What People Think
 |
 |
28% For, 72% Against
Take Action
| Vote on this Bill | |
  |
For |
  |
Against |
| Speak Out | |
  |
Comment on this Bill |
  |
Alert Your Friends and Colleagues |
  |
Write Your Representative in Congress |
| Save & Share | |
 |
del.icio.us |
 |
Digg |
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
Yahoo! |
H.R. 2550, The Recreational Boating Act of 2007
Revision History 
Below is the revision history of this article.
(Learn how to edit the WashingtonWatch.com wiki.)
(Latest | Earliest)
To look at a past version, click on its date. To compare any two versions, select their radio buttons and click on "Compare Selected Versions." To compare a past version with the current version, click on (cur). To compare a version with the preceding version, click on (last).
Learn More
Trackback URL: http://www.washingtonwatch.com/bills/trackback/110_HR_2550.html
RSS Feeds for This Bill
Keep yourself updated on user contributions and debates about this bill! (Learn more about RSS.)
Visitor Comments
primeau
this bill is far to inclusive and should not be passed in its current form. a canoe with a weedwacker engine could be assesed under its ruling.
Kenn Brainerd
As a member of the TBF and as a recreational boater I oppose the courts ruling and do support " The Recreational Boating Act of 2007" Please make my opinion count.
Charles A.Wilson
As an avid boater and member of the TBF, I do not support the Courts ruling that provides every boat, no matter the size to obtain an EPA permit do support the 'Recreational Boating Act of 2007'
Billy Roberson
As a recreational boater, I feel this bill is far to broad. The original intentions of this bill is to provide a means to stop the spread of invasive species through commercial boat ballast. The majority of most recreational boaters should not be effected by this,but in the bills current state it would harm us. VOTE NO on the Rec Boating Act of 2007!! Please rewrite the bill so that it can serve its original purpose and not adversely harm the innocent!!
RAY KESSLER
AS A MEMBER OF THE BASS FEDERATION I OPPOSE THE COURTS RULING. PLEASE VOTE NO. I DO SUPPORT THE RECREATIONAL BOATING ACT OF 2007
Ray Carson
Does this mean they will pass a law stating that I need an EPA permit to fish with a rod and reel.?
Please VOTE NO on this absurd bill.
I DO NOT support THE RECREATIONAL BOATING ACT OF 2007. Please make my opinion count.
David Steckley
AS A BASS FEDERATION MEMBER I OPPOSE THE COURTS RULING. PLEASE VOTE NO. I DO SUPPORT THE RECREATIONAL BOATING ACT OF 2007
Clinton Euler
As an avid fisherman and boater and member of The BASS Federation i oppose the courts ruling. This amendment is rediculous. I support the recreational boating act of 2007!
Brian West
As a member of the TBF and recreational boater I oppose this bill in it's current version. I feel it's purpose is sound but far to broad and will hurt more than help.
Taylor
You all are seriously uninformed. This bill is the only thing standing between your bass boats and an 800 EPA permit. This bill is to ammend the clan water act so that recreational boating is not regulated any further than it already is, the bill is not to regulate it further. You want this to go through, if it doesnt your out like a thousand bucks to go bass fishing.
Luke Jacobs
Taylor (see comments above) is absolutely correct. The Recreational Boating Act of 2007 includes a provision EXEMPTING all recreatinoal boats from the Federal Water Pollution Control Act.
Les
What a bunch of morons
SBN
Bryan
Whoa! Does this mean that I will have to pay 800.00 per year for my 19'er??? If that's the case, count me as a NO!
PAT McCARTHY
AS A TBF/FLW TOURNAMENT ANGLER AND WORK WITH A ENVIRONMENTAL COMPANY I THINK IT'S A BUNCH OF GARBAGE . AND THINK THE EPA SHOULD STICK WITH CLEANING UP THE PETROLEUM INDUSTRY GOD KNOWS WHO THEY ARE.
