beribboned unicorns and Technicolor rainbows would be seen
everywhere

Isn't that what blotter is for?

On 28 Feb 2007 08:02:59 -0800, "Chuck Gould"
wrote:



We can indeed send up a flare by contacting our congressional
representatives and urging them to exempt pleasure vessels from the
court ruling mandating that all vessels apply for discharge permits.
Let's not pump the baby out with the bilge water.

Is there a piece of legislation on this matter before Congress now? If so,
could you be more specific as to its title? That would be a help to those
who may want to follow your advice.

Thanks.
--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

On Feb 28, 9:10?am, "Bill Kearney" wkearney-99@hot-mail-com wrote:
beribboned unicorns and Technicolor rainbows would be seen
everywhere

Isn't that what blotter is for?

These days my interest seems to be more aligned with oxalyic than
blotter. :-)

"Chuck Gould" wrote in message
ups.com...
On Feb 28, 4:48 am, JLH wrote:
On 27 Feb 2007 09:14:25 -0800, "Chuck Gould"
wrote:





According to an item in the Marine Business Journal, a legal decision
in a lawsuit pressed by a group called "Northwest Envionmental
Advocates" has potential implications for every pleasure boater
operating in US waters.

In an effort to prohibit the discharge of ballast water from foreign
vessels (and reduce the liklihood of introducing foreign plants and
animals to local eco-systems) the Environmental Advocates sucessfully
argued that any vessel discharging any liquid or material of any type
must first obtain a permit from the state in which the discharge is
going to take place. (As a condition of granting the permit, most
states will demand the right to inspect the vessel, ensure that all
available pollution controls are installed and properly maintained,
and may even want to monitor the discharge- at the vessel's expense).

One small oversight: Unlike previous versions of similar regulations,
the legal ruling does not exempt pleasure vessels from the requirement
to obtain a discharge permit.
As a result, everything from cooling water cycling through an engine
to water running off of a deck can be considered a "discharge" and is
technically subject to state permit!

The NMMA is lobbying congress for a revision of the law.

If one is so inclined, the order can be found at:

http://tinyurl.com/3dm2o8

Interesting reading.
--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -



The rough draft of my comments in next month's issue of the magazine
follows.

Fair warning to anyone considering wading in, it makes a long post so
if yo don't have a couple of minutes you might want to skip it....




Don't Pump the Baby Out with the Bilge Water


Maybe we should send up a collective flare and hope that somebody will
notice. Once again it appears that well-intentioned Great and Powerful
Wizards (please pay no mind to that man behind the curtain) have
entirely overlooked the interests of pleasure boaters while seeking to
protect the environment.

A recent court decision in a lawsuit filed against the US
Environmental Protection Agency by a Portland, Oregon group known as
the Northwest Environmental Advocates could potentially require all
pleasure boaters to purchase "discharge permits" from state
governments. The newly regulated discharges in question have nothing
to do with untreated human waste, engine oil, trash and garbage, or
other nasty stuff that any responsible boater will voluntarily contain
and dispose of appropriately ashore. Anything passing from a boat
into the surrounding waters will be considered a discharge.

Want to wash your boat? You will need a permit for the wash and rinse
water to "discharge" through your scuppers and into the sound.

Too much water in the bilge? Too bad. You may not be able to switch on
that bilge pump without a state permit.

So fed up that you're ready to start your engine and motor off to some
country with more reasonable regulations? Not so fast, that cooling
water cycling through the raw water side of your system becomes a
"discharge". (We won't even be allowed to escape without a permit!)

Despite the draconian potential effects of the legal ruling, there
wasn't actually a conspiracy against pleasure boaters. The Northwest
Environmental Advocates sued to address a worthy issue: the discharge
of ballast water from foreign vessels in US ports.
Ships entering American waters from overseas ports often travel with
enormous amounts of water in the bilge to serve as ballast.
Unfortunately, when a ship takes on ballast water huge numbers of
marine plants and animals are scooped up in the process and will be
released whenever and wherever the vessel pumps its bilges. Most of
the foreign organisms die in the new environment, but certain species
discover that they have been introduced to an area where they have no
natural predators.

