dispose of them, but it was a process so expensive and time consuming it wasn't worth it. So, they boats just sit there.

 

[SailingLoto]

Here in Missouri, and as a marine mechanic, we have a problem with motor boats... people bring them in for repair, get the estimate and never pick them up. The last shop I worked for had probably 30 boats out back. Some sat for months, others for decades. The current shop I work for we are more proactive about trashing them. We hauled off 5-6 last years.

As a business, this sucks.... we have time invested in diagnosing and creating an estimate for repair, that the customer never pays because they are blown away by the cost of boating. Then it has to sit the for awhile taking up space, looking aweful and getting worse while we wait for you to come get your boat. If it's a decent boat, after 6 months we contact the highway patrol and apply for an abandonment title. This too takes time and money. The highway patrol is busy with other things, so they never show up to fill out the paperwork and verify the HIN. So it sits longer... we continue calling you. We offer to waive what you owe, just so you will haul it off our lot.
Eventually we pull it in, strip anything of value (which is usually minimal), pump out the fuel (which costs money to dispose of), remove the fuel tank per dump's requirements, then haul it off to the dump to get crushed and buried.
So now, we are out the money from the original diagnosis labor, it's sat there for over a year taking up space, we have labor in trying to get the paperwork right, we have paid 2 techs to strip the boat , paid for fuel and oil disposal, and paid to haul it off on top of the disposal fee at the dump.

We figured it up, it costs the business between $1500-$2500 per boat, depending on size just for us to dispose of it. This is not including income lost while having to screw around with prepping it, the time spent shuffling it around the lot over the year, etc...

We also can't sell parts off it as it sits there. It is your property until we strip it... people do not usually send us the titles, so it can't be resold as a project.

The only thing we may gain in the end is a questionable outdrive. Which if and when we sell it, the next customer will inevitably have an issue with and expect us to cover the expense of repairing. So yeah... we try not to sell used outdrives. We may also end up with trailer, with no title, usually 25 year old tires and a broken bunk or two. Anyone want to buy a 19-22ft trailer? We have a dozen.. lol. No title, needs work.

Yeah, abandoned boats suck. It's not just an environmental issue or an eyesore, it's a financial drain on your local marina and boat shops.

 

[Daveinet]

It would

If you register it, you should have to pay the bond. If you can prove the boat has been destroyed or sold you get your bond back, with interest. If you don't register it, then its a double whammy, if you get caught.

But at that point you take away my ability to own the boat, as the bond cost puts the boat out of my budget. I strongly oppose you taking away my hobby. You add another 30% to 40% to the cost of ownership. This is a hobby I do on the cheap. As soon as you add the cost of a bond, you price the cost of ownership out of the market.
Why do you rich people keep oppressing the poor?? Your idea is very offensive.

 

[Scott T-Bird]

Why do you rich people keep oppressing the poor?? Your idea is very offensive.

That's silly. There is a cost of entry for every recreational activity. There needs to be a monetary incentive to do the right thing and dispose of boats the right way. If there is no incentive, then we live with abandoned boats as eyesores. So far, that hasn't bothered me personally, but I get the objection to it. @SailingLoto illustrates what a drain abandoned boats are on the marina industry and I agree that they need a much easier process to take control of abandoned boats. On the other side of the coin, I think that Marinas also have an obligation to fund disposal costs and take away any incentive to simply store abandoned boats where they have wasted space.

I think the only way to make it work is to fund disposal up front and get redemption when you either sell the boat with value or dispose of the boat properly. Setting up a funded disposal program should be designed to increase availability to boat owners (make it easier to get boats transported to a disposal site, or perhaps provide business opportunities for a waterfront disposal operation to make it easier for boat owners), and reduce costs of disposal to keep bond prices low.

If you pay in at the onset (when you buy a new or used boat) you get redemption when you either sell it in a valuable condition or dispose of it properly. When infused with money at the onset, the program should have continuous funding to enable redemption at each transaction. Bonding costs would probably need to be fluid in order to keep the program properly funded, but that would be up to accountants to figure out. When a boat is turned in for disposal, there would need to be proof of ownership to discourage thieves from stealing boats just for the redemption. Of course with every program, there are people who will game the system. If that's your only objection, then obviously you think nothing about solving this problem, and I get that, too. Personally, I'm not affected by abandoned boats. But, it does make some sense to have responsibility for disposal at any time that you purchase either a new or used boat.

