Something to write your congressman about.
*************************************

Appeals Court Hears EPA Permit Case

The Ninth Circus Court of Appeals heard oral arguments
on Aug. 13th regarding the ballast discharge decision
made last Sept. by the U.S. District Court in CA. (As
reported by BoatTest.com.)

Without a successful legal appeal of this court decision,
beginning Sept. 2008, every recreational boat in every
state will now be required to have a permit (that could
cost $800 and up) for "normal operational discharges."

The final outcome of the appeal will not be known for some
time

************************************************** **********
http://www.timesanddemocrat.com/arti...n/12730366.txt

************************************************** ********
A boat full of unnecessary permitting
| Saturday, September 01, 2007

Leave a Comment | Default | Large

ISSUE: Court-ordered discharge permits

OUR VIEW: Permits not needed for recreational boats

Just as Memorial Day is the traditional beginning of
the boating season, very many people consider Labor
Day weekend the end. This September as boaters
prepare their vessels for winter, there is an issue facing
about which few are aware. It stands to be costly and
aggravating for recreational boaters -- and expensive for
taxpayers.

Without congressional approval of corrective legislation
or a successful legal appeal, a September 2006 court
decision by the U.S. District Court for Northern California
designed to hold the Environmental Protection Agency
accountable for the regulation of the discharge of ballast
water from ocean-going commercial ships will have
unintended and serious consequences for recreational
boating.

"As it stands now, a permit will be required for 'normal
operational discharges' on every recreational boat -- even
your dinghy -- in every state where you boat," Boat Owners
Association of The United States Vice President of
Government Affairs Margaret Podlich says. "This is an
attempt to apply a complex permitting system designed
for industrial dischargers to recreational boats that will
not yield significant environmental benefits."

Instead, BoatU.S. is pushing for passage of H.R. 2550
"The Recreational Boating Act of 2007." It would continue
a 34-year exemption applied to recreational boats and
release the EPA from having to implement an expensive
and bureaucratic national permit system for all recreational
boats by Sept. 30, 2008.

The original lawsuit was brought against EPA in an effort
to control the spread of invasive species contained in
commercial ships' ballast water tanks. The tanks, which
add stability, are filled overseas and then discharged in U.S.
waters when cargo is uploaded. Ballast water is a primary
pathway for non-native species, such as the Zebra Mussel,
to invade U.S. waters.

However, 99 percent of recreational boats do not have ballast
tanks, nor do they cross oceans in any significant numbers.
For over three decades the EPA understood that everyday
deck runoff, bilge water, engine cooling water, or grey water
from sinks or showers, was not the same as commercial
vessels discharging millions of gallons of imported ballast
tank water.

As a result, it exempted these normal operational discharges
from the Clean Water Act permit system. But in 2006 the
District Court ruled that EPA overstepped its authority, and
started the clock on the Sept. 30 permit implementation
deadline.

Importantly, and as Podlich notes: "H.R. 2550 does not
weaken any existing environmental regulations for
recreational boaters. The main sources of potential pollution
from boats -- oil, fuel, sewage and trash -- are already
regulated and will remain so."

The court-ordered permitting for discharges is unnecessary
and wasteful. Legislators should approve H.R. 2550, a
common-sense solution designed to make the previous
exemption for recreational boats permanent.

Hogwash!


"Bart" wrote in message
oups.com..
..
Something to write your congressman about.
*************************************

Appeals Court Hears EPA Permit Case

The Ninth Circus Court of Appeals heard oral arguments
on Aug. 13th regarding the ballast discharge decision
made last Sept. by the U.S. District Court in CA. (As
reported by BoatTest.com.)

Without a successful legal appeal of this court decision,
beginning Sept. 2008, every recreational boat in every
state will now be required to have a permit (that could
cost $800 and up) for "normal operational discharges."

The final outcome of the appeal will not be known for some
time


************************************************** **********

http://www.timesanddemocrat.com/arti...09/01/opinion/
12730366.txt

************************************************** ********
A boat full of unnecessary permitting
| Saturday, September 01, 2007

Leave a Comment | Default | Large

ISSUE: Court-ordered discharge permits

OUR VIEW: Permits not needed for recreational boats

Just as Memorial Day is the traditional beginning of
the boating season, very many people consider Labor
Day weekend the end. This September as boaters
prepare their vessels for winter, there is an issue facing
about which few are aware. It stands to be costly and
aggravating for recreational boaters -- and expensive for
taxpayers.

Without congressional approval of corrective legislation
or a successful legal appeal, a September 2006 court
decision by the U.S. District Court for Northern
California
designed to hold the Environmental Protection Agency
accountable for the regulation of the discharge of ballast
water from ocean-going commercial ships will have
unintended and serious consequences for recreational
boating.

"As it stands now, a permit will be required for 'normal
operational discharges' on every recreational boat -- even
your dinghy -- in every state where you boat," Boat Owners
Association of The United States Vice President of
Government Affairs Margaret Podlich says. "This is an
attempt to apply a complex permitting system designed
for industrial dischargers to recreational boats that will
not yield significant environmental benefits."

Instead, BoatU.S. is pushing for passage of H.R. 2550
"The Recreational Boating Act of 2007." It would continue
a 34-year exemption applied to recreational boats and
release the EPA from having to implement an expensive
and bureaucratic national permit system for all
recreational
boats by Sept. 30, 2008.

The original lawsuit was brought against EPA in an effort
to control the spread of invasive species contained in
commercial ships' ballast water tanks. The tanks, which
add stability, are filled overseas and then discharged in
U.S.
waters when cargo is uploaded. Ballast water is a primary
pathway for non-native species, such as the Zebra Mussel,
to invade U.S. waters.

However, 99 percent of recreational boats do not have
ballast
tanks, nor do they cross oceans in any significant
numbers.
For over three decades the EPA understood that everyday
deck runoff, bilge water, engine cooling water, or grey
water
from sinks or showers, was not the same as commercial
vessels discharging millions of gallons of imported
ballast
tank water.

As a result, it exempted these normal operational
discharges
from the Clean Water Act permit system. But in 2006 the
District Court ruled that EPA overstepped its authority,
and
started the clock on the Sept. 30 permit implementation
deadline.

Importantly, and as Podlich notes: "H.R. 2550 does not
weaken any existing environmental regulations for
recreational boaters. The main sources of potential
pollution
from boats -- oil, fuel, sewage and trash -- are already
regulated and will remain so."

The court-ordered permitting for discharges is unnecessary
and wasteful. Legislators should approve H.R. 2550, a
common-sense solution designed to make the previous
exemption for recreational boats permanent.

On Sep 3, 5:59 pm, Dave wrote:
On Sun, 02 Sep 2007 21:01:59 -0700, Bart said:

Appeals Court Hears EPA Permit Case

The Ninth Circus Court of Appeals heard oral arguments
on Aug. 13th regarding the ballast discharge decision
made last Sept. by the U.S. District Court in CA. (As
reported by BoatTest.com.)

Based on the Ninth Circuit's record, if it reaches the SC the chances of
reversal are 75%.

It sounds like good justification to at least raise fees
for recreational boaters.