Everyone better pay attention to this:

HR 2550
"Recreational Boating Act of 2007 - Amends the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act (popularly known as the Clean Water Act) to include within the
meaning of the term "pollutant" 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. States that this term does not
apply to rubbish, trash, garbage, or other such materials discharged
overboard by a recreational vessel. "

This seems to ban bilge pumps, water cooled engines, rinsing the deck,
washing the topsides and maybe even brushing our teeth..

Notice that this applies only to recreational vessels, not to cargo ships
discharging ballast water full of zebra mussels and other exotic pests.

--
Glenn Ashmore

I'm building a 45' cutter in strip/composite. Watch my progress (or lack
there of) at: http://www.rutuonline.com
Shameless Commercial Division: http://www.spade-anchor-us.com

ALL of this stuff is all ready regulated on cargo ships, including
ballast water.





Gogarty wrote in
:

In article ,
says...


Everyone better pay attention to this:

HR 2550
"Recreational Boating Act of 2007 - Amends the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act (popularly known as the Clean Water Act) to include within
the meaning of the term "pollutant" 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. States that this term does not apply to rubbish,
trash, garbage, or other such materials discharged overboard by a
recreational vessel. "

This seems to ban bilge pumps, water cooled engines, rinsing the deck,
washing the topsides and maybe even brushing our teeth..

Notice that this applies only to recreational vessels, not to cargo
ships discharging ballast water full of zebra mussels and other exotic
pests.

--
Glenn Ashmore

I'm building a 45' cutter in strip/composite. Watch my progress (or
lack there of) at: http://www.rutuonline.com
Shameless Commercial Division: http://www.spade-anchor-us.com


Yes, it does ban brushing your teeth if you rinse and spit into the
sink that then drains overboard.

I believe bilge discharge of commercial vessels is already regulated.

"Roger Long" wrote in message
...
I had a chance to read further and, according to Boat US

http://www.boatus.com/gov/HR2550FAQ.pdf

the HR 2550 bill, despite the appearance of the bill itself, IS
intended to prevent recreational boats from being dragged into a
permit system that Boat US indicates could cost several hundred
dollars a year.

Sounds like we'd better hope this passes. Permits would be state run
under federal mandate. This might not be a problem in places like
Maine where boating is recognized as essential to the tourist economy
but some states might see the revenue generated by such a permit
system as a quick soak-the-rich fiscal fix.

--
Roger Long


Finally an informed opinion. Thanks.

The bottom line is the gummint can pass any old Draconian legislation
they want to pass but most people will simply ignore it. Take the
existing small vessel sewage laws. They cannot be meaningfully enforced.
Neither can some dumb new law outlawing wash water, deck runoff etc. You
might be able to enforce some of that crap with the shipping industry
because they can be held accountable. There is no way you can enforce
criminal penalties of a private yacht owner for something as vague as
gray water. You could mandate holding tankage, you could mandate
periodic pumpouts, you can mandate this sticker or that sticker but you
can't make people do it. I know I won't. They can stick all their petty
crap right up their arses.

Wilbur Hubbard

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 14:44:00 -0400, "Wilbur Hubbard"
said:

Sounds like we'd better hope this passes. Permits would be state run
under federal mandate. This might not be a problem in places like
Maine where boating is recognized as essential to the tourist economy
but some states might see the revenue generated by such a permit
system as a quick soak-the-rich fiscal fix.

--
Roger Long


Finally an informed opinion. Thanks.

Pity you didn't comprehend what Roger wrote.


You have high expectations!

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

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 14:44:00 -0400, "Wilbur Hubbard"
said:

Sounds like we'd better hope this passes. Permits would be state
run
under federal mandate. This might not be a problem in places like
Maine where boating is recognized as essential to the tourist
economy
but some states might see the revenue generated by such a permit
system as a quick soak-the-rich fiscal fix.

--
Roger Long


Finally an informed opinion. Thanks.

Pity you didn't comprehend what Roger wrote.

Pity you lack the capacity to comprehend what I comprehend. . . Check
the Boat/US site. State control would exempt recreational boats from
this farce. So many ignorant dolts around here, so little time . . .

Wilbur Hubbard

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 19:15:00 -0400, "Wilbur Hubbard"
said:

Pity you didn't comprehend what Roger wrote.

Pity you lack the capacity to comprehend what I comprehend. . .

I repeat: pity you didn't understand what Roger wrote.

And, you're an idiot! Here is a copy and paste of what Roger wrote:

"the HR 2550 bill, despite the appearance of the bill itself, IS
intended to
prevent recreational boats from being dragged into a permit system that
Boat
US indicates could cost several hundred dollars a year.

"Sounds like we'd better hope this passes. Permits would be state run
under
federal mandate. This might not be a problem in places like Maine where
boating is recognized as essential to the tourist economy but some
states
might see the revenue generated by such a permit system as a quick
soak-the-rich fiscal fix."

Now, here's why he's still confused. The first paragraph is correct. The
second is wrong. Permits would not be run by states under federal
mandate - not for recreational boats at least, as this legislation
exempts recreational boats. In other words nothing would change for
recreational boats. It would be status quo. In other words that federal
judge who legislated from the bench would have his hand slapped by
congress. And, that's the way it SHOULD be.

Now, try and get a clue! How can you be a lawyer when you're such a
dolt?