Searay Jim
Have some of you even read HR2550, "Recreational Boating Act of 2007" and the "Federal Water Pollution
Control Act" which it intends to amend? I'm an avid boater and it's important that "we" understand what this is.
It intends to add changes that include recreational boats in the list of things that the Act does NOT include, and we do not want recreational boats included.
This needs to pass to clarify that the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act does NOT include recreational boats. As it's written now, it is too broad and can include recreational boats which is what we do not want.
Vote YES.
CW
Hey guys. Please don't assume anything in this bill. Do some digging and read it before saying "no" or "yes." I hope some of you haven't actually contacted your representive/congressman with a "NO." If you're not into reading and stuff with words, just go here and fill in the blanks and send your opinion to your state reps.
http://www.informz.net/z/cjUucD9taT00NTc0OTImcD0xJnU9MTQ2NTc4NzA1JmxpPT...
Ken Carlton
I cetainly believe that any effort to halt or prevent the spread of polutants or invasive species is worth while and needed. However, as a member of TBF I also believe that the current bill over steps the intended purpose and will be an EPA driven tax levied against recreational boater. Is it any wonder that the 9th circus has it's fingers in this ? Im all for clean water, but count me as a NO.
Brian G
PLEASE READ - BE CAREFUL!!! IF YOU SUPPORT A NO VOTE, IT IS A VOTE AGAINST RECREATIONAL BOATING. A YES VOTE EXEMPTS RECREATIONAL BOATS. DO NOT TELL YOUR REPRESENTATIVE TO VOTE NO THINKING YOU ARE HELPING RECREATIONAL BOATERS. YOU ARE HURTING THEM WITH A NO VOTE!
Avid Boater 1
This Act was initiated by the National Marine Manufacturers Association (NMMA) in response to a recent court ruling against the EPA. By omission of many facts and words, it twists and spins the issue, and intends to deceive and distract anyone who is not familiar with what's really going on behind it. By omission, this bill deceives you into thinking it is all about just needlessly charging recreational boaters a lot of money for a permit that should only be applicable to large freighter ships. You must understand all of what's happening here, before you can knowledgably form an opinion. It is inaccurate to say that voting NO on this bill "hurts recreational boating." In fact, if you will read up on ALL of the information, it is exactly the opposite.
Avid Boater 2
Historically, the EPA has exempted recreational boats from the water pollution rules in the Clean Water Act, which is over 30 years old. These rules relate to many issues including: a.) ballast water discharges by large freighter ships, b.) small bilge pump discharges containing petroleum pollution that create a sheen on the water and also c.) boats with toilets and sinks that discharge gray/black water into our waterways. Over time, as boating has evolved in the US, these small discharges from millions of boats are now cumulatively measurable in millions of gallons per year. The EPA has published statistics stating that over 137 million gallons of petroleum pollution enter our waters each year (in small, hard-to-measure discharges) - directly attributable to the bilges of small boats. This is slowly degrading the quality of our fishing and boating, and will only get worse if left alone. (By the way, I love to fish, hunt, water ski and drive fast in boats.)
Avid Boater 3
Environmentally conscious groups (including many boaters who want to enjoy fishing and boating in unpolluted water) have challenged that the EPA does not have the right to exempt recreational boats from the water pollution rules of the Clean Water Act. One of the original issues was over Zebra Mussels that are being transported through ballast water tanks in big freighters in the Great Lakes region. These mussels have caused significant damage to hydro-electric power plants, and this issue causes other environmental problems by transporting a non-native species to another location through a "non-natural" method. Equally important, and included in these same Clean Water Act rules, is the emphasis on not polluting the waterways by discharging pollution out of bilge pumps or pumping sewage out of boat sewage systems.
Avid Boater 4
No boat is supposed to discharge anything that will cause a sheen on top of the water, or pollute the water. If you have a boat, then you know … this is the shiny stinky film on the water all around your local marina. I'll bet you don't swim in that water! This embodies the root spirit of the Clean Water Act. If you are an avid boater or fisherman, then this should also be a priority to you.
