Finally

[Ken]

FINALLY -- COMMON SENSE PREVAILS
In a remarkable display of bipartisan support for recreational boating,
both the United States House and Senate passed S. 2766 on Tuesday, "The
Clean Boating Act of 2008", which will permanently restore a
long-standing exemption for recreational boats from permitting
requirements under the Clean Water Act. The legislation now goes to the
White House for the President's signature.

Congressional action was spawned by a U.S. District Court decision in
September 2006 under which an estimated 17 million recreational boats
would have fallen under Clean Water Act permit requirements effective
September 30, 2008. The permit would have dictated maintenance and
operation procedures and potentially subjected boaters to citizen
lawsuits as well as a penalty system designed for industrial polluters.

"This is a fabulous victory for common sense and it just goes to show
what can be done when the boating public, the marine industry and its
representatives in Congress row together in a bipartisan way," said
BoatU.S. President Nancy Michelman.

 

[Ross]

Good!

;D

 

[Don S/V ILLusion]

I like the way they take credit

for having some common sense. If only everything they should do was that easy...

 

[Benny]

Never a doubt! Politicians Dream, Slam Dunk.

They just needed a delay to build up suspense. The EPA in my book are a bunch of flakes for trying to use us the way they did to justify their unlawful actions. Sail on.

 

[Don S/V ILLusion]

Benny -Aim your criticism in the right direction

Your criticism is misplaced.

The EPA is not at fault here. Our Congress, when the CWA was enacted in 1986, included a provision REQUIRING EPA to promulgate the regs at issue here. They never did! The reason being they were and still are of the mindset that this statutory requirement was impracticable, unfair and otherwise pretty dumb.

Unfortunatley, some tree-hugger group sued the Agency and some equally over-zealous judge ruled in their favor thereby placing EPA in a position of having to promulgate regs under penalty of court order in spite of their desire to not do so.

All that really happened here is this Congress corrected the mistake of a previous Congress ( for which they equally get paid pretty well)...

I used to work as an EPA administrator and am among the first to recognize they are deserving of some criticism but in this case, your's is misdirected.

 

[Ed]

Don -Aim your criticism in the right direction

Your criticism is misplaced.

The "tree-huggers" you mention sued to get the EPA to enforce existing legislation that would "control the spread of aquatic nuisance species by mandating the treatment of ballast water in LARGE COMMERCIAL OCEAN GOING SHIPS" like mitten crabs and zebra mussels.

The legislation did not provide relief for smaller personal craft and the courts could not allow an exception that the language did not allow.

It wasn't an "over zealous" court. It was a ruling based on law.

Your prejudicial language is misleading.

 

[Benny]

I rest my case.

The judge ruled that the EPA had no authority to grant the exceptions. The ruling was correct as the EPA lacks law making powers. The decision was never appealed. The EPA countered in their defense, to support their actions, that if they were burdened with overseeing commercial shipping discharges (which ws the focus of the enviromentalist) that they would have to include pleasure craft as well. This did not have the intimidating effect they expected on the judge; which basically told them that yes they would be responsible for that too. Don, as an EPA administrator I respect you and your people who do a good job with the resources at your disposal; I'm sure your mission at ground level provided some good results. The people that I don't care for, are are the career beaurocrats, the attorneys and their headquarters chearing staff which make decisions affecting of all us at cocktail parties, high powered lunches and deal behind close doors. If you tell me that you were asked for your direct input into the agency's decision to grant excemptions and to include pleasure boats in the frey I will apologize to all. We are all human and I don't condem errors but I'm sure against illegal actions and arrogance.

 

[Don S/V ILLusion]

It's uncleat how you perceive the situation

Guess I take these type criticisms somewhat personally but, for what it's worth, your response continues to trouble me.

You said: "The judge ruled that the EPA had no authority to grant the exceptions."

EPA promulgated nothing; no rules, no exceptions, no exemptions, nothing. That act of omission is what this is all about - not some perception you obtained from somewhere that the judge ruled on the Agency's authority. That EPA essentially ignored the statutory requirment to regulate rec boaters by not promulgating restrictive permitting requirements constituted, in the eyes of the judge, lack of compliance with the 86 CWA.

" The ruling was correct as the EPA lacks law making powers."

Correct but for the wrong reasons! Again, the Agenc'y act of omission is the only thing for which they were criticized which I'm sure you and everyone else would acknowledge as laudible under the circumstances.

"The decision was never appealed."

In fact, an appeal was filed and many boating organizations filed amicus briefs in support of the appeal which would have taken years to resolve and was fortunately made moot by the new statute.

"The EPA countered in their defense, to support their actions, that if they were burdened with overseeing commercial shipping discharges (which ws the focus of the enviromentalist) that they would have to include pleasure craft as well."

Not sure what "actions" which you refer to but regardless, I'm assuming you don't disagree with the logic.

If I'm beating a dead horse here, it again is only because I hate to see good people criticized for the wrong reason(s).

 

[Ross]

What? you wanted chocolate cake and you got

vanilla ? Ya got cake fer cryin out loud. So give it a rest. They are bureaucrats. What did you expect? Ice cream too?

 

[Joe]

Ross...............

why so rude? You don't like or understand the conversation, move on.... instead of being a pill.

 

[CalebD]

Ross is always a bit of a 'pill'

But you have got to love him for his perspective.
Wasn't it stupid to go after recreational boaters in the first place?
Apparently it was the US congress that got the law voted in in the first place.
Duh?
Caleb D.