"EPA Discharge Permit Requirement for Recreational Boats For 34 years the federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has exempted discharges from recreational boats from the Clean Water Act permit system. Regretfully, a recent court ruling cancelled this permit exemption. EPA is required by the court decision to develop and implement by September 30, 2008 a national permit system for ALL vessels in the United States for a variety of normal operational discharges. We have been working behind the scenes with other boating organizations to get the exemption reinstated for recreational boats. Fortunately, the Recreational Boating Act of 2007 (H.R. 2550) has been introduced by Representatives Gene Taylor (D-Miss) and Candice Miller (R-Mich) which would protect recreational boats from being swept into this unnecessary and expensive permitting system. It is critically important that H.R. 2550 be passed and your support is essential. Please contact your Congressman and Senators TODAY and ask that they co-sponsor or support H.R. 2550" Best to keep a close eye on how this develops....
- Status
You forgot to add "unlawfully"
The EPA as an agency never had the authority to create the exception. The Clean Water Act as passed into law by the legilators never considered such an exeption. Not only did the EPA exempted recreational boats but also some commercial ships as well. This is where they got themselves in hot water as they tried to justify in court the exempting of commercial ships by drawing the inference that if they had to regulate all ships they would also need to do it for recreational boats. The federal judge was not impressed by the pressure the EPA tried to bear on him abut the enormity of the task and basically told them it is not my problem, you have mandated by law to regulate all ships now you figure out how to do it. Now the EPA has been trying to garner public support to prevent from having to carry out this most onerous task. They get us into the melee and now they want our help to get them out. That's Washington for you. There are now symphatetic legislators trying to get political mileage out of the inevitable reinstatement of an exception this time by proper legislation. Notwhistanding the particulars we are facing some steep obstacles to the enjoyment of boating so we need to do our part and support that legislation. Just an old fashion pissing contest.
The EPA as an agency never had the authority to create the exception. The Clean Water Act as passed into law by the legilators never considered such an exeption. Not only did the EPA exempted recreational boats but also some commercial ships as well. This is where they got themselves in hot water as they tried to justify in court the exempting of commercial ships by drawing the inference that if they had to regulate all ships they would also need to do it for recreational boats. The federal judge was not impressed by the pressure the EPA tried to bear on him abut the enormity of the task and basically told them it is not my problem, you have mandated by law to regulate all ships now you figure out how to do it. Now the EPA has been trying to garner public support to prevent from having to carry out this most onerous task. They get us into the melee and now they want our help to get them out. That's Washington for you. There are now symphatetic legislators trying to get political mileage out of the inevitable reinstatement of an exception this time by proper legislation. Notwhistanding the particulars we are facing some steep obstacles to the enjoyment of boating so we need to do our part and support that legislation. Just an old fashion pissing contest.
A different perspective
I think we all recognize the impracticality of the judge's strict interpretation of the statute/ The courts and especially the Federal courts are full of these type cases which is nothing unique as virtually all statutes require interpretation in the form of implementing regulations. It would seem one fundamental point missed by the jugde is practicality. In this case, EPA did the only thing plausible and which most of us would consider reasonable - that being to not regulate all recreational boats. Not that there is anything wrong with environmental consideration but having a judge indicate he believes any Federal agency should regulate, inspect, certify and monitor EVERY recreational boat is nothing less than silly. On it's face, this shouldn't be too large a step to overturn or at a minimal mitigate his ruling based solely on the basis of impracticality. The only entity who "got us into this melee" is the the over-zelous environmental group who brought suit to whom common sense is meaningless. At face value, many of these NGOs (non-gov organizations) sound great but are often, as in this case, our worst enemies.
I think we all recognize the impracticality of the judge's strict interpretation of the statute/ The courts and especially the Federal courts are full of these type cases which is nothing unique as virtually all statutes require interpretation in the form of implementing regulations. It would seem one fundamental point missed by the jugde is practicality. In this case, EPA did the only thing plausible and which most of us would consider reasonable - that being to not regulate all recreational boats. Not that there is anything wrong with environmental consideration but having a judge indicate he believes any Federal agency should regulate, inspect, certify and monitor EVERY recreational boat is nothing less than silly. On it's face, this shouldn't be too large a step to overturn or at a minimal mitigate his ruling based solely on the basis of impracticality. The only entity who "got us into this melee" is the the over-zelous environmental group who brought suit to whom common sense is meaningless. At face value, many of these NGOs (non-gov organizations) sound great but are often, as in this case, our worst enemies.
I am okay with getting the EPA out of the mess...
..eliminate them. By the way, I am for clean water and air...but against government agencies that are out of control and either lack common sense or not given the power to use common sense. In the West we have the coastal commission... imagine between the coastal commission and the EPA none of the harbors we have today could have ever been built if they were around in the early 20th century. No Santa Barbara, Ventura, Channel Islands, Newport, Marina Del Rey.... abe
..eliminate them. By the way, I am for clean water and air...but against government agencies that are out of control and either lack common sense or not given the power to use common sense. In the West we have the coastal commission... imagine between the coastal commission and the EPA none of the harbors we have today could have ever been built if they were around in the early 20th century. No Santa Barbara, Ventura, Channel Islands, Newport, Marina Del Rey.... abe
Don, I had forgotten that
it was the environmentalist who blew the whistle about commecial ships being exempted. The judge acted within his parameters, he had no powers either to change legislation. The EPA had plenty of time to request an ammendment to the legislation (what 34 years)but for whatever resons elected not to. I'm not worried about the outcome as it is impossible for the EPA to implement a viable pogram for pleasure craft with its current budget and resources. The ball is back in the legilator's court who will likely ammend the legislation. Surprisingly the environmentalist had nothing to say about recreational boaters when they filed their suit. It was the EPA telling the judge that if he wanted to rule that they could not grant exemptions that then they would have to enforce the law against everyone includying recreational boaters. The judge took the argument under consideration and agreed with the EPA in his decision. In my book, if it quacks like a duck, walks like a duck and looks like a duck. It is a Duck. What I would be afraid is for some quack (no pun intended) to say, fill out this registration form and send us $100 and try to qualify that as enforcement program. You know their attorneys must be working on something in the remote case that the legilation falters. Never had any illusions that our best interests were being protected by anyone on this issue.
it was the environmentalist who blew the whistle about commecial ships being exempted. The judge acted within his parameters, he had no powers either to change legislation. The EPA had plenty of time to request an ammendment to the legislation (what 34 years)but for whatever resons elected not to. I'm not worried about the outcome as it is impossible for the EPA to implement a viable pogram for pleasure craft with its current budget and resources. The ball is back in the legilator's court who will likely ammend the legislation. Surprisingly the environmentalist had nothing to say about recreational boaters when they filed their suit. It was the EPA telling the judge that if he wanted to rule that they could not grant exemptions that then they would have to enforce the law against everyone includying recreational boaters. The judge took the argument under consideration and agreed with the EPA in his decision. In my book, if it quacks like a duck, walks like a duck and looks like a duck. It is a Duck. What I would be afraid is for some quack (no pun intended) to say, fill out this registration form and send us $100 and try to qualify that as enforcement program. You know their attorneys must be working on something in the remote case that the legilation falters. Never had any illusions that our best interests were being protected by anyone on this issue.
- Status