Who knows how, or why, but the EPA and NMMA are somehow inaccurately concluding that the only solution to this problem is to make all boats conform to the NPDES permit process - the same permit process that the big freighter ships have to go through. EPA says they won't be able to implement this in an effective way with all of the recreational boats. NMMA says it will cause undue hardship on the boating world. All of this is silly, and represents lazy thinking, and lacks any common sense!
Avid Boater 5
The NPDES permit process and cost is overkill and a misfit for this problem, as it applies to recreational boats. EPA could address this simply by categorizing boats, and the types of pollutant discharge each type of boat emits. If they would apply just a little common sense, enforcement of this regulation is cheap and easy. There are cheap and simple products available to prevent these types of pollution, and we should all WANT to do that, as long as it's cheap and easy!
If a boat does not have a ballast water system, then why treat it as if it did? If a canoe does not discharge any pollutants, then why require it to have a any pollution permit at all? If a ski boat has a bilge pump, then this pump should not pump petroleum pollutants out in to the waterway causing a sheen. Houseboats with toilets that discharge gray / black water should certainly be restricted from dumping into open water - making marina or off-water dumps mandatory.
Avid Boater 6
These are simple concepts being overlooked or ignored in an attempt to create support for a bill that misrepresents the facts. By "carving out" and focusing on only the ballast water issue, they are attempting to distract you from realizing that this would also simultaneously KEEP THE BILGE and TOILET POLLUTION ISSUES UNDER AN EXEMPTION - meaning that recreational boats would be enabled to just keep on polluting our waters at the rate of 137 million gallons of petroleum per year with no restrictions … this is crazy!
The EPA has recently published a statement that it is seeking information from the public as it considers how to develop a water permit program for "pollutant discharges normal to the operation of commercial vessels and recreational boats. Discharges may include ballast water, bilge water, deck runoff and gray water." They are seeking input, in the form of public comment or relevant information, to further help the EPA in the development of these rules.
Avid Boater 7
The deadline for comments to the EPA is Monday, August 6, 2007. See this link on the EPA web site for a full explanation: http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-WATER/2007/June/Day-21/w12022.htm. The solution should match the problem. Instead of just blurting out your support or opposition because your buddy told you to reply on this site, please take a minute and answer a few questions to yourself: Do you care, or not, 1.) about freighter ballast water systems causing damage and other environmental issues by "fooling with mother nature?" 2.) that your bass boat bilge discharges small amounts of oil & gas out into the surrounding waters, causing a sheen on the water? 3.) that houseboats or yachts dump toilet water into the same water where you are catching fish or swimming? All of these questions are on the table - but they only want you to focus on the ballast water issue because addressing the rest of it in the right way will take more effort on their part.
Avid Boater 8
If you support the Recreational Boating Act of 2007, and if it passes, it means that you just supported a twisted political manipulation that will enable the continued pollution of our waterways by 137 million gallons of petroleum pollution each year, along with everyone's toilet water. Think of it this way: Shouldn't the EPA and the NMMA be SUPPORTING rules that lessen water pollution? The EPA's appeal of the court's decision, and the NMMA's introduction of this bill go directly against what they are supposed to be in favor of! This is your first clue that "something's fishy!" This is crazy!
Vote NO on the bill, and make the effort to tell the EPA that they need to categorize the boating world, and apply the appropriate solution to each segment. This will work to correct the pollution problem in a reasonable and conservative way, and NOT cause the masses any undue hardship.
Thanks for listening, and please do your part!
Robert Miller
Please Vote No on this bill.
Bryan Sullivan
At this time we can't afford to limit the known causes of pollution to only those who can't afford to lobby against them. Everyone must conserve energy and reduce air, water and land pollution and resource consumption. We are killing the planet, the planet needs clean water to survive. Please vote no against this bill.
SkipperPete
Our marina always has a film of oil around the slips. I am one who would like to see something done to fix it. Looks like we need to vote no.