 

[stickinthemud57]

I don't agree with the notion that there is a bureaucratic solution to this problem.

For sake of argument, let's say there was a fee assessed upon transfer of boat title in an amount necessary to dispose of the boat. Either that fee would be refundable upon proof of proper disposal or not. If refundable, it's likely that the disposal costs at the end of the boat's life (which could be 50 years or more) would vastly exceed the refund, so the owner would have little incentive to do the right thing and my just choose to abandon it. If the fee were kept, the owner would feel they already paid for the cost of disposal with the same result. In any event, money collected by a government bureaucracy would suffer the waste and malfeasance of most government programs. Also, this fee would have to somehow be absorbed by anyone buying a used boat. Whole 'nuther can of worms there.

In a previous post, I cited a company that has figured out a way to effectively deal with old fiberglass hulls, and is expanding their operation. They have recycled 60 tons of fiberglass in the last two years. From their web site:

"The RIMTA Foundation, which is developing a sustainable financial model for fiberglass boat recycling, will use the federal funding to assist Washington and states in the New England region with improving upon and replicating the Rhode Island Fiberglass Boat Recycling Program."

Those interested can learn more at this link.

The problem of removal of hull numbers could be solved at the point of manufacture by introducing multiple passive RFID chips encoded with the hull number into the hull during layup. These are inexpensive and small, and only a very enterprising person with the ability to locate and remove every chip in the boat could thwart the system. The knowledge that their abandoned boat could be traced back to them would be a deterrent to abandonment, or at least prompt them to abandon the boat in deep water. This would require an accomplice, so maybe the shame factor would limit this practice.

Of course, this fix would only work with new boats, so for the next 50 years or so recycling programs like the one mentioned may be the best hope.

 

[Scott T-Bird]

I don't like bureaucratic solutions either, for all of the same reasons already provided. But I also don't think there is or ever will be an economic reason to recycle boats for materials or temporary housing. I like the idea of deterrence via technology. I think that has potential ... except it all falls down with lack of prosecution. We are about as serious about prosecution in this country as we are about effective bureaucracy!

 

[stickinthemud57]

I don't like bureaucratic solutions either, for all of the same reasons already provided. But I also don't think there is or ever will be an economic reason to recycle boats for materials or temporary housing. I like the idea of deterrence via technology. I think that has potential ... except it all falls down with lack of prosecution. We are about as serious about prosecution in this country as we are about effective bureaucracy!

I agree that surplus boats are not a viable housing alternative. Too many other more practical solutions.

For some, knowing a hull is RFID tagged may be deterrent enough. For others, a few high-profile prosecutions might be what it takes. 100% compliance will never happen, but as cheap and easy to add as RFID chips are, I think they would be a viable solution to the identification problem, and maybe enough to keep the government off the backs of boat manufacturers. I can also envision a system where state agencies incentivize DIY installation of RFID chips in existing boats. The little suckers are the size of a little fingernail, can be easily hidden, and can be made with self-adhesive strips.

Keep this in mind - something bureaucracies are especially good at is generating revenue through fines. If all it takes is an RFID reader to determine the owner of a hull, the Authority Having Jurisdiction could deputize volunteers to go out and collect hull numbers to feed into the revenue mill. Of course, laws would have to written such that revenues are actually used to deal with the abandoned vessels.

As for an economic reason for recycling fiberglass boat hulls, RIMTA has at least found a use for them. Apparently there is enough interest on the part of the federal government to drive expansion of their efforts to other New England states. Whether it ever becomes self-sustaining is the big question. Possible? Yes. I think it depends on dedication, innovation, and local cooperation.

 

[Scott T-Bird]

It's really pretty simple ... nobody willingly disposes of a boat in a proper manner, ever, because 1) it's too expensive; and, 2) it is really inconvenient to find a place to take it. So, to solve those problems, there has to be a financial incentive to take a valueless boat to a readily available disposal site. That requires a program ... who organizes it and funds it?

 

[Siamese]

I can't get excited about a government solution at all. That's how things get done poorly and at great expense.

