WashingtonWatch.com - H.R. 2550, The Recreational Boating Act of 2007

Comment by Captain Dan (March 19, 2008, 01:00:00)

Wed, 19 Mar 2008 00:00:00 EDT

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!...

Comment by Travis A (March 19, 2008, 01:00:00)

Wed, 19 Mar 2008 00:00:00 EDT

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....

Comment by Guy (March 19, 2008, 01:00:00)

Wed, 19 Mar 2008 00:00:00 EDT

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!...

Comment by Johnny H (March 6, 2008, 01:00:00)

Thu, 06 Mar 2008 00:00:00 EST

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....

Comment by RJ (March 6, 2008, 01:00:00)

Thu, 06 Mar 2008 00:00:00 EST

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...

Comment by Walt Fisher (March 6, 2008, 01:00:00)

Thu, 06 Mar 2008 00:00:00 EST

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....

Comment by Kelly (March 6, 2008, 01:00:00)

Thu, 06 Mar 2008 00:00:00 EST

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....

Comment by Cal Boater (March 6, 2008, 01:00:00)

Thu, 06 Mar 2008 00:00:00 EST

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!...

Comment by Mary TR (March 6, 2008, 01:00:00)

Thu, 06 Mar 2008 00:00:00 EST

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....

Comment by Highlander (February 21, 2008, 01:00:00)

Thu, 21 Feb 2008 00:00:00 EST

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....

Comment by John Young (January 19, 2008, 01:00:00)

Sat, 19 Jan 2008 00:00:00 EST

I do support the H.R. 2550 Recretional Boating Act of 2007....

Comment by Jack Young (January 19, 2008, 01:00:00)

Sat, 19 Jan 2008 00:00:00 EST

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....

Comment by Bodey Q (December 20, 2007, 01:00:00)

Thu, 20 Dec 2007 00:00:00 EST

I would like someone to tell me how this bill will fix any problems we have in our lakes!...

Comment by Antonio (December 5, 2007, 01:00:00)

Wed, 05 Dec 2007 00:00:00 EST

This bill will limit the goverments power to infrige on the freedom of individuals to use theire private property....

Comment by Tom Riley (November 19, 2007, 01:00:00)

Mon, 19 Nov 2007 00:00:00 EST

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....

Comment by Thomas C (October 9, 2007, 01:00:00)

Tue, 09 Oct 2007 00:00:00 EDT

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....

Comment by Larry (October 6, 2007, 01:00:00)

Sat, 06 Oct 2007 00:00:00 EDT

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....

Comment by Dry Sailor (September 21, 2007, 01:00:00)

Fri, 21 Sep 2007 00:00:00 EDT

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"....

Comment by Jesse L. (September 21, 2007, 01:00:00)

Fri, 21 Sep 2007 00:00:00 EDT

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....

Comment by Jesse L. (September 21, 2007, 01:00:00)

Fri, 21 Sep 2007 00:00:00 EDT

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?...

Comment by Connie Frasier (September 21, 2007, 01:00:00)

Fri, 21 Sep 2007 00:00:00 EDT

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....

Comment by JBF (September 21, 2007, 01:00:00)

Fri, 21 Sep 2007 00:00:00 EDT

Right on Connie! I agree. Vote no!...

Comment by Avid sailor (September 12, 2007, 01:00:00)

Wed, 12 Sep 2007 00:00:00 EDT

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....

Comment by Avid Sailor (September 12, 2007, 01:00:00)

Wed, 12 Sep 2007 00:00:00 EDT

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....

Revision by webmaster (August 24, 2007, 01:00:00)

Fri, 24 Aug 2007 00:00:00 EDT

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

Detailed Summary

This bill is intended to preserve the status quo for recreational boaters. It says that the water running off of or out of a properly-functioning recreational vessel will not be considered a pollutant. It also says that a recreational vessel is any vessel intended or used primarily for recreation (no size limitation imposed).

This bill was written in order to exempt recreational boaters from a new EPA permit process designed to prevent large commercial vessels from bringing invasive species (like zebra mussels) to new ports in their bilge water. This bill is intended to save recreational boaters the cost of the permit (which might cost $20 to $100 per year), associated paperwork, and the cost of modifications to existing or new boats.

The EPA has not yet developed the permit process, and has until September, 2008 to do so.

Congressional Research Service Summary

Recreational Boating Act of 2007 - Amends the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (popularly known as the Clean Water Act) to include within the meaning of the term "pollutant" 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. States that this term does not apply to rubbish, trash, garbage, or other such materials discharged overboard by a recreational vessel.<br>

Status of the Legislation

Latest Major Action: 5/25/2007: Referred to House subcommittee. Status: Referred to the Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment.

Points in Favor

The EPA will be prevented from writing certain types of new regulations for small boats
Neither the EPA nor the states will be prevented from enforcing existing laws and regulations on pollution caused by small boats.
The EPA will not be prevented from regulating discharge from marine heads.
Will prevent the EPA from charging boat owners for a certain type of environmental permit it is now required to develop.
Will prevent the EPA from requiring small boat owners to install water treatment systems on exhaust, bilge, sink, shower, etc. outflows.
Will prevent the EPA from requiring boat manufacturers to redesign recreational boats to include water treatment systems on various water outflows.

Points Against

A boat designed for recreational use is exempt from regulation, even if it is now being used for commercial purposes, and even if it is very large.
A boat being used primarily for recreational purposes is exempt from regulation, even if it was designed for commercial use, and even if it is very large.
Redefines the term "pollutant" to exclude certain types of runoff, discharge, and waste from vessels. This could provide a loophole for boat owners to get around regulations meant to deter the spread of invasive aquatic species.
Specifically exempts "any other discharge incidental to the normal operation of a recreational vessel", which exempts unregulated discharge of ballast water from water-ballasted recreational vessels as they travel from one body of fresh water to another.
Because the case which prompted this bill is still working its way through the court system, it is unclear if this legislation will ever be necessary.