Jim Kuzelka
The bill is so outdated and needs to be discarded the a new bill introduced to apply to the viloatores who bring in the unwanted creatures and do not punish the sports fishermen nor the pleasue boats for the goverments own short commings they and they alone are the creators of the problem and now the want us to help to clean up their mess by giving them monies with out any input seem this is becomming more of the American way.
Jim Kuelka
jkuzelka@sbcglobal.net
From the Round Town Bassmasters
Ken Carlton
Obviously I mean YES on the bassackward bill!
Ken Carlton
I cetainly believe that any effort to halt or prevent the spread of polutants or invasive species is worth while and needed. However, as a member of TBF I also believe that the current bill over steps the intended purpose and will be an EPA driven tax levied against recreational boater. Is it any wonder that the 9th circus has it's fingers in this ? Im all for clean water, but count me as a NO.
Perry Brown
This is one of the dumbest things our government has come up with.We are not the ones poluting the waters.
John Callahan
Name one boat, including your own, that does not have oil in the bilge compartment. Whenever the bilge pump turns on, the water and the oil together get pumped out into the lake. Yes, we are part of the problem. Vote NO, so that the government will help us fix the problem. Otherwise, it just continues.
KJT
I AM FOR THIS BILL.
Jim B
I am strongly against this bill. We need to stop recking our planet.
AZ Jet Boater
John Callahan, I can name one boat that does not have oil in the bilge: Mine. Not only because it is new, but because I meticulously maintain my vessel. Besides, how will a $800 EPA permit stop recreational boaters from discharging foul bilge water?
I just got back from the river and noticed that my backyard pool has more "sheen" than anything I have seen in the main channel or the backwaters. Maybe EPA should make all swimmers who use tanning oil, hair products, sun screen, etc. to get a clean water permit. I support HR 2550.
Tom Kirwan
As a recreational boater and a member of many boating organizations, I support H.R 2550 most strongly. If you own a boat, please support H.R. 2550. It will avoid unnecessary permits and restrictions for boaters.
J Callahan
AZ, Good job keeping a clean and non-polluting boat! But, unfortunately, I believe you are the exception to the rule. (Mine is clean also.) Hopefully EPA will use their brains (not holding my breath) and not use the same permit rules for rec boats that they apply to the big ships. A permit, or regulations without loopholes, would enforce the existing no-sheen rule. This would force rec boaters to either filter their bilge discharge, or keep a meticulous boat - guaranteeing no-sheen / no petroleum discharged out of the bilge. I don't believe that assuming the permit will be $800 is accurate or reasonable. The politicians junking up this website want you to believe that, just to get you to vote yes on the bill - part of their manipulation.
Jeff LaBarre
Re: recreational boats (RBs) contributing 137 million gallons of petroleum pollution (PP) to U.S. waters annually. Per http://fishing.about.com/library/weekly/blnews021218boat.htm there were 12.9 million recreational boats in the U.S. in 2001. Assume the same annual increase mentioned in the article of 94,000 RBs in 2001. Also, assume the EPA figures were calculated for 2006 (worst case). Now 94,000 x (2006-2001) + 12,900,000 = about 13.4 million. Then 137/13.4 = 10.2. That is 10.2 gallons of PP for EVERY RB in the U.S! Does this sound right to you?
The vast majority of the RBs I see get little to no use in any given year. The only way this statistic could be right would be to add all the marine diesel, gas, and engine oil used by RBs, 5 hp fishing skiff through megayacht, in one year and assume it was *all* PP! No way does the average RB discharge an AVERAGE of 10.2 gallon of oil annually through bilge water.
Figures never lie but sometimes liars figure.
Linda G
If you are in favor of this bill, then you either don't understand it, or you're in favor of polluting my lake! Please vote no!
S Green
We need clean water - I think its time for the EPA to step up and do something that will actually help.
Billy N
The permits that may come from this are not unnecesary they would help stop pollution from al those boats . vote no.
