Articles
   
       
Pics/Video
       
Wake 101
   
       
       
Shop
Search
 
 
 
 
 
Home   Articles   Pics/Video   Gear   Wake 101   Events   Community   Forums   Classifieds   Contests   Shop   Search
WakeWorld Home
Email Password
Go Back   WakeWorld > >> Wakeboarding Discussion Archives > Archive through April 17, 2008

Share 
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old     (liquidmx)      Join Date: Jun 2005       03-28-2008, 1:10 PM Reply   
Here is the reply I got, anyone know if this is legitimate or just political BS?

Dear Mr. Winans:



Thank you for writing to me about recreational boating.



I am very pleased to tell you that I have joined with Senator Bill Nelson (D-FL) in introducing S.2766, the Clean Boating Act of 2008. Our bill would make permanent the existing exemption for recreational boaters under the Clean Water Act. It also requires the Environmental Protection Agency and the Coast Guard to develop management practices, outside of any permitting programs, to assist boaters in minimizing adverse pollution impacts. By assisting boaters in ways that maintain and improve water quality, the boating experience can be enhanced for all users.



In developing this bill, I worked closely with boat user groups and recreational boat manufacturers to meet the needs of boaters and our mutual goal of clean water.



The National Marine Manufacturers Association, which is leading the efforts on behalf of boaters everywhere, said, "This legislation takes a balanced approach which protects the American marine manufacturing sector, boaters and anglers, and the nation's aquatic resources."



As Chairman of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, I will be working with my colleagues to see that this legislation to protect recreational boaters and improve water quality is considered and approved by the Senate.




Again, thank you for writing to me. Please feel free to write to me in the future about this or any other issue of concern to you.

Barbara Boxer
United States Senator
Old     (juiced4ever)      Join Date: Oct 2005       03-28-2008, 1:32 PM Reply   
I got the same reply from Boxer. SO who knows.
Old     (rnopr8)      Join Date: Apr 2005       03-28-2008, 3:02 PM Reply   
exact same reply here too from Boxer.
Old     (mucktoerider)      Join Date: Jan 2007       03-28-2008, 3:47 PM Reply   
It also requires the Environmental Protection Agency and the Coast Guard to develop management practices, outside of any permitting programs, to assist boaters in minimizing adverse pollution impacts. By assisting boaters in ways that maintain and improve water quality, the boating experience can be enhanced for all users.

