On 28 Feb 2007 23:13:50 -0800, "Chuck Gould"
wrote:


You and Florida Jim would be against free beer if I appeared to be in
favor of it. :-)

Hey, I'm with you Chuck - I'm for free beer and I don't even drink
beer.

"Whiskey for my men, Beer for my horses!!"

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 operation of a pleasure boat.

I had a very interesting conversation yesterday with an aide to our
local Congressional Representative and here's what I came away with
(I'm kind of paraphrasing here, but the intent is exact).

"Um...I don't understand. You mean that a ruling in California can
effect people in Connecticut?"

God as my witness, that's what his aide said.

We are doomed. Time to move to Australia where they at least like
boaters and don't believe in Global Warming. :)

"Chuck Gould" wrote in message
oups.com...
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 -


You and Florida Jim would be against free beer if I appeared to be in
favor of it. :-)
===========================

Free beer? Yahoo!

"Chuck Gould" wrote in message
oups.com...
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.


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

Even though I like boating I could give a rats ass what the National Marine
Marketers Association thinks.

On Mar 1, 5:51?am, "JimH" wrote:


Even though I like boating I could give a rats ass what the National Marine
Marketers Association thinks.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Then express that thought, rather than play childish games and try to
start a flame war.

"Chuck Gould" wrote in message
oups.com...
On Mar 1, 5:51?am, "JimH" wrote:


Even though I like boating I could give a rats ass what the National
Marine
Marketers Association thinks.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Then express that thought, rather than play childish games and try to
start a flame war.



There was no flame war Chuck. Relax.

On Mar 1, 6:23�am, "JimH" wrote:


There was no flame war Chuck. *Relax.

"Not I," said the Little Red Hen.

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. :-)

heh, but lysergic was so much more fun...

"Chuck Gould" wrote in message
ps.com...
On Mar 1, 6:23?am, "JimH" wrote:


There was no flame war Chuck. Relax.

"Not I," said the Little Red Hen.
==========

Whatever. Have a nice evening Chuck. ;-)