With natural balance disrupted, many of these immigrant life forms
(such as the zebra mussel) tend to compete too efficiently for food
and habitat and can ultimately eliminate native species that have long
served as integral links in important eco-system relationships. A new
species supplanting a native species may no longer be considered
edible by predators higher on the food chain. Organisms at the top of
the food chain (such as humans), have a vested interest in sustaining
a healthy eco-system with co-dependent plants and animals that thrive
in the local environment.

The Northwest Environmental Advocates demanded that states issue
permits to any vessel planning to discharge into waters of the state.
Presumably, the states aren't going to issue permits to all applicants
without some level of prior inspection, and perhaps even requiring
that a state inspector be on hand when the material in question is
being discharged. When the court ruled in favor of the Northwest
Environmental Advocates, it omitted any specification that the ruling
applied only to commercial shipping. Similar previous regulations have
always specifically exempted recreational boaters, but no such
exemption is included in the regulations mandated by the court
decision.

The court specifically ordered the EPA to rescind its previous
exemption from permit and regulation those discharges "incidental to
the normal operation of a vessel".

States typically lack the will, and most certainly lack the manpower,
to enforce a regulation that would require pleasure boaters to apply
for permits prior to starting an engine, pumping a bilge, taking a
shower, or washing the highway and industrial soot from the house and
decks. Washington State alone would need thousands, if not tens of
thousands, of inspectors and permit processors to monitor every single
discharge of any material from all vessels of any description. The law
would be routinely ignored, but perhaps not entirely.

The potential risk is that some zealous environmental extremist could
seize upon the court's oversight. In the ultimate fantasies of some
fanatics, the waters of the Pacific NW would be unsullied by any human
activity afloat. Leaping salmon, cavorting porpoises, and spouting
whales wouldn't be obliged to dodge around any boats or ships, (with a
possible exception for limited numbers of extensively regulated and
duly licensed kayaks, of course). It would never rain, the sun would
never set, beribboned unicorns and Technicolor rainbows would be seen
everywhere, and the gentle breezes would always be warm. With a
glaring defect in the newly refined law, the opportunity remains for
such an extremist to seek a court injunction or other legal avenue to
disrupt pleasure boating.

Most boaters make conscientious environmental choices. The few that
persist in dumping holding tanks in inland waters or pumping the bilge
after an oil change "accident", deserve to be ostracized by the
responsible majority. Our recreational enjoyment depends upon
maintaining acceptably clean waterways and a healthy fishery.
Environmental activists on the radical fringes of that movement would
do well to recognize that the average pleasure boater isn't a serious
threat to the eco-system.

We can indeed send up a flare by contacting our congressional
representatives and urging them to exempt pleasure vessels from the
court ruling mandating that all vessels apply for discharge permits.
Let's not pump the baby out with the bilge water.

This is the world as Chuckie sees it. Love it or leave it. Jeeze!

On Wed, 28 Feb 2007 22:05:38 GMT, "Jim" wrote:

Snippage

Most boaters make conscientious environmental choices. The few that
persist in dumping holding tanks in inland waters or pumping the bilge
after an oil change "accident", deserve to be ostracized by the
responsible majority. Our recreational enjoyment depends upon
maintaining acceptably clean waterways and a healthy fishery.
Environmental activists on the radical fringes of that movement would
do well to recognize that the average pleasure boater isn't a serious
threat to the eco-system.

We can indeed send up a flare by contacting our congressional
representatives and urging them to exempt pleasure vessels from the
court ruling mandating that all vessels apply for discharge permits.
Let's not pump the baby out with the bilge water.

This is the world as Chuckie sees it. Love it or leave it. Jeeze!


What prompted that bit of wisdom? Did you bother to read the post?
--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

"Chuck Gould" wrote in message
ups.com...
On Feb 28, 4:48 am, JLH wrote:
On 27 Feb 2007 09:14:25 -0800, "Chuck Gould"
wrote:





According to an item in the Marine Business Journal, a legal decision
in a lawsuit pressed by a group called "Northwest Envionmental
Advocates" has potential implications for every pleasure boater
operating in US waters.