 

[capta]

But at that point you take away my ability to own the boat, as the bond cost puts the boat out of my budget. I strongly oppose you taking away my hobby. You add another 30% to 40% to the cost of ownership. This is a hobby I do on the cheap. As soon as you add the cost of a bond, you price the cost of ownership out of the market.
Why do you rich people keep oppressing the poor?? Your idea is very offensive.

OMG I wish I was rich. Yeah, I am so rich I spent 5 of the last 11 years chartering to make ends meet to cruise in the summers. Or, the other way around, we are so poor that they call us "po" because we can't afford the other two letters.
I guess you haven't traveled very much or ever been a bad enough boy to need to get a bond. A bond is usually set at 10%, you don't pay the full amount. When you end ownership of a boat, the bond's man gets his money with interest and you get back the thing you put up for collateral. I mentioned both above, and I'd much rather pay the whole bond myself and get the interest, but if you can't afford that you'll have to go anther way.
I don't know what sort of boat you sail, or its worth, but it sounds as if you don't have much invested in your boat, so the cost could be minimal for you. But if you are as "poor" as you indicate, then you are in the target group that might abandon a boat.
If one is a responsible boat owner, then this would cost you very little or you could even get interest on the money. Everybody has to pay if they wish to play, no matter what you do in this world. I've never heard anybody else say that sailing "is a hobby I do on the cheap". Most, even us "po" people, often say a boat is a hole in the water into which we drop money.

 

[capta]

I can't get excited about a government solution at all. That's how things get done poorly and at great expense.

It doesn't have to be a government agency that issues the bond which you show the officials. There are lots of ways to do this to make it an important change, having the individual owners pay only to have their boat removed if they abandon it, not you paying to remove someone else's boat.

 

[jviss]

having the individual owners pay only to have their boat removed if they abandon it

You can't squeeze blood from a stone.

 

[capta]

You can't squeeze blood from a stone.

But you can get money from a bond. It is a non-governmental solution to what is becoming a pretty big problem, don't you think?

 

[Scott T-Bird]

You can't squeeze blood from a stone.

That's exactly why there needs to be a program to fund disposal up front. You want to buy a new boat? Fine, you pay for it's disposal when you buy the boat. You get your money back (redeem your bond) when you take the boat to the disposal site, many, many years later. You sell your boat before it has lost all its value? There are various ways to handle it and I'm not sure what would be less confusing. I suppose it could be easiest if the bond is simply transferred with the boat. That way buyer and seller negotiates the transaction. But if that doesn't work, then the seller redeems the bond upon sale and the buyer is forced to buy a new bond for the used boat. When the boat has no value and finally the last owner is a poor bloke who has no money, at least he/she should have a convenient location to dispose the boat and redeem the bond. The stone doesn't need to be squeezed because the stone gets softened up with some coin.

 

[jviss]

That's exactly why there needs to be a program to fund disposal up front. You want to buy a new boat? Fine, you pay for it's disposal when you buy the boat. You get your money back (redeem your bond) when you take the boat to the disposal site, many, many years later. You sell your boat before it has lost all its value? There are various ways to handle it and I'm not sure what would be less confusing. I suppose it could be easiest if the bond is simply transferred with the boat. That way buyer and seller negotiates the transaction. But if that doesn't work, then the seller redeems the bond upon sale and the buyer is forced to buy a new bond for the used boat. When the boat has no value and finally the last owner is a poor bloke who has no money, at least he/she should have a convenient location to dispose the boat and redeem the bond. The stone doesn't need to be squeezed because the stone gets softened up with some coin.

Why do you want to kill the boat business?

 

[jviss]

But you can get money from a bond. It is a non-governmental solution to what is becoming a pretty big problem, don't you think?

Is it really a big problem? Compared to what? Any worse than junked or abandoned cars? Why not require posting a bond when you buy a mattress? And so on and so forth....

 

[jssailem]

The yachting world is not alone with this problem. Think much bigger.
What do the owners of large transports of all the cargo being shipped daily across the oceans. They have a huge issue when the boat is no longer seaworthy.
Fortunately for them there countries (Brazil, Turkey, and Bangladesh India and even the Canada) that have a solution.

Port Colborne, Ontario

The ship graveyard in Chittagong, Bangladesh. The largest ship breaking site in the world.
Ships are sent here to be harvested for scrap metal.