How People Voted
23% For, 77% Against
121 votes cast
Take Action
 |
Alert Your Friends and Colleagues |
 |
Write Your Representative in Congress |
| Organize | |
|
Start A Petition |
| Save & Share | |
 |
del.icio.us |
 |
Digg |
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
Yahoo! |
Discussion: S. 2067, The Recreational Boating Act of 2007 (17 comments ↓)
- This item is from the 110th Congress (2007-2008) and is no longer current. Comments, voting, and wiki editing have been disabled, and the cost/savings estimate has been frozen.
No discussion on this article yet.
Cost per :
Learn More
RSS Feeds for This Bill
Keep yourself updated on user contributions and debates about this bill! (Learn more about RSS.)
Visitor Comments
Avid Boater
September 27, 2007, 2:09pm (report abuse)DON'T BE FOOLED ! This bill tries to make the unassuming person think that the issue is simply that recreational boats don't have ballast water, so NONE of the water pollution rules should apply to recreational boats. It completely evades the real issue of the oil, gas, diesel, grey water and sewage pollution coming from 12+ million recreational boats. If it passes, it will enable these boats to continue polluting our lakes and oceans in staggering volumes.
Please VOTE NO on this bill - the future of our clean waters depends on your NO VOTE !
Jeff Black
September 27, 2007, 3:22pm (report abuse)Dear Senators and Represenatives,
Please no not let big business ruin our recrational waters.
Recreational boaters need to help keep our waters clean.
Vote no.
Thank you
Jeff Black
Jon Lips
September 27, 2007, 5:31pm (report abuse)No Way, Our lakes have a nice sheen of fuel from pleasure boats. It is not a big deal to eliminate bildge water fuel build up with commercially available filer systems. This has gone on too long where the boat manufacturers have made environmental policy. I say NO WAY!!
Coasty
September 27, 2007, 10:43pm (report abuse)After being in the Coast Guard and inspecting boats, if any one tells me that small boats and personal watercraft do not produce contaminated bilge water they are mistaken. Where do you think all of the oil and gas goes when it runs off an inboard motor? Answer the bilge. Outboards are no different when the gas spills from the carry on fuel tanks it goes into the bilge area of the boat. Current standards allow the contaminated water to be pumped overboard. That is a lot of oil and gas being pumped into freshwater water ways which we have to try to find a way to clean so that communities have portable water.
Beverly Hiatt
September 28, 2007, 5:16pm (report abuse)As a past boat owner, I have seen all the oil dumped into the lake when we were enjoying ourselves, not realizing that we were polluting the waters along with every recreational boater on the lake. Vote "NO" on this bill! Our children and grandchildren are relying on you!
Robert Miller
September 28, 2007, 5:17pm (report abuse)Bilge pumps are designed to remove excess water and other leaked, spilled, washed, toxic and undesired liquids from a boat while in a waterway. Harmful materials should be removed, to the extent possible and practible by commercially available means before being discharged via bilge pumps into public waterways.
Michele DeGonia
September 28, 2007, 5:36pm (report abuse)I grew up boating on the Mississippi, Missouri and Illinois rivers. However, I firmly believe we should be accountable and responsible for our recreational activities. If we're going to have our fun, we should also be responsible to the environment and show our respect by taking care of it, not making a wasteland of it. We drink the water and eat the fish that come from it. Need I say more?
San Jose, CA
Bay Area sailor
October 2, 2007, 12:44am (report abuse)Voting "NO" on this bill would require millions of recreational boaters to obtain a discharge permit. It is a simple fact of life that recreational boats suffer from deck leaks and rainwater infiltration. Having witnessed boats sinking from failed bilge pumps during rainstorms in the marina where my sailboat is berthed, I can tell you that far less material is discharged from a bilge pump removing collected rain seepage that a single vessel sinking and having hundreds of gallons of diesel and oil leak from its tanks. Responsible boaters keep their bilge clean. Instead of yet another unenforceable bureucratic mess, cite individual dischargers with heavy fines.
Bryan Sullivan
October 2, 2007, 10:40am (report abuse)Letting the recreational boating lobbyists take the huge portion of watercraft out of this bill is like letting the auto industry ignoring emissions for SUVs when we all know it is part of the problem. Give it teeth, set an example that no exceptions will be allowed in the fight to preserve our planets clean water.
