EPA Discharge Permit Requirement for Recreational

Status
Not open for further replies.
Feb 26, 2004
23,343
Catalina 34 224 Maple Bay, BC, Canada
Don, no problem

This issue was a "backwards" one, where the judge, not the EPA, was suggesting that the enforcement include boaters, when the EPA was actually, for a change perhaps, being reasonable. Glad folks are reading. Thanks.
 
Dec 3, 2003
544
None None Rochester, NY
License

Who would collect the fee? Who would enforce the law to have a license? More government.... Need I say more?
 
Oct 3, 2006
1,033
Hunter 29.5 Toms River
Just curious

But what sort of harm does the contents of our holding tanks actually do? you arent going to be introducing a new species to the lake, we flush with raw water. It's all organic material, banning some treatment chemicals which may or may not be environmentally friendly, I am no expert. I only have a small porta-potty, and it rarely, rarely gets used. But there is a major difference between that stuff we stick in a holding tank and foreign water ballast or chemicals or fetilizers. One is natural material : all the goose poop on the shore of lake ontario is certainly a HUGE concern if this goes into effect...
 
Dec 2, 2003
480
Catalina C-320 Washington, NC
Please, Get the Facts!

This isn't about holding tanks at all. The biggest problem with issues such as this is that too many people want to be spoon fed and will not take the time to find out the facts for themselves. too often, we are willing to make uniformed decisions based upon what "soemone said". The problem with this court decision for recreational boaters is that the court is requiring EPA, over their objection, to enforce a thirty something year old act of Congress that requires a permit for ALL DISCHARGES!!!!!!!!! THIS INCLUDES YOUR ENGINE EXHAUST COOLING WATER!!!!!!!!! Sorry for the shout, but Court makes it clear that the EPA must require a permit from all discharging recrational boaters..no exceptions. The proposed legislation only makes allowance for relatively clean discharges from recreational boaters and simply does not affect the exisiting MSD regulations. Just gray water, washdowns, baitwells and exhaust cooling water on recreational vessels. Please read my reposting below, visit the links that take you to the original sources, and become informed of the facts before you make decisions on this important issue. _____________________ The primary ramification is zero discharge of any kind without a permit. Here is a link to the court's opinion: http://www.lclark.edu/org/peac/objects/order_granting_permanent_injunction.pdf Quoting from the court decision: “Such vessel discharges include, among other things, ballast water, bilge water, cooling water, deck runoff, graywater, and oil or oily water.” "The Court therefore DENIES EPA’s request to limit its remedy to ballast water discharges." This means you will not be able to run your engine without a permit because that requires a cooling water discharge, same for your galley sink, same for your cockpit shower, same for air conditioning, same for wash-down pumps, baitwells, bilge pump and even your dinghy engine. Permit no big deal? Tried getting a passport lately? Until homeland security passed its ill-considered passport requirement without making sure there was infrastructure to implement it, you could get a passport at a reasonable cost in a reasonable time. Now it costs almost $100 and takes an optimistic 10-12 WEEKS! (It is so bad, they adopted an accommodation letting you travel to the old non-passport countries with a government issued photo ID and a a copy of your passport application.) You will not be able to legally use your boat as a practical matter until you get your permit. EPA expects that it will cost "a few hundred dollars", it will require a separate permit for every boat and for every state each boat operates in. Boats transiting the Atlantic ICW may easily be required to have 28 permits (one for the boat and one for the dinghy for each of the fourteen Atlantic coast states...and maybe $10,000). You need to read the legislation and the court's decision and come to your own informed opinions...then contact your legislators. If you sit on the sidelines, don't complain about the outcome. The legislation is short, so I have included the entire text. Here is the link: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h110-2550 A BILL To amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act relating to recreational vessels. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. This Act may be cited as the `Recreational Boating Act of 2007'. SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS. (a) Pollutant- Section 502(6) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1362(6)) is amended-- (1) by striking `or (B)' and inserting `(B)'; and (2) by inserting before the period at the end the following: `; or (C) any deck runoff from a recreational vessel, any engine cooling water, gray water, bilge water effluent from properly functioning recreational marine engines, laundry, shower, and galley sink wastes from a recreational vessel, or any other discharge incidental to the normal operation of a recreational vessel; except that this subparagraph does not apply to rubbish, trash, garbage, or other such materials discharged overboard by a recreational vessel'. (b) Recreational Vessel- Such section is further amended by adding at the end the following: `(25) `recreational vessel' means a vessel-- `(A) manufactured for operation, or operated, primarily for recreational purposes; or `(B) leased, rented, or chartered to an individual for recreational purposes.'
 