Todd Armstrong
As an american and an avid boater this would go against what the constitution states and that is nothing should stand in the way of are pursuit of happiness and this would because there would be alot of people who would not be able to afford such a permit. I oppose this permit and Support the RECREATIONAL BOATING ACT OF 2007 100% and so should are U.S. SENATORS AND REPRESENATIVES. VOTE YES TO THIS BILL CONGRESSMAN
TNC
As Americans and avid boaters, we should be more concerned about the sustainability of our natural resources than a stupid permit. Support of this Act means you don't care about the continued pollution of our waters as a first priority! How can you support that?! This is ridiculous!
SV Resolution
This bill will PREVENT regulation of recreational vessels by redefining "pollutant" so it does not include certain discharges from recreational vessels.
See the Boat US opinion at http://www.boatus.com/gov/HR2550FAQ.pdf
It may prevent the EPA from regulating discharge of ballast water from recreational vessels.
T Jenkins
Preventing regulation of recreational vessels is the PROBLEM ! They are the source of much pollution, and it needs to stop! This slow destruction of our natural resource needs to stop!
Avid Boater
Two of the stated "Points in Favor" of this bill are: 1) It will prevent the EPA from requiring small boat owners to install water treatment systems on exhaust, bilge, sink, shower, etc. outflows, and 2) It will prevent the EPA from requiring boat manufacturers to redesign recreational boats to include water treatment systems on various water outflows.
THESE POINTS ARE A PROBLEM ! The EPA has published many statistics on how much pollution is put out by millions of small pollutant discharges from millions of small boats. The cumulative negative impact is significant! This bill, if passed, would allow all of this to continue, which is disastrous! ALL boats should be held to the spirit of the Clean Water Act's No Sheen rule. We need boat owners to install water treatment systems to stop pollution. We need boat manufacturers to include these systems on their boats. Our future ability to enjoy boating in a clean environment depends on it! Vote NO on this bill.
Boater
Problem with the legislation is it currently is written is that it is zero oil leakage is impossible I minimize this on our boat thru good maintenance and inspection of the engine, but even well maintained inboard motors sometimes leak small amounts without you knowing it. You've to to realize then that when used as intended, people are swimming, fishing and skiing and bringing many many gallons of water onboard. It's got to go somewhere, and that is back into the water where. A small boat cannot keep acumulating water, its got to empty the bilge a couple of times a day. I'd love to know how I empty the bilge and filter out the oil.
Avid Boater
There are 2 products for less than $50 - both are designed specifically for this purpose and easy to install: Mycelx Bilge Kleen and HarborGard.
jack
you people just can't stand it when
people have fun...
Chesapeake Boat er
Vote YES...do not include recreational boaters in a mandate directed at large ships. To pay several hundred dollars for a permit for my 6hp dinghy is absurd.
Florida Boater
Vote yes for this bill, the only people that do not see it's logic are people who don't have a life except messing with mine. More oil at the beach from sun tan lotion go after them!
nar
Vote NO on this. Do not support more pollution. 18 million recreational boats are polluting lakes and oceans one leak at a time. Stop being selfish and look at the big picture. Don't let this continue! Vote NO
Stephanie R
Vote no - all of this seems to ignore that fact that we're ruining our lakes and ocean.
Maxboater
Obviously, the treehuggers in the crowd don't own boats. For recreational boaters (who are ALREADY regulated on what they can and cannot discharge overboard) HR 2550 needs to pass! HR 2550 BLOCKS the permits that will be required of rec boaters if the other main bill passes. Collectively, the rec boats in use put less in total overboard than one commercial vessel. HR 2550 seeks to exempt rec boats from the permit requirements and EPA scrutiny. For our environmental concerns, we are ALREADY regulated on what can and cannot be discharged and no further regulation is needed, or will help the problenm at hand.
Vote yes on HR 2550.
