Ballast Water

Status
Not open for further replies.

Alan

.
Jun 2, 2004
4,174
Hunter 35.5 LI, NY
The National Marine Manufacturers Association today filed an amicus brief with the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, addressing the impact a recent federal court ruling on ballast water will have on recreational boats. Under the September 2006 ruling, all ships that discharge ballast water must obtain a permit under the Clean Water Act. The ruling is intended to alleviate the problem of invasive species entering the nation’s waterways. “It’s important for us, on behalf of the nation’s 72 million boaters, to inform the U.S. Court of Appeals of the unintended consequences of the ballast water decision,” said Monita Fontaine, the NMMA’s vice president and senior counsel of government relations. Under the ruling, the EPA also is required to develop a permitting program for virtually all the 18 million recreational boats in the United States by September 2008. “We are filing this brief to defend boating from an unprecedented, complex and costly permitting system,” said Fontaine. “Frankly, permitting recreational boats will not stop the spread of aquatic invasive species. The threat from invasive species needs to be dealt with realistically, by stopping their introduction through commercial shipping ballast water long before those ships enter U.S. waters.”
 
Mar 13, 2007
72
- - -
"Ballast Water"

Never wanting to miss an opportunity to display my ignorance: I take it that with respect to recreational boaters "ballast water" includes something more than just the water used in the relatively small number of water ballast type sailboats? Like the stuff my bilge pump keeps finding - probably from the fridge, AC, shower, rain leaks, etc.?
 
B

Benny

Pissing contest!

This whole issue about recreational boats falling under the Clean Water Act started when the federal judge told the EPA that they did not have the authority to create the existing exemption about water ballast discharge. It further instructed the EPA to devise a permitting system. The shipping industry and the EPA in accord and in order to bring pressure to bear in the courts asked for a clarification and introduced the issue whether small recreational craft would be subject. Their strategy backfired as the court returned a yes answer. Bilge water, Gray water, bottom paint were added as pollutants subject to discharge permitting. The judge placed the pressure back on the agency to figure out how to permit and regulate 18,000,000 pleasure craft. Faced with an impossible task they are now seeking the help of private groups on their behalf. We just seem to be pawns in this ongoing feud. At issue is the having to obtain a NPDES permit which up to now has only been required for commercial shipping. It is quite expensive and complicated to obtain. I don't think the EPA has the resources to facilitate a process to avail pleasure craft owners of these permits and much less regulate and police violations of use. This is of course not a problem of the court. I don't foresee any problems for us boaters on the long run as these ridiculous ideas and arguments play out. Please understand that this is a gross simplification of the situation and the personal opinion of this sailor.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.