July 23, 2007

Dear BoatUS Member,

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.

If the permit system becomes a reality, you will be required to pay for a state permit for each of your boats. EPA will be
monitoring your deck runoff, grey water, bilge water, engine cooling water, and the use of copper bottom paints.

The original lawsuit that led to this court decision sought to address ballast water discharges from large ocean-going ships, which
can introduce damaging aquatic invasive species into U.S. waters. Keeping our waterways clean and preventing the spread of invasive
species is of utmost importance to the future of boating. But taking a complex permitting system designed for industrial dischargers
and applying it to recreational boats will not yield significant environmental benefits and it will come at a very high cost.

Requiring recreational boaters to purchase a permit would not prevent the spread of invasive species.

BoatUS has been a leader in educating boaters about Clean Boating practices for more than a decade. Our nonprofit Foundation has
funded local education projects on invasive species prevention, helped develop voluntary Clean Marina programs, and authored much of
the country's Clean Boating outreach. These positive education efforts are making a difference.

Please ask your elected federal representatives to support H.R. 2550. It is common-sense legislation. As you send your emails to
your Members of Congress, please copy BoatUS at . We’d also like to ask you to send a copy of your
correspondence to the EPA, so they can see how this will affect citizens. However, please know that if you choose to send it to EPA,
it will become a part of the public record. EPA’s email is , and your email needs to have a subject line with:

Docket ID No. OW-2007-0483.

For More Information:

Click here for Frequently Asked Questions http://www.boatus.com/gov/HR2550FAQ.pdf

Click here for a sample email letter http://www.boatus.com/gov/epa_letter.asp

Click here to easily send an email to your Members of Congress. http://www.boatus.com/gov/contact.asp

Forward this Action Alert to your friends, your fishing and boat club, your marina neighbors, and your local press!

Thank you for your help.
Sincerely,
Margaret Podlich
BoatUS Government Affairs

703-461-2864 or 703-461-2878 x8363

*****

© 2007 Boat Owners Association of The United States
880 S. Pickett St.
Alexandria, VA 22304
All Rights Reserved

Is anyone paying attention to this? You should be. There is potentially
more involved than just another expense and piece of paper.

If the bill doesn't pass, and recreational boats are required to have
permits, it's likely that the Homeland security coneheads will see a chance
to piggyback on it. After all, setting off dirty bombs and blowing up oil
docks could be considered a polluting activity. Then, you'll need a
background check before getting the clean water permit that Coast Guard can
tie you to the dock for not having on board. Permits and checks for a
zillion boaters. Think about the current passport fiasco. I don't think
having most of the recreational boat fleet tied to the dock for a couple
years would upset them. It would clear the waterways to make the overworked
Coast Guard's job easier and fit the current political agenda of creating
maximum hysteria and inconvienience to produce votes.

--
Roger Long

Roger, you old sea dog .. aren't you the guy who wanted boaters to possess
licenses?

There is a reason that most Americans hate their government; it is corrupt.
And that means; local, state, county, Federal

When some nutcase blows up something ,, we will find out he had no license,
stole the boat, etc, but that won't stop the
bureaucracy in Wash DC. Oh noooo. Ted Kennedy will be on the tv saying
the boat fee is "for the children".


Oh well.. until then... enjoy the freedom


Or, become a pirate.

Fair winds ,,

============================================


"Roger Long" wrote in message
...
Is anyone paying attention to this? You should be. There is potentially
more involved than just another expense and piece of paper.

If the bill doesn't pass, and recreational boats are required to have
permits, it's likely that the Homeland security coneheads will see a
chance to piggyback on it. After all, setting off dirty bombs and blowing
up oil docks could be considered a polluting activity. Then, you'll need
a background check before getting the clean water permit that Coast Guard
can tie you to the dock for not having on board. Permits and checks for a
zillion boaters. Think about the current passport fiasco. I don't think
having most of the recreational boat fleet tied to the dock for a couple
years would upset them. It would clear the waterways to make the
overworked Coast Guard's job easier and fit the current political agenda
of creating maximum hysteria and inconvienience to produce votes.

--
Roger Long

On Jul 24, 8:00 am, "Roger Long" wrote:
Is anyone paying attention to this? You should be. There is potentially
more involved than just another expense and piece of paper.

If the bill doesn't pass, and recreational boats are required to have
permits, it's likely that the Homeland security coneheads will see a chance
to piggyback on it. After all, setting off dirty bombs and blowing up oil
docks could be considered a polluting activity. Then, you'll need a
background check before getting the clean water permit that Coast Guard can
tie you to the dock for not having on board. Permits and checks for a
zillion boaters. Think about the current passport fiasco. I don't think
having most of the recreational boat fleet tied to the dock for a couple
years would upset them. It would clear the waterways to make the overworked
Coast Guard's job easier and fit the current political agenda of creating
maximum hysteria and inconvienience to produce votes.

--
Roger Long

I thinks the current passport fiasco is over. Last week here at the
Houston Federal bldg I was processed in about 15 min. and received my
passport via US mail in about 4 days.

Joe

On Mon, 23 Jul 07, kentobin wrote:
Fortunately, the Recreational Boating Act of 2007 (H.R. 2550) has been introduced by Representatives Gene Taylor (D-Miss) and
Candice Miller (R-Mich)

Gene's my guy.
He's from Bay St Louis, MS which is a boating community and is a
lifelong sailor himself with many friends and supporters in the
boating community here, so his interest in this issue isn't
surprising. Thing is, he's a relatively young guy without much
seniority or clout in congress. And being a white male from MS isn't
particularly politically helpful either. Point being, if ever y'all
were going to urge your own congressmen/women to support an issue, now
would be a good time. I don't know anything about Candice Miller, her
interests, or how much political pull she has. I think though, those
two can use all the help they can get. Especially from you
constituents of high profile more politically powerful
representatives.

Rick

Dave wrote:

On Mon, 23 Jul 2007 22:53:24 -0700, said:


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.


Before getting all excited by this, what court made the decision and what is
the name of the case? I find that interest groups have a tendency to wildly
overstate things or get them wrong. Is it a single Federal District Court, a
Federal Circuit Court of Appeals (in either of these cases other Districts
or Circuits may reach a different conclusion) or perhaps even a State court?
And is the above a fair summary of what the court actually ordered? Without
more information, you can't tell.

United States District Court of Northern California
http://snipurl.com/1ouif

"federal district court ruling in the case of Northwest Environmental
Advocates, et. al. v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, et. al."
http://snipurl.com/1ouim

http://www.boatblue.org/
http://www.boatblue.org/news.aspx?id=15249

http://www.boatus.com/gov/

DT