close

Privacy guaranteed - Your email is not shared with anyone.

NEW TAX FOR BOAT OWNERS $ 800.00 a Year

Discussion in 'Boats and Motors' started by Nikster, May 30, 2007.

  1. Yep, just listen & watch this short movie clip. The tree huggers are in full swing with this one. We best start contacting everyony you know from PRESIDENT, CONGRESSMAN & WOMEN, SENATORS, EVERYONE YOU KNOW!

    Watch this; http://www.boattest.com/nmma.aspx

    Nik
     
  2. I'm not to worried. By enforcing something like this it would hurt A LOT of other income for different parties.

    I'm sure it might effect new boats being made though. Mercury is already making these new high efficiency motors.
     

  3. ezbite

    ezbite the Susan Lucci of OGF

    as insane and unenforceable i feel this is.. i sent the emails.
     
  4. This new TAX (????) if not stopped by contacting your Congressmen & women, Senators HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH 'EFFICIENCY MOTORS' it's a discharge thing of any water from one's boat. Even water that is taken in your boat for your engine to cool & spit out again. "DISCHARGE" Activate ones bilge pump = "DISCHARGE."

    Nik
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 30, 2015
  5. Sorry didn't mean to really use the word efficient. Was thinking more along the lines of "environmentally safer" motors. (water exiting the motors from the water pump would be cleaner).

    I did understand about the bilge discharge. I was thinking more along the lines of outboard motors like my boat. Of course the bilge would be a discharge too.

    I don't know. I just don't think this will be something recreational boaters have to worry about. I could POSSIBLY see testing be enforced for water discharges? Kind of like they do for E-checks for cars? Only allowing so much pollution for a passing result.
     
  6. See this link for a transcript of the 2006 decision http://www.lclark.edu/org/peac/objects/order_granting_permanent_injunction.pdf

    ok, ok, I know its a long dry document, and not the most stimulating reading in the world, but I would rather read the facts than go off of some video of a guy ranting about them thar environmentalists. When I see videos like that, I have to wonder why he thinks he knows so much, and who the heck is paying his way?
    Anyhow, I've only looked at the first four pages of the attached document (just found it, will read more tomorrow), but I do note some important issues. 1) The lawsuit was against the EPA, because the EPA was not enforcing clean water laws that were already on the books. 2) the lawsuit was brought by several environmental organizations IN COOPERATION with Great Lakes states including PA, NY, MI, WI, and MN (see any important states missing?). 3) The plaintiffs recognized that many different sources from normal operation of a vessel can be recognized as pollution, but they "made no secret" that the intent of this lawsuit was to force the EPA into regulating ballast water discharge.
     
  7. Erterbass

    Erterbass Ohio Angler

    714
    0
    721
    These things always get in trouble with the "Law of Unintended Consequences" where a court decided to take a massively broad interpretation of a 34 year old law and extend it to recreational boating. The reason it extends to recreational boating is that the Court threw out the entire regulation and is forcing the EPA to rewrite the rules to include discharges like bilge water, "gray water" and any other discharge - including ballast.

    How could that impact recreational boating? My brother-in-law is a manufacturer's rep for MasterCraft boats - the ski and wakeboard boat company. They use ballast tanks to increase the weight of the boat to make a larger wake behind the boat to offer wakeboarders different jumping opportunities. Will the EPA make boats like that exempt? Will the EPA make livewells exempt? Fish holding tanks for fishing tournaments?

    We would hope so but given the short timeframe (September 2008) the Court gave the EPA to create and enforce the new regulations we may not get those exemptions.

    At this point it is up to the U.S. Congress to specifically write the provision that excludes recreational boating and enforce the law to focus on large commercial shipping - which was the intent to begin with.

    Bob
     
  8. Hook N Book

    Hook N Book The Original Hot Rod Staff Member

    6,111
    395
    2,368
    I recieved this info today. As the original posted stated...this something we need to take seriously...!
    -------------------------------------------------------------------

    July 23, 2007

    Dear BoatUS Member,

    For 34 years the federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has exempted discharges from recreational boats from the Clean Water Act permit system. Regretfully, a recent court ruling cancelled this permit exemption. EPA is required by the court decision to develop and implement by September 30, 2008 a national permit system for ALL vessels in the United States for a variety of normal operational discharges.

    We have been working behind the scenes with other boating organizations to get the exemption reinstated for recreational boats. Fortunately, the Recreational Boating Act of 2007 (H.R. 2550) has been introduced by Representatives Gene Taylor (D-Miss) and Candice Miller (R-Mich) which would protect recreational boats from being swept into this unnecessary and expensive permitting system.

    It is critically important that H.R. 2550 be passed and your support is essential. Please contact your Congressman and Senators TODAY and ask that they co-sponsor or support H.R. 2550.

    If the permit system becomes a reality, you will be required to pay for a state permit for each of your boats. EPA will be monitoring your deck runoff, grey water, bilge water, engine cooling water, and the use of copper bottom paints.

    The original lawsuit that led to this court decision sought to address ballast water discharges from large ocean-going ships, which can introduce damaging aquatic invasive species into U.S. waters. Keeping our waterways clean and preventing the spread of invasive species is of utmost importance to the future of boating. But taking a complex permitting system designed for industrial dischargers and applying it to recreational boats will not yield significant environmental benefits and it will come at a very high cost. Requiring recreational boaters to purchase a permit would not prevent the spread of invasive species.

    BoatUS has been a leader in educating boaters about Clean Boating practices for more than a decade. Our nonprofit Foundation has funded local education projects on invasive species prevention, helped develop voluntary Clean Marina programs, and authored much of the country's Clean Boating outreach. These positive education efforts are making a difference.

    Please ask your elected federal representatives to support H.R. 2550. It is common-sense legislation. As you send your emails to your Members of Congress, please copy BoatUS at GovtAffairs@BoatUS.com . We’d also like to ask you to send a copy of your correspondence to the EPA, so they can see how this will affect citizens. However, please know that if you choose to send it to EPA, it will become a part of the public record. EPA’s email is ow-docket@epa.gov , and your email needs to have a subject line with Docket ID No. OW-2007-0483.

    Forward this Action Alert to your friends, your fishing and boat club, your marina neighbors, and your local press!

    Thank you for your help.

    Sincerely,

    Margaret Podlich

    BoatUS Government Affairs
    GovtAffairs@BoatUS.com
    703-461-2864 or 703-461-2878 x8363
     
  9. Hook N Book

    Hook N Book The Original Hot Rod Staff Member

    6,111
    395
    2,368