SRT
Dear Max,
SeaRay Treehugger here. Collectively the recreational boats put over 12 million gallons of petroleum pollution into our waters each year - through small leaks and bilge discharges - this pollution IS NOT ALREADY regulated. The regulatory exemption from the Clean Water Act and the no-sheen rule allows rec boaters to just keep on polluting at will - and obviously you are one of those. Please stop polluting our waters and get your facts straight. How can you honestly support something like this, when you know it will enable the continued destruction of our environment? Your views are selfish and short-sighted. Vote NO on HR2550.
ss
SRT - Fuel and Oil discahrges are already regualted for all boats The CWA expemption does not exempt these discharges. Trash and Sewage are also already regulated. So the main sources of potential boat discharges are already regulated. We should get efforts focused on enforcing our current regulations before we develop new ones.
SRT
This bill represents NMMA's appeal to a court judgment that has already been made against the EPA regarding a regulation of the Clean Water Act written over 30 years ago. The regulation at issue, 40 C.F.R. § 122.3(a), exempts effluent discharges "incidental to the normal operation of a vessel" from regulation under the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System ("NPDES"). This includes such discharges as grey water, bilge water, deck runoff, and black water. The court has ruled that the EPA does not have the right to issue this "waiver" of the rules to recreational boats, and for many good reasons. The EPA itself has published many statistics on the significant negative impact of 18 million recreational boats all leaking and discharging small amounts of oil and gas.
Support of this bill represents a position in favor of continued water pollution by rec boats. I can't imagine why anyone would consciously take this stance. Please vote no on HR 2550.
Average Joe
Avid Boater sounds like one of the members of the groups that originaly instigated this lawsuit in the first place. Now I'm all for clean water but not at the price of overzelous regulation. Support this bill or be prepared to have just one more of your rights chipped away at people.
ROM
SRT and others against the bill clearly do not understand the intentions of the bill. Black water and oil and gas emmissions are already regulated for recreational boats. What is exempted from regulation now for recreational boats is deck run-off, bilge water, cooling water, grey water, etc. This would require all recreational boaters to get permits from the EPA. Non-baoters such as SRT should educate themselves before sounding off on issues affecting 18 million boaters. It is the old "someone else ox being gored" routine.
SRT
You guys are ridiculous. We clearly understand everything about the bill. I am educated about it, and I'm sounding off - 18 million boaters's bilge pumps cumulatively dump out millions of gallons of oil and gas into the waters each year. Just see the EPA published statistics on it. I am a boater, and this needs to be regulated. There is no routine. Stop being a grumpy old man, and stop polluting our waters, and get with the times.
Avid sailor
If HR2550, correcting the wording of the Pollution Control Act, is defeated you will not be able to wash the fish scales off your boat. You will not be able to run your outboard unless you have a holding tank to contain the cooling water discharge, you will not even be allowed to bail out your boat without a permit.
Avid Sailor
TO SRT, I assume you would rather have a boat sink with its tanks full of diesel or gasoline and the engine full of motor oil than run the bilge pump.
Dry Sailor
If this bill doesn't pass, all boats of all sizes would be required to get a permit ($$$) and not discharge any water into a lake. That means water from galley sinks could no longer empty directly into the water. Water used to cool an engine (water that comes out of the exhaust cannot be pumped back into that water it came from). The list goes on. There are already plenty of laws on the books to prevent recreational boaters from polluting our lakes. Please, read this bill again and vote YES. I know it seems backwards, but if it is voted down, you will no longer see recreational boats on the water. PLEASE RESEARCH THIS BILL BEFORE BLINDLY SAYING "NO".
Jesse L.
Dear Dry Sailor,
Your statements are exaggerated and misleading. It will NOT necessarily mean that ALL boats of ALL sizes are required to get a permit - we won't know that until the EPA decides how to adapt the NPDES rules to rec. boats. To say that engine cooling water will not be able to be circulated is false and misleading to the readers of this board. Galley water with kitchen grease and soap, and bilge water with oil and gas do not belong in our waterways. Currently, there are NOT laws that prevent people from dumping galley water and bilge water - so this statement of yours is also false and misleading. To say that we will "no longer see recreational boats on the water if this bill is voted down" is probably the most ignorant statement I've seen posted yet - even worse than your buddy Avid Sailor!
