Uh-Oh, More Politics: Clean Water Act

I’m on a few different email lists, and recently I’ve received two very different calls-to-action from two sources, both of which I respect. I’m not going to try to convince you which side to take, but I think you ought to be aware of the arguments on both sides. And then, if you feel strongly about it, contact your senators and representatives.

On the one hand, we’ve got Jerry Fraser, Editor & Publisher of National Fisherman. On the other hand, there’s Michael Campbell, President of the Northwest Marine Trade Association. These aren’t the only two with something to say on this topic, by any means. But they’re the two from whom I happened to receive email.

At issue is the the Clean Boating Act (S.2766/H.R.5949), which Mr. Fraser summarizes pretty clearly:

Two years ago, a federal court, hoping to prevent further transmission of potentially invasive species lurking in the ballast tanks of high-seas cargo ships entering U.S. waters, said the Environmental Protection Agency could not continue to exempt incidental discharges of deck wash, engine cooling water, and the like under the Clean Water Act.

As a result, by Sept. 30, thousands of previously exempt commercial vessel operators and millions of recreational boaters will be required to obtain permits for discharge “incidental to normal operation of commercial and recreational vessels.”

You know, things like weather run-off, bilge water, engine cooling water, and even the drain from the galley sink.

If they do not, they could be subject to potentially severe fines for almost anything that might accidentally wash out the scuppers, even spilled milk.

Penalties for non-compliance include fines of up to $32,500 per day per violation, and citizen lawsuits. OK, I’m paying attention now.

Vessel operators in states that report (by Sept. 30) to the EPA how they intend to implement the regulations will not have to obtain individual permits. However, all states may not impose the same rules.

In short, a well-intentioned decision by the court is begetting regulatory hell.

The Clean Boating Act would exempt recreational vessels from the permit requirement. But it does nothing to address the needs of smaller commercial vessel operators. And therein lies the conflict.

Messrs. Fraser and Campbell both support the bill, actually. But while the recreational boating organizations (BoatUS, NMMA, NMTA, etc.) would like to see it passed in its current form, professional mariners who operate small vessels, such as fishermen, would like it amended to include them as well.

Here’s Mr. Fraser, again:

Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, where the small-boat commercial fishing fleet numbers in the thousands, has offered an amendment that would include commercial operators.

“In my view, an exemption for a recreational vessel of any size, all the way up to Paul Allen’s megayacht of 414 feet, is tough to justify when an 18-foot commercial vessel must obtain a permit,” Murkowski wrote in a letter to BoatTest.com, which has taken umbrage at the senator’s thwarting of a unanimous consent motion on the bill, S. 2766.

“Good public policy should apply the same rules to similarly situated parties,” she continued. “I agree wholeheartedly with the statement that submitting the recreational boating sector to the monitoring, enforcement, fines and citizen’s lawsuits of the Clean Water Act is neither appropriate nor justified. But that same argument applies to small commercial vessels as well.”

It’s difficult to argue with this. But does it really make sense to block the current bill when time is so critically short? Wouldn’t it be easier to support the current bill and then follow it up with one exempting commercial operators?

I don’t know the answer to this…I’m no Beltway strategist. It will be interesting to see how it all falls out.