Sep 25, 2008
7,688
Alden 50 Sarasota, Florida
Calm down Chris

non-contact cooling water, e.g., engine discharge cooling water, is among those which the 86 amendment to the Clean Water Act exempts by definition. This won't get resolved through appeal for years and likely (my opinion) eventually get overturned simply based on the fundamental argument that states' can and some already do regulate similar discharges.
 
Dec 2, 2003
480
Catalina C-320 Washington, NC
Don...Sorry

If I sounded a bit shrill, but it is a bit frustrating reading comments predicated on nothing more than reading comments and not even addressing the issues at hand. So on a more collegial note... I may be wrong about coolant discharges, I picked that up from the text of the court's opinion. If you have a citation to the exemption, I would appreciate it. None the less, I quote the following from the EPA website; "Regulated discharges may include ballast water, bilge water, deck runoff, and gray water. Approximately 143,000 commercial vessels and potentially more than 13 million state-registered recreational boats and more than 25 different types of vessel discharges could be affected". You may be right in your prediction, but I have my doubts. First, an appeal does not always take years. Second, the motion for a stay was denied...so as of now, the deadline still is September 30, 2008. Then, even on appeal, you have to hope that the appellate courts will decide differently. While the District Court's decision may be distasteful, I am not certain it is wrong in its legal analysis. I think the problem is with the CWA more so than the decision itself and the simplest, surest, fastest fix is amending the act by the proposed legislation. Which, I note will leave the decision unaffected as applied to all discharges from commercial vessels. I am not clear on the significance of your point on state permitting. I note that Section 1342(c)(2)and (3) provides as follows: (2) Any State permit program under this section shall at all times be in accordance with this section and guidelines promulgated pursuant to section 1314(i)(2) of this title. (3) Whenever the Administrator determines after public hearing that a State is not administering a program approved under this section in accordance with requirements of this section, he shall so notify the State and, if appropriate corrective action is not taken within a reasonable time, not to exceed ninety days, the Administrator shall withdraw approval of such program.
 
B

Benny

Believe me the EPA does not want to

regulate discharge of pleasure boats. This is just a tinkling contest between the EPA and a Federal judge. Now some legilators will likely capitalize on the issue by showing diligence for its constituents in this issue. The EPA has no resources to enforce these operational discharges in pleasure boats but the judge is driving the point to let them know that in addition they do not have the authority to grant the exemptions that they were granting to commercial shipping regarding the Clean Water Act. In come the elected legilators and they will fix everything and ebverybody will be happy. (the EPA won't have to enforce, the judge will have made his point and the legislators will get their votes) Did anybody mention clean water?
 
Sep 25, 2008
7,688
Alden 50 Sarasota, Florida
interesting discussion Chris

Thanks for the kind response and thoughtful comments Chris. I can't provide a specific citation regarding non-contact cooling water (i.e., engine discharge water) but I do know it's there based on my former life as the Director of the hazardous waste and water programs for EPA and pretty routinely dealt with enforcement issues. If you want to search this yourself, a quick way to find it would be either in the statute's definitions or exemptions sections. Although most folks think in terms of punitive enforcement as a function, if not the sole purpose of the government, it is just as common for government agencies to be sued for actions done as an act of omission such as this. For every person or organization who feels the government is too intrusive, there are a seemingly equivalent number who file legal actions based on the belief government isn't doing.... Regarding state regulation, the Federal statute, like most, recognizes state primacy and applies only in those states where less stringent standards apply. In other words, whichever law is more stringent would be applicable and since the majority of states are "authorized", their requirements must meet or exceed Federal statutes and regulations. Since "authorization" in this context means they get Federal money, they (the states) essentially follow Fed requirements which, if EPA emerges from this ruling means these discharges will continue to be unregulated except where already covered under existing state law.
 
Dec 2, 2003
480
Catalina C-320 Washington, NC
Thanks Don

I first tried checking in Chapter 26 of the US Code and the circular definitions there were not pointing me to any meaningful exemptions in this context. I also didn't find an '86 amendment to the CWA, though I noted the '87. So, I thought I'd just be lazy and ask. I'll look some more when time allows. Thanks again and Fair winds,
 
Status
Not open for further replies.