Wake up, you guys. For the sake of preserving our clean waters, so that our kids and grandchildren will also be able to enjoy clean waters, please vote NO on this bill.
Jesse L.
Clarification: Currently, there are not laws to prevent people from dumping DIRTY galley water and PETROLEUM polluted bilge water. There are solutions available to prevent these types of pollutants from being discharged out into our waterways. Since there are ways to prevent it, then please explain to me why ANYONE would be opposed to trying to prevent it? In all good conscience, this just seems morally wrong. Supporting this bill is the same as admitting that you are OPPOSED to trying to prevent water pollution. How can you morally do that?
Connie Frasier
I think these people promoting this bill have other money-driven or political motives, or else they would never take this position. This is disgusting. Recreational boats are slowly ruining our lakes with pollution. I think we should vote no on this bill.
JBF
Right on Connie! I agree. Vote no!
Larry
I vote yes. I boat. For those that vote no, how do boaters get rid of bilge water. All boats have bilge water. Most boaters like clean bilges with no oils. With respect to the galley, where does kitchen grease and soap from your house end up. For those of you that live near the oceans.
Thomas C
Larry,
There are cheap and simple filters (Mycelx BilgeKleen and HarborGard) that prevent the discharge of oil and fuel from the bilge, preventing petroleum sheen on the water's surface. If everyone used these, it would eliminate the problem without affecting bilge pump performance. Residential kitchen grease goes to the local water treatment plant, which is where galley kitchen grease and soap should go also - NOT directly into the lake. There are filters and holding tanks for grey water waste that can also be used.
While most boaters may "like" clean bilges with no oils, most bilges are actually never cleaned and they pump oil along with the bilge water on every cycle of the pump. We are killing our waters and it is so easily and cheaply preventable! We can not continue this. Do not let EPA and NMMA pull the wool over your eyes with their deceptive renditions of the facts that only serve their own interests, with total disregard for our environment. Please vote no.
Tom Riley
This bill restores the small boat exemption that has been in existence for 36 years.
I support the bill because the alternative is a fee without merit or benefit involved. It will permit at high cost and with no remediation of what are real issues
Support this bill and develop something better than the present lack of exemption.
Antonio
This bill will limit the goverments power to infrige on the freedom of individuals to use theire private property.
Bodey Q
I would like someone to tell me how this bill will fix any problems we have in our lakes!
John Young
I do support the H.R. 2550 Recretional Boating Act of 2007.
Jack Young
There is much confusion regarding H.R. 2550. This bill will exempt recretional boaters from needing permits. This is a good bill and all recretional boaters should vote yes for it.
Highlander
I am a sailboat of 26ft in length. My owner is not wealthy and cannot afford more govermant regulation that has no hope of cleaning up our water supply. My owner has sailed me for 14 years and I have used 35 gal of fuel in that time. I have a holding tank for waste and my sink is pluged so that no gray water can be discharged per U.S.C.G. regulatin. My owner was going to buy me a clean running 4 stroke OB this year but now he will probalbly have to wait so there is money to pay for a permit that regulates things that are part of any U.S.C.G. inspection anyway. If there is a need to filter discharge then require a filter and ticket anyone not using one. Please dont blindly take what little money there is in my owners budget. All he wants to do is sail.
Johnny H
Living in the status quo is fine - all the way up to the point where problems (like water pollution) evolve over time. What Tom Riley and other supporters of this bill are really saying is … "even though we know that our 18 million recreational boats are now causing significant water pollution problems, it's more important to exempt those boats from the Clean Water Act rules 'just because that's the way it's been for 36 years'." This position does not make common sense, is irresponsible and exhibits complete disregard for our environment.
Also - it is incorrect to say that "the alternative is a fee without merit or benefit involved." The alternative is actually VERY beneficial to our environment because it will force everyone to simply play by the rules and intent of the Clean Water Act - the way it was ORIGINALLY WRITTEN and INTENDED over 36 years ago! Vote no on this bill.