Mark Marino
November 28, 2007, 1:32pm (report abuse)There are already laws in place prohibiting discharge of oil and waste. Making boaters pay additional taxes on top of current registration fees and property taxes is ridiculous. The main purpose of this law is to protect our inland waters from invasive species. Those of you against this bill are uniniformed and I would guess knee-jerk to every environmental issue.
Don
December 28, 2007, 3:35pm (report abuse)What next? How about a permit for motor cycles that have there engines and chains exposed to rain and wet roads. Where do you think the run off goes? How about your car, your atv, your lawn mower, your driveway. GET IT!!!!!!
Peter C
February 21, 2008, 10:45am (report abuse)This bill is a proper attempt to prevent regulatory overkill by exempting pleasure craft from a law never intended to apply to them. Unless this bill passes, recreational boaters will be required to get a permit (read, pay a tax) to continue to operate. Killing this bill will do NOTHING to improve the environment; it will only increase governmental intrusion and raise taxes. Please pass this bill.
Captain Tim
February 25, 2008, 1:19pm (report abuse)I think it is safe to say that most if not all recreational boaters want to protect and preserve the waterways we boat and fish on for ourselves and our children. Voting NO on this bill will not accomplish that. Nowhere in the wording of the bill does it say that receipts from these fee's (Tax) will be used to clean up and protect America's waterways - in fact it doesn't say what the money will be used for at all! All voting NO will accomplish is costing boater more to enjoy the pastime they love. Please call your congressmen and ask them to support this bill. Then if your REALLY care about the environment, take the $100 fee you would have paid the EPA and donate it to the "Adopt a River" program, a nonprofit group that really does something about protecting and restoring our waterways.
Avid Boater
March 5, 2008, 6:02pm (report abuse)Captain Tim and the other politicians commenting above fail to acknowledge that voting NO on this bill WILL absolutely protect and preserve our waterways because the only reason the bill exists is to reverse a court decision that will force the EPA to no longer ingnore the significant pollution problems caused by recreational boats, and enable enforcement of the intent and spirit of the Clean Water Act on those boats. Nobody's expecting money from any related fees to be used to clean the waterways - this is another political diversion tactic Timmy. The new NPDES permitting system, when applied to all recreational boats, will go a long way in cleaning and protecting our waters ... if you will just let it. Please do the right thing, and not the political thing, and vote NO on this bill.
John
April 9, 2008, 3:39pm (report abuse)Voting No on this bill will have the unexpected result of more small craft sinking at the dock/mooring which will have a far great negative impact on the environment. Having operated boats for nearly fifty years, I do not believe that small pleasure craft have an appreciable impact on the environment compared to the runoff from highways, industry, agricultural and other sources.
sponge-bob
April 28, 2008, 2:13am (report abuse)Ok first off voteing no would be the worst thing you could do. The original bill is unfiar and unrealistic. Tell me how a canoe or a kayak polute or efect the water. They dont. Pleasure boters already have to pay to license there boat wich the money goes to maintaing the waterways. The polution from rec boaters is far less than what is dumped into the water from the coal industry. Its definitly less harmfull than all the dams that effect the natural flow of the rivers. wich harm the natural vegitaion and wildlife found in the water. So in closeing stop acting like a bunch winning tree hugging hippys and step up anf fight for the real issues efftecing the water ways and the future of are water ways. Leave all the rec boaters alone!!!! Do your part and vote yes!!!
chad
November 26, 2008, 2:20pm (report abuse)There is a lot of bickering about polluting vs not polluting but of course neither this bill nor the original case law do anything to address polluting. Under the case law the only way pollution would be reduced is by making recreational boating too expensive thus reducing the number of boats. If an environmentally conscious boat owner installs a bilge filter it makes no difference they will still be required to pay a permit fee just like someone that empties foul bilge into open water. How does that cut pollution? If anything it promotes it because those who afford the permit are free to do so because they have "paid their dues". For that reason this bill is a good because it exempts recreational boats from a regulation intended for commercial vessels. An additional recreational vessel regulation to install bilge filters and gray water holding tanks for rec. boat for registration would go a long way to actually address the pollution concerns mentioned in these comments.