Maybe I am being too skeptical.....but it is words like this that concern me. Read it a few times and tell me that this does not give the EPA combined with the Coast Guard to come up with their own set of rules for recreational boating. Thats why I said before that the 2007 Clean Boating Act read much better. This language was not part of it...and now it is. This is what we should be concerned about. This is the kind of double speak that Barbera Boxer promotes. And it could be damaging for our future when there is uncertain terms not clarified. Just my thoughts!
Old     (liquidmx)      Join Date: Jun 2005       03-28-2008, 6:47 PM Reply   
Agreed Scott, it sounds like they are pushing for the EPA and CG to create and manage the waters. Wouldn't this take the decision making out of the voter's hands then?
Old     (lknboarder)      Join Date: Jan 2008       03-28-2008, 6:55 PM Reply   
done
Old     (norcal18)      Join Date: Nov 2007       03-29-2008, 4:16 PM Reply   
i read somthing about this haveing to do with commercial ships last year in my local paper. the reason for it is that ships would suck up all their balleast but also bring in a bunch of little animals, mostly shell fish and bottom feeders. then these ships would go on their "voyage" and dock in a different part of the world. the problem is that they would release the ballast and all the little animals that come with it. the animals started to take over the habitat killing off the native species.
ill see if i can find the article.
Old     (cbk)      Join Date: Aug 2006       03-29-2008, 6:00 PM Reply   
Done
Old     (2007_x2)      Join Date: May 2007       03-29-2008, 6:22 PM Reply   
done
Old     (bac)      Join Date: Feb 2008       03-29-2008, 6:54 PM Reply   
The few posts about the commercial ships are correct and discharge of ballast or other water from a ship from a foreign port is a very serious offense and brings those shipping companies that choose to ignore it extremely expensive fines. From has been read, though, they want to apply it to all of us??? How many people drive the wake boat to another country and then disharge their ballast once they finally make it back to their country?? Gimme a break. Sounds to me like another way for the government to get more $$$ from us. Sorry if I'm stating the obvious, its been a looong day in the sun
Old     (foilboy)      Join Date: Mar 2007       03-30-2008, 5:30 AM Reply   
done
Old     (mucktoerider)      Join Date: Jan 2007       04-04-2008, 4:52 AM Reply   
I just found out....that this language does open the doors for EPA and CG to mandate laws as they see fit and not us...the voters :"It also requires the Environmental Protection Agency and the Coast Guard to develop management practices, outside of any permitting programs, to assist boaters in minimizing adverse pollution impacts. By assisting boaters in ways that maintain and improve water quality, the boating experience can be enhanced for all users." This is not good. In Michigan here are some of the proposals from the EPA: 1. No wake before noon and after 5p.m.......this rule will be set forth for all inland lakes smaller than 350 acres. 2. no engines exceeding 4.0 liter will be able to operate on lakes smaller than 350 acres. 3. Boats with trim functions will have to trim up to a trailer loading setting within 100 feet from shore. 4. All boats purchased after 2010 will be required to have an approved Catalytic converter. 5. only mushroom styled anchors can be used. 6. speed limit on all inland lakes will be set at 45 mph. 7. 2 stroke engines with carberator's are not permitted. 8. No one under the age 18 can operate any kind of watercraft. 9. All boaters must have an approved state driver's license and have taken a boater safety course. 10. No tow devices or tow ropes exceeding 75 feet from behind each watercraft. 11. must maintain a 250 feet distance from all wildlife at all times. 12. no devices that hang below the hull other than the propellsion system can be used.

Now some of this does not make sense when it comes to impacting the water quality. I personally don't like any of these new rules. But if this clean boating act gets passed....this is what follows for Michigan folks. This is directly from the State Capital and the Michigan EPA board. My friend is a lobbyist for small business and got this from his friend who works with the DEQ. So it is legit. Just thought you should know. More than likely your states are going through this right now. And more than likely you will not know the rules until they roll them out. I honestly think people are going to be really upset with this legislation in the end. And I am sure the manufacturers will be kicking themselves once they see what can of worms this opened up. I agree we should not pay a permit because of some dump ballast rules....but like I said before...Babera Boxer can not be trusted...and when you reread these clever words...you will see how damaging this really is. The clean boating act for 2007 did not have this extra language about the EPA and CG governing rules for all craft....it just simply protected the boaters from the ballast law..but then Boxer got her teeth in it and ruined it...thus giving us the Clean Boating Act of 2008. If it passes...enjoy!
Old     (mammoth)      Join Date: Apr 2005       04-04-2008, 7:24 AM Reply   
But it was cool to sign the letter and post "Done" here. Doesn't matter what the bill SAYS, just sign on to fit in. And, tell your friends!

Politics in action.
Old     (behindtheboat)      Join Date: Aug 2006       04-04-2008, 7:35 AM Reply   
WOW!!!! What can be proposed to help stop this? There must be some organization that can put a voice out against this! Those are some serious rules, pretty much outlawing riding in most lakes. Everyone needs to hop on against this, just as everyone did the "DONE". Holy $^&*
Old     (hal2814)      Join Date: Feb 2006       04-04-2008, 7:36 AM Reply   
Scott, the bill is linked above. Can you please at least read it? Where in that bill is your quote? The only regulation powers granted to the EPA, coast guard, states, etc are those specifically pertaining to non-sewage discharge from recreational vessels (Section 4, Paragraph 2). On top of that, the discharge has to be "graywater, bilge water, cooling water, weather deck runoff, oil water separator effluent, or effluent from properly functioning marine engines, or any other discharge that is incidental to the normal operation of a vessel" (see in section 4 the proposed addition to 312-o-1-b and note that "(B) exempt from permitting requirements under section 402(r)" refers to the text in Section 2 of this bill).