RJ
Pollution attributable to boats is a real issue. Preventing this exemption will go a long way toward remediating this pollution issue by forcing boaters to stop polluting our waterways through the use of various filters, holding tanks and clean practices.
This has nothing to do with your "freedom to use your private property" Antonio. It is not your right to pollute the waterways; in fact, it's against the law! Use your boat all you want - just be clean about it! That's really what this is all about.
Highlander's suggestion of "requiring a filter and ticketing anyone not using one" is exactly what is positioned to happen - IF THIS BILL DOES NOT EXIST ! The EPA is not out to "blindly take away boaters' budgets" and the intent is to sustain boating activity that is simply clean in nature. Vote no on this bill
Walt Fisher
I'm older than all ya'll and can't imagine anyone supporting a bill that purposely just dodges the rules that would stop pollution. Even if it means we have to use new technology on our boat, then it's worth it if it will help clean up the dirty oil scum that floats around most marinas, like ours. That pollution comes from bilge pumps spurting out oil and bilge waste all the time. I'm voting no - let the politicians look silly with all of their nonsense.
Kelly
Do you want to go boating in clean water? If your answer is yes, then you cannot support this bill without being a hypocrite. This is what's called "greenwashing" - saying that you want a clean environment, but then acting in a way that is inconsistent with your statement.
Cal Boater
Yes, thank you Kelly! The EPA is greenwashing by appealing the court ruling that would reduce pollution. This is exactly the opposite of what they're supposed to be all about!
The NMMA is not necessarily greenwashing, because their mission is just to promote boating, however, they are showing what they're really made of by taking a position that goes completely against social responsibility for our environment…just for the money. Look at the web sites and mission statements of the large corporations that are NMMA members. Most claim to be all about environmental responsibility and investing heavily in clean and green technology. Now, THIS is greenwashing - for these companies to claim to be green, while supporting NMMA through membership - even though NMMA is going directly against the environment by initiating and promoting this bill…just for the money.
Go green - vote no on this bill. Everyone else is…except for the EPA and NMMA!
Mary TR
Get with the times! Vote NO on this bill. To support this bill is only selfish and tells everyone that you are either uninformed or riding on other political motives that have nothing to do with caring for our environment.
Captain Dan
Anyone interested in buying my boat? Boating has been a life-long passion for me but if H.R. 2550 does not pass I'm done! As boat owners, we are already regulated and permitted well beyond reason and boating is rapidly becoming a "rich man's" sport. The purpose of the 2007 Act is to prevent large ships from transporting foreign waterborne specis across oceans. A boat moored at the coast in saltwater but occassionally put into a lake must first be thoroughly cleaned (bottom, trailer, bilge and the engine flushed). Otherwise you may transport living organizms from the ocean to the lake. This is similar to what large worldwide ships are doing to our oceans. This is not a perfect world. People cause polution. But, we can be responsible and support reasonable legislation. H.R.2550 is a bill that will exempt recreational boats from the strict regulations intended for large commercial ships. Support H.R.2550!
Travis A
I support this bill and I'm for clean water. There is absolutely no reason why we cannot have both - we need education for some boaters who believe they can dump anything they want in the ocean or waterways - but most boaters are not in this group. I boat to be out on beautiful water and to fish - I can't very well do either if our waterways are more polluted. Just because I support the bill does not make me a hypocrite - it does however make me an informed boater.
Guy
I support this bill. I agree that we need to do something about water pollution, but as it is now written, the 2007 act is all wrong. All it will do is cost all of us recreational boaters money. It will do nothing to reduce pollution. It is currently illegal to discharge any oil into the water. Let`s start enforcing that law. Don`t charge me a permit fee, let me, and require me to, spend that money on a bilge pump filtration system. They are not that expensive, but if I have to pay for the permit, I won`t be able to buy the filter. Create a law requiring the installation of filter systems on all new boats, and all existing boats will need one retrofitted by a certain date. Then enforce these laws. The fees do nothing but put more money in our governments coffers and less in my pockets!