Wilbur Hubbard

On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 18:38:32 -0400, "Wilbur Hubbard"
wrote:


"Dave" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 19:15:00 -0400, "Wilbur Hubbard"
said:

Pity you didn't comprehend what Roger wrote.

Pity you lack the capacity to comprehend what I comprehend. . .

I repeat: pity you didn't understand what Roger wrote.

And, you're an idiot! Here is a copy and paste of what Roger wrote:

"the HR 2550 bill, despite the appearance of the bill itself, IS
intended to
prevent recreational boats from being dragged into a permit system that
Boat
US indicates could cost several hundred dollars a year.

"Sounds like we'd better hope this passes. Permits would be state run
under
federal mandate. This might not be a problem in places like Maine where
boating is recognized as essential to the tourist economy but some
states
might see the revenue generated by such a permit system as a quick
soak-the-rich fiscal fix."

Now, here's why he's still confused. The first paragraph is correct. The
second is wrong. Permits would not be run by states under federal
mandate - not for recreational boats at least, as this legislation
exempts recreational boats. In other words nothing would change for
recreational boats. It would be status quo. In other words that federal
judge who legislated from the bench would have his hand slapped by
congress. And, that's the way it SHOULD be.

Now, try and get a clue! How can you be a lawyer when you're such a
dolt?

Wilbur Hubbard


There are none so ignorant as he who would confuse his opinion with
facts.
Ignatious - 1625

Bruce in Bangkok
(brucepaigeATgmailDOTcom)

On 14 Sep 2007 18:15:01 -0500, Dave wrote:

On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 18:38:32 -0400, "Wilbur Hubbard"
said:

"Sounds like we'd better hope this passes. Permits would be state run
under
federal mandate. This might not be a problem in places like Maine where
boating is recognized as essential to the tourist economy but some
states
might see the revenue generated by such a permit system as a quick
soak-the-rich fiscal fix."

Now, here's why he's still confused. The first paragraph is correct. The
second is wrong. Permits would not be run by states under federal
mandate - not for recreational boats at least, as this legislation
exempts recreational boats. In other words nothing would change for
recreational boats. It would be status quo. In other words that federal
judge who legislated from the bench would have his hand slapped by
congress. And, that's the way it SHOULD be.

At least I now see your reading comprehension problem. Those of us with a
facility with the language would immediately realize that in Roger's second
sentence he was referring to the state of affairs that would exist if the
bill does not pass and the court's decision stands. You of course don't fall
within the group with a facility with the language.


Willie-boy has a small problem. He confuses his fantasies with facts
and firmly believes that his crack-pot ideas of vital interest.

As someone once wrote:

He who speaks, confusing opinions and wishes with facts seems little
likely to have either the power or the habit of thoughtful
discrimination, which would protect him from mistaking his wishes and
opinions, and even his pretenses, for facts.

I believe attributed to Poor Richard's Almanac 1733-1758
..




Bruce in Bangkok
(brucepaigeATgmailDOTcom)

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 18:38:32 -0400, "Wilbur Hubbard"
said:

"Sounds like we'd better hope this passes. Permits would be state run
under
federal mandate. This might not be a problem in places like Maine
where
boating is recognized as essential to the tourist economy but some
states
might see the revenue generated by such a permit system as a quick
soak-the-rich fiscal fix."

Now, here's why he's still confused. The first paragraph is correct.
The
second is wrong. Permits would not be run by states under federal
mandate - not for recreational boats at least, as this legislation
exempts recreational boats. In other words nothing would change for
recreational boats. It would be status quo. In other words that
federal
judge who legislated from the bench would have his hand slapped by
congress. And, that's the way it SHOULD be.

At least I now see your reading comprehension problem. Those of us
with a
facility with the language would immediately realize that in Roger's
second
sentence he was referring to the state of affairs that would exist if
the
bill does not pass and the court's decision stands. You of course
don't fall
within the group with a facility with the language.

It is I who read the language as it is written. That a writer butchers
the language and causes it to have a diametrically opposed meaning than
he intended is his shortcoming, not mine.

The man should have written it more competently. He should have written
something like the following so people would not have to second-guess
what he meant:

"Sounds like we'd better hope this passes. (If it fails to pass)
Permits would (then) be state(-)run under federal mandate. This might
not be a problem in places like Maine where boating is recognized as
essential to the tourist economy but some states might see the revenue
generated by such a permit system as a quick
soak-the-rich fiscal fix."

But even that lacks consistency mainly due to the fact that if states
ran it under federal mandate, states would have to adhere to the
mandate. Chew on that one for a while Mr. Guess at What the Language
Means.

Wilbur Hubbard

wrote in message
...
Willie-boy has a small problem. He confuses his fantasies with facts
and firmly believes that his crack-pot ideas of vital interest.

I had something to say while you just had to say something.

Sorry, but as you can see by my reply to Daffy Dave the Banal Barrister
I read the language as it is written. I give the writer credit for being
able to write what he means and to do so without confusing the issue to
the point where people have to second-guess what he's trying to say.

You and Dave can choose to live in your own sloppy word world but, as
for me, I'd rather be precise.

You like quotes, here's one for you and it'll allow you to understand my
first sentence.

Wise men talk because they have something to say; fools talk because
they have
to say something. -- Plato

Wilbur Hubbard in Paradise.