They can't enact speed limits, general distances from wildlife, operating ages, anchor styles, etc from this bill. They can't enforce engine-specific restrictions like exhaust, open cooling systems, etc because they are not incidental to the normal operation of the vessel. All it can do is be used to regulate the discharge of fluids from a boat for recreational vehicles.

You are right that nobody is really clear on what regulations will come to pass. Just paying for a permit might be a better way to go. But given the restrictions they have on what regulation can be created, I doubt it.

It's also important to keep in mind that all this Bill does is modify the "Federal Water Pollution Control Act." Now the Federal Water Pollution Control Act may grant the powers that be the regulatory authority you're talking about Scott but that's a done deal. I am personally opposed to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act for reasons other than recreational vehicle discharge but it's already passed and awaiting enforcement in September. This bill has nothing to do with anything but discharge of fluids from recreational vessels. If you want us to believe otherwise, you have the text. Make the argument and cite your sources.
Old     (mucktoerider)      Join Date: Jan 2007       04-04-2008, 9:17 AM Reply   
Dante....reread the response that Barbera Boxer sent to M dizzle up above. That sums it up. And when does a politician NOT include extra mandates hidden in a bill. I think Barbera spilled the beans when she wrote that note to M-Dizzle and it says it all. They is an alteriative motive behind her BILL. This bill was Debbie Stabenow's when it was the Clean Boater's act of 2007. But Barbera had to take it and then put her spin on it..including this language that will open up many doors to restrict boaters. Raed the 2007 version then read the 2008 version..you will clearly see a difference. Why was the 2007 version not good enough...Miss Boxer...that is the question we should be asking. Trust me...we will be sorry. This bill just gives more leverage to the CLEAN WATER ACT that somes out in September. UGH!
Old     (wakemetoday)      Join Date: Mar 2006       04-04-2008, 9:48 AM Reply   
Darn Democrats!
Old     (behindtheboat)      Join Date: Aug 2006       04-07-2008, 6:47 AM Reply   
Scott,

Can you link to the info regarding Michigan you posted? Thank you.
Old     (watersnake)      Join Date: Jul 2006       04-07-2008, 12:53 PM Reply   
Sent!
Old     (liquidmx)      Join Date: Jun 2005       04-07-2008, 1:11 PM Reply   
Well I have been thinking about this and the only solution if it comes about is to have your sacks empty and fill underwater. This would NOT be legal, but make things a little less obvious.
Old     (mucktoerider)      Join Date: Jan 2007       04-08-2008, 4:24 AM Reply   
A-Dub I will definitely post a link once one is established. Right now I just have it on a photocopy that my buddy...who is a lobbyist for small business gave me. He got this photocopy from his friend who works for the DEQ (department of environmental quality). As of right now, I could try to scan it and post it on here...but the print is tiny with all the legal word jargen included. looks like one of those credit card application with all the small print...ugh. But I will get it on here soon.
Old     (behindtheboat)      Join Date: Aug 2006       04-08-2008, 5:42 AM Reply   
no worries, thanks
Old     (wakekid72501)      Join Date: Jul 2006       04-08-2008, 3:42 PM Reply   
done, glad to help
Old     (wakeviolater)      Join Date: Sep 2004       04-08-2008, 4:10 PM Reply   
I am now glad I didnt sign onto this. It seems like anyone that did sign on might be helping to seriously restrict us from enjoying our sport.

Scott, thank you for the clarifications.
Old     (behindtheboat)      Join Date: Aug 2006       04-09-2008, 6:20 AM Reply   
i did it, and now wish I hadn't... Luckily my senator didn't give a rats....
Old     (bob)      Join Date: Feb 2001       04-10-2008, 2:52 AM Reply   
Done
Old     (protag)      Join Date: Aug 2007       04-10-2008, 6:22 AM Reply   
Everyone: Not that I am directly affected by the bill, since I don't live in the US anymore, but I seriously think that someone should do something about this thread like deleting or closing it. Apparently, there are still people who are blindly signing on to it (see Justin M and Bob above).

Seriously!