In an effort to prohibit the discharge of ballast water from foreign
vessels (and reduce the liklihood of introducing foreign plants and
animals to local eco-systems) the Environmental Advocates sucessfully
argued that any vessel discharging any liquid or material of any type
must first obtain a permit from the state in which the discharge is
going to take place. (As a condition of granting the permit, most
states will demand the right to inspect the vessel, ensure that all
available pollution controls are installed and properly maintained,
and may even want to monitor the discharge- at the vessel's expense).

One small oversight: Unlike previous versions of similar regulations,
the legal ruling does not exempt pleasure vessels from the requirement
to obtain a discharge permit.
As a result, everything from cooling water cycling through an engine
to water running off of a deck can be considered a "discharge" and is
technically subject to state permit!

The NMMA is lobbying congress for a revision of the law.

If one is so inclined, the order can be found at:

http://tinyurl.com/3dm2o8

Interesting reading.
--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."- Hide quoted text -


The potential risk is that some zealous environmental extremist could
seize upon the court's oversight. In the ultimate fantasies of some
fanatics, the waters of the Pacific NW would be unsullied by any human
activity afloat. Leaping salmon, cavorting porpoises, and spouting
whales wouldn't be obliged to dodge around any boats or ships, (with a
possible exception for limited numbers of extensively regulated and
duly licensed kayaks, of course). It would never rain, the sun would
never set, beribboned unicorns and Technicolor rainbows would be seen
everywhere, and the gentle breezes would always be warm. With a
glaring defect in the newly refined law, the opportunity remains for
such an extremist to seek a court injunction or other legal avenue to
disrupt pleasure boating.

Another story for you Chuck: http://www.geocities.com/mjloundy/

Don't worry......idiotic decisions from your wacko left coast Federal
District judges and Appeals Courts are eventually overturned once taken to a
higher court and common sense takes hold.

Breath in..........breath out.............breath in.........breath
out............ ;-)

Jim wrote:

We can indeed send up a flare by contacting our congressional
representatives and urging them to exempt pleasure vessels from the
court ruling mandating that all vessels apply for discharge permits.
Let's not pump the baby out with the bilge water.

This is the world as Chuckie sees it. Love it or leave it. Jeeze!

There is nothing unusual about Chuck's post, what in the world are you
talking about? Should voters not contact their congressmen when they
think a law is unreasonable?

"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
. ..
CalifBill wrote:
http://www.boatblue.org/
another link to the law.

Which District Court was this?

See JLH.

On Feb 28, 2:05�pm, "Jim" wrote:
"Chuck Gould" wrote in message

ups.com...





On Feb 28, 4:48 am, JLH wrote:
On 27 Feb 2007 09:14:25 -0800, "Chuck Gould"
wrote:

According to an item in the Marine Business Journal, a legal decision
in a lawsuit pressed by a group called "Northwest Envionmental
Advocates" has potential implications for every pleasure boater
operating in US waters.

In an effort to prohibit the discharge of ballast water from foreign
vessels (and reduce the liklihood of introducing foreign plants and
animals to local eco-systems) the Environmental Advocates sucessfully
argued that any vessel discharging any liquid or material of any type
must first obtain a permit from the state in which the discharge is
going to take place. (As a condition of granting the permit, most
states will demand the right to inspect the vessel, ensure that all
available pollution controls are installed and properly maintained,
and may even want to monitor the discharge- at the vessel's expense).

One small oversight: Unlike previous versions of similar regulations,
the legal ruling does not exempt pleasure vessels from the requirement
to obtain a discharge permit.
As a result, everything from cooling water cycling through an engine
to water running off of a deck can be considered a "discharge" and is
technically subject to state permit!

The NMMA is lobbying congress for a revision of the law.

If one is so inclined, the order can be found at:

http://tinyurl.com/3dm2o8

Interesting reading.
--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

The rough draft of my comments in next month's issue of the magazine
follows.

