"Dave" wrote in message
...
On 22 May 2008 16:28:02 -0500, Dave said:

I haven't read the case referred to in the article. But if the summary is
accurate and the case related only to ballast water from commercial
vessels,
then this whole thing is a tempest in a teapot. Anything the court said
relating to recreational vessels would be what lawyers call
"dicta"--language having no value whatever as precedent.

I've now read it. The EPA was defending its regulation that had gone
unchallenged since 1973 exempting all vessels from having to get a permit
for discharges normally incident to the operation of a vessel. The enviros
were trying to get it to require commercial shipping lines to get a permit
for discharging ballast water.

The opinion is rather badly written, and includes language much broader
than
required for the case before it (dicta). But it's pretty clear that the
opinion wouldn't cause the EPA to immediately run out and start requiring
recreational boaters to get a permit to wash their boats. They just have
to
rewrite their regulations. The legislation is clearly a case of
grandstanding congress critters passing yet another unnecessary law
thinking
it will get them votes.


Which enviros? Do you have some documentation to support your arguments?


--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com