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.

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.

Oh goodie!! Another useless, unenforceable law.

"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
. ..
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.

Oh goodie!! Another useless, unenforceable law.

Y'all better move on up to Canada while you have a chance.

"Don White" wrote in message
...

"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
. ..
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.

Oh goodie!! Another useless, unenforceable law.

Y'all better move on up to Canada while you have a chance.


We are hoping our *left coast* breaks away from the US mainland and floats
away. ;-)

"JimH" wrote in message
...


We are hoping our *left coast* breaks away from the US mainland and floats
away. ;-)


Don't know how we could live without the Academy Awards.

"Don White" wrote in message
...

"JimH" wrote in message
...


We are hoping our *left coast* breaks away from the US mainland and
floats away. ;-)


Don't know how we could live without the Academy Awards.

They'd just be held in Denver....

On Feb 27, 2:56�pm, "Don White" wrote:
"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in ws.com...





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.

Oh goodie!! *Another useless, unenforceable law.

Y'all better move on up to Canada while you have a chance.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

As I mentioned in my just-finished editorial on this same issue,
("Don't Pump the Baby out with the Bilge Water") we can't even
"escape" without a permit! After all, starting that engine to migrate
to a saner political environment would result in the discharge of
cooling water.

On Feb 27, 3:22�pm, "JimH" wrote:
"Don White" wrote in message

...







"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
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.

Oh goodie!! *Another useless, unenforceable law.

Y'all better move on up to Canada while you have a chance.

We are hoping our *left coast* breaks away from the US mainland and floats
away. *;-)- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

So right you are.

And just what would the remaining 45 contiguous states do if they lost
the three states that raise the average national IQ nearly 15 points
and represent about 20% of the wealth? :-)

("Celebrate" is not the answer I have in mind). :-)

Chuck Gould wrote:
On Feb 27, 3:22�pm, "JimH" wrote:
"Don White" wrote in message

...







"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
. ..
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.
Oh goodie!! �Another useless, unenforceable law.
Y'all better move on up to Canada while you have a chance.
We are hoping our *left coast* breaks away from the US mainland and floats
away. �;-)- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

So right you are.

And just what would the remaining 45 contiguous states do if they lost
the three states that raise the average national IQ nearly 15 points
and represent about 20% of the wealth? :-)

("Celebrate" is not the answer I have in mind). :-)

Celebrate would be cruel.

Laughing our collective asses off seems more appropriate.

"Chuck Gould" wrote in message
ups.com...
On Feb 27, 3:22?pm, "JimH" wrote:
"Don White" wrote in message

...







"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
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.

Oh goodie!! Another useless, unenforceable law.

Y'all better move on up to Canada while you have a chance.

We are hoping our *left coast* breaks away from the US mainland and floats
away. ;-)- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

So right you are.
===============

Yep. And so left you are.