Fair warning to anyone considering wading in, it makes a long post so
if yo don't have a couple of minutes you might want to skip it....

Don't Pump the Baby Out with the Bilge Water

Maybe we should send up a collective flare and hope that somebody will
notice. Once again it appears that well-intentioned Great and Powerful
Wizards (please pay no mind to that man behind the curtain) have
entirely overlooked the interests of pleasure boaters while seeking to
protect the environment.

A recent court decision in a lawsuit filed against the US
Environmental Protection Agency by a Portland, Oregon group known as
the Northwest Environmental Advocates could potentially require all
pleasure boaters to purchase "discharge permits" from state
governments. The newly regulated discharges in question have nothing
to do with untreated human waste, engine oil, trash and garbage, or
other nasty stuff that any responsible boater will voluntarily contain
and dispose of appropriately ashore. *Anything passing from a boat
into the surrounding waters will be considered a discharge.

Want to wash your boat? You will need a permit for the wash and rinse
water to "discharge" through your scuppers and into the sound.

Too much water in the bilge? Too bad. You may not be able to switch on
that bilge pump without a state permit.

So fed up that you're ready to start your engine and motor off to some
country with more reasonable regulations? Not so fast, that cooling
water cycling through the raw water side of your system becomes a
"discharge". (We won't even be allowed to escape without a permit!)

Despite the draconian potential effects of the legal ruling, there
wasn't actually a conspiracy against pleasure boaters. The Northwest
Environmental Advocates sued to address a worthy issue: the discharge
of ballast water from foreign vessels in US ports.
Ships entering American waters from overseas ports often travel with
enormous amounts of water in the bilge to serve as ballast.
Unfortunately, when a ship takes on ballast water huge numbers of
marine plants and animals are scooped up in the process and will be
released whenever and wherever the vessel pumps its bilges. Most of
the foreign organisms die in the new environment, but certain species
discover that they have been introduced to an area where they have no
natural predators.

With natural balance disrupted, many of these immigrant life forms
(such as the zebra mussel) tend to compete too efficiently for food
and habitat and can ultimately eliminate native species that have long
served as integral links in important eco-system relationships. *A new
species supplanting a native species may no longer be considered
edible by predators higher on the food chain. Organisms at the top of
the food chain (such as humans), have a vested interest in sustaining
a healthy eco-system with co-dependent plants and animals that thrive
in the local environment.

The Northwest Environmental Advocates demanded that states issue
permits to any vessel planning to discharge into waters of the state.
Presumably, the states aren't going to issue permits to all applicants
without some level of prior inspection, and perhaps even requiring
that a state inspector be on hand when the material in question is
being discharged. When the court ruled in favor of the Northwest
Environmental Advocates, it omitted any specification that the ruling
applied only to commercial shipping. Similar previous regulations have
always specifically exempted recreational boaters, but no such
exemption is included in the regulations mandated by the court
decision.

The court specifically ordered the EPA to rescind its previous
exemption from permit and regulation those discharges "incidental to
the normal operation of a vessel".

States typically lack the will, and most certainly lack the manpower,
to enforce a regulation that would require pleasure boaters to apply
for permits prior to starting an engine, pumping a bilge, taking a
shower, or washing the highway and industrial soot from the house and
decks. Washington State alone would need thousands, if not tens of
thousands, of inspectors and permit processors to monitor every single
discharge of any material from all vessels of any description. The law
would be routinely ignored, but perhaps not entirely.

The potential risk is that some zealous environmental extremist could
seize upon the court's oversight. In the ultimate fantasies of some
fanatics, the waters of the Pacific NW would be unsullied by any human
activity afloat. Leaping salmon, cavorting porpoises, and spouting
whales wouldn't be obliged to dodge around any boats or ships, (with a
possible exception for limited numbers of extensively regulated and
duly licensed kayaks, of course). It would never rain, the sun would
never set, beribboned unicorns and Technicolor rainbows would be seen
everywhere, and the gentle breezes would always be warm. With a
glaring defect in the newly refined law, the opportunity remains for
such an extremist to seek a court injunction or other legal avenue to
disrupt pleasure boating.

