EPA Permit Arguments and Wording from HR 2550

ruf1967

New Member
Nov 18, 2006
349
North Texas
Boat Info
185 Sport
Engines
V6
Got this off the Boattest website:



Appeals Court Hears EPA Permit Arguments - 08/22/2007


NMMA President says EPA permits could cost boaters “$800 or more.â€

Judges Michael Daly Hawkins, Kim McLane Wardlaw, and William A. Fletcher — all President Clinton judicial appointees — were selected as the appeal panel. The NMMA says judges “were clearly engaged in the case,†and Department of Justice attorneys actively defended the EPA permitting exemption during arguments for the appeal.

DOJ told the judges that the nation’s estimated 18 million recreational boats would have to be covered under this decision, underscoring the magnitude of the permitting impact, and that EPA would need more time than the District Court allowed to decide out how to address recreational vessels.

Judge Fletcher said during the hearing he is listening sympathetically to the industry and the EPA, and that this is a complicated affair. He is hesitant to have this deadline come “hell or high water,†the NMMA reports. Fletcher also responded to the shipping coalition’s safety arguments that “no one wants to run ships ashore.â€

However, Judge Wardlaw asked the government lawyers “how can you exempt other [non-ballast] discharges and remain consistent with the Clean Water Act as it is written?â€

The final outcome of the appeal will not be known for some time. However, the NMMA says the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals “clearly recognizes that the case now goes beyond large commercial ship ballast water and impacts recreational boats as well.â€

We will keep you posted as Judge Wardlaw puzzles his way through this conundrum.


Here's how HR 2550 actually is worded:

H.R. 2550: To amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act relating to recreational vessels
HR 2550 IH


110th CONGRESS

1st Session

H. R. 2550
To amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act relating to recreational vessels.


IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES


May 24, 2007

Mr. TAYLOR (for himself and Mrs. MILLER of Michigan) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


A BILL
To amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act relating to recreational vessels.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,


SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Recreational Boating Act of 2007'.


SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

(a) Pollutant- Section 502(6) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1362(6)) is amended--

(1) by striking `or (B)' and inserting `(B)'; and

(2) by inserting before the period at the end the following: `; or (C) 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; except that this subparagraph does not apply to rubbish, trash, garbage, or other such materials discharged overboard by a recreational vessel'.

(b) Recreational Vessel- Such section is further amended by adding at the end the following:

`(25) `recreational vessel' means a vessel--

`(A) manufactured for operation, or operated, primarily for recreational purposes; or

`(B) leased, rented, or chartered to an individual for recreational purposes.'.
 
Ron posted a earlier request to get involved and write your congeressman and senators. Folks you had better get busy writting those letters. If this law goes into effect you can bet we will be paying for it.
 
Here is what I got back from Sen. Mel Martinez

Dear Mr. Wilson:

Thank you for contacting me regarding the Recreational Boating Act. I appreciate hearing from you and would like to take this opportunity to respond to your concerns.

On May 24, 2007, Representative Gene Taylor (D-MS-4) introduced the Recreational Boating Act of 2007 (H.R. 2550) to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act with regard to recreational vessels. This legislation would exempt any deck runoff, engine cooling water, gray water, bilge water or any other incidental discharge from existing dumping regulations so long as it was effluent from properly functioning recreational marine engines. Any garbage discharged overboard by a recreational vessel, however, would not be exempt.

As an avid outdoorsman and fisherman, I appreciate the value of our state’s biodiversity and natural heritage, and consider it important that we fight to protect it. When making decisions affecting our waterways and oceans, we must strive to strike a balance between conservation and recreation. It is critical, however, that this process remains open to public comment, fair to all parties, and grounded in sound science.

H.R. 2550 was referred to the United States House of Representatives Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure where it awaits further consideration. Rest assured, should H.R. 2550, or any related legislation, receive the attention of the United States Senate, I will be sure to keep your thoughtful comments in mind.

Again, thank you for contacting me. If you have any additional questions or comments, please do not hesitate to contact me. In addition, for more information about issues and activities important to Florida, please sign up for my weekly newsletter at http://martinez.senate.gov.

Sincerely,

Mel Martinez
United States Senator
 
I got the same non-response from Martinez and will remember it next time he is up for re-election. I might add that I didn't even receive a response from Nelson.

-Chazaroo
 
Why the h*ll is anyone in MI allowed to offer or suggest up such a bill that would affect so much more shoreline/bodies of water than just the great lakes.
Time to write my senator's to oppose. Around here a tax like that would be insane and absolutely rejected! We pay enough in WA registration fees, WA state access permits & Fuel taxes to allow another $100 fee let alone an $800.00 yearly tax.

Dump the tea in the bay I say! :smt013
 

Forum statistics

Threads
112,950
Messages
1,422,865
Members
60,932
Latest member
juliediane
Back
Top