Most boaters make conscientious environmental choices. The few that
persist in dumping holding tanks in inland waters or pumping the bilge
after an oil change "accident", deserve to be ostracized by the
responsible majority. Our recreational enjoyment depends upon
maintaining acceptably clean waterways and a healthy fishery.
Environmental activists on the radical fringes of that movement would
do well to recognize that the average pleasure boater isn't a serious
threat to the eco-system.

We can indeed send up a flare by contacting our congressional
representatives and urging them to exempt pleasure vessels from the
court ruling mandating that all vessels apply for discharge permits.
Let's not pump the baby out with the bilge water.

This is the world as Chuckie sees it. Love it or leave it. Jeeze!- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

?????????

If you are in favor of a ruling that no longer exempts pleasure
vessels or exempts "discharges incidental to the normal operation of a
vessel", why not state your case rather than launch a personal attack?

If you prefer a system where you must apply to the state for a permit
to start your engine or pump your bilge, come right out and say so.
I'm not the enemy here.

On Feb 28, 3:27�pm, "JimH" wrote:
"Chuck Gould" wrote in message

ups.com...





On Feb 28, 4:48 am, JLH wrote:
On 27 Feb 2007 09:14:25 -0800, "Chuck Gould"
wrote:

According to an item in the Marine Business Journal, a legal decision
in a lawsuit pressed by a group called "Northwest Envionmental
Advocates" has potential implications for every pleasure boater
operating in US waters.

In an effort to prohibit the discharge of ballast water from foreign
vessels (and reduce the liklihood of introducing foreign plants and
animals to local eco-systems) the Environmental Advocates sucessfully
argued that any vessel discharging any liquid or material of any type
must first obtain a permit from the state in which the discharge is
going to take place. (As a condition of granting the permit, most
states will demand the right to inspect the vessel, ensure that all
available pollution controls are installed and properly maintained,
and may even want to monitor the discharge- at the vessel's expense).

One small oversight: Unlike previous versions of similar regulations,
the legal ruling does not exempt pleasure vessels from the requirement
to obtain a discharge permit.
As a result, everything from cooling water cycling through an engine
to water running off of a deck can be considered a "discharge" and is
technically subject to state permit!

The NMMA is lobbying congress for a revision of the law.

If one is so inclined, the order can be found at:

http://tinyurl.com/3dm2o8

Interesting reading.
--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."- Hide quoted text -

The potential risk is that some zealous environmental extremist could
seize upon the court's oversight. In the ultimate fantasies of some
fanatics, the waters of the Pacific NW would be unsullied by any human
activity afloat. Leaping salmon, cavorting porpoises, and spouting
whales wouldn't be obliged to dodge around any boats or ships, (with a
possible exception for limited numbers of extensively regulated and
duly licensed kayaks, of course). It would never rain, the sun would
never set, beribboned unicorns and Technicolor rainbows would be seen
everywhere, and the gentle breezes would always be warm. With a
glaring defect in the newly refined law, the opportunity remains for
such an extremist to seek a court injunction or other legal avenue to
disrupt pleasure boating.

Another story for you Chuck: * *http://www.geocities.com/mjloundy/

Don't worry......idiotic decisions from your wacko left coast Federal
District judges and Appeals Courts are eventually overturned once taken to a
higher court and common sense takes hold.

Breath in..........breath out.............breath in.........breath
out............ *;-)- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Nothing of substance to add, so you settle for a personal attack.
Predictable.
You and Florida Jim would be against free beer if I appeared to be in
favor of it. :-)

Perhaps you should send a copy of the Chicken Little story to the
National Marine Marketers Association, JimH. They are extremely
concerned about the potential consequences of the ruling, and if you
actually gave a damn about boating you would be as well. Rather than
have this drag through a series of courts hoping for the "right" judge
to set it straight, Congress can simply and specifically empower the
EPA to exempt the normal discharges incidental to the normal opertion
of a pleasure boat.