Or to quote George: Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me...you can't get fooled again.
Old     (hal2814)      Join Date: Feb 2006       04-10-2008, 6:50 AM Reply   
I don't see why it should be closed. Justin M and Bob have both apparently signed the petition but we have no evidence that they did do "blindly." It's not like we haven't been discussing the pros and cons in this very thread. If anything, that the petition is still being signed is just a message that some people are believing their own eyes over unsourced quotes and fear mongering over regulations that can't be enacted as a result of this bill the way it is currently written.
Old     (behindtheboat)      Join Date: Aug 2006       04-10-2008, 6:53 AM Reply   
AGREE!!!! Please read all comments and make an educated decision before just "DOING IT"

Or yes, deleting the post would be great, or just remove the link?
Old     (behindtheboat)      Join Date: Aug 2006       04-10-2008, 6:55 AM Reply   
You're telling me someone that doesn't ask questions regarding the topic, and just posts "Done" after posts describing this as negative are really making an educated and informed decision? Not just doing what it looks like everyone else did? Hard for me to believe.
Old     (hal2814)      Join Date: Feb 2006       04-10-2008, 7:31 AM Reply   
They read enough to sign the petition. It's reasonable to assume they read the rest of the post. Are there any other posts out there you disagree with? Maybe we could close them, too.
Old     (behindtheboat)      Join Date: Aug 2006       04-10-2008, 8:52 AM Reply   
I'm not saying it should def be closed, I agree that discussing pros and cons is good, and can educate us all. However your argument that some people are believing their own eyes I would disagree with. To me right now, both claims don't hold much water, so this needs to be discussed. What information is given regarding the proposal and that it will actually do good? Yea, you won't get taxed or have to pay extra because you have ballast. But I agree with Scott, there's some method behind why they would want to change something that was proposed and accepted last year, and reword it to give certain groups more control. So no, don't close the thread, but people do not seem to be making an educated decision when they say just say done. There is not enough info regarding the bill to give an argument against what Scott is saying, and people need to stop just signing it, which I myself did and wish I had not. I do want to get the real story on everything as well.
Old     (protag)      Join Date: Aug 2007       04-11-2008, 3:21 AM Reply   
Dante,

I absolutely agree with you that everyone should make his own decision on whether he wants to sign onto this, or not.

HOWEVER, as it currently stands, someone opening this thread will see a link, a virtual call to help and dozens of ppl who cheerfully posted "DONE".

You can safely assume that many ppl won't take the time to read the "more complicated" follow-up discussion on why it might not be such a good thing to fill out the form.

What I am saying is: There is simply no balance of the two sides for someone who is not interested in making an educated decision, but instead makes a quick decision on first appearance. This should be prevented - by for example removing the link. In that case, anyone who is interested in signing the form, can easily search for it himself (it is not so hard) which would likely result in a more educated decision.
Old     (liquidmx)      Join Date: Jun 2005       04-14-2008, 3:11 PM Reply   
Here is the new email I got:

Dear Mr. W.:



Thank you for writing to me to share your support for the "Clean Boating Act of 2008." I appreciate hearing your thoughts about this legislation, and I welcome the opportunity to respond.



As you know, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) must create and manage a Clean Water Act permit system for recreational boats by September 2008. I understand that recreational boating is a very popular activity in California, and I appreciate hearing your support for reinstating the recreational boat exemption.



I am pleased to inform you that I am a co-sponsor of the "Clean Boating Act of 2008" (S. 2766). This legislation would restore the exemption of recreational boats from EPA regulations regarding the discharge of pollutants such as engine cooling water, deck runoff, bilge water and gray water. Please know that I appreciate your interest in actively contributing to the legislative process, and I hope that you will continue to keep in touch on matters of importance to you.



Again, thank you for writing. If you have any other questions or comments, please contact my Washington, D.C. office at (202) 224-3841. Best regards.

Sincerely yours, Dianne Feinstein
United States Senator

Further information about my position on issues of concern to California and the Nation are available at my website http://feinstein.senate.gov/public/. You can also receive electronic e-mail updates by subscribing to my e-mail list at http://feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=ENewsletterSignup.Signup.

Reply
Share 

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 2:55 PM.

Home   Articles   Pics/Video   Gear   Wake 101   Events   Community   Forums   Classifieds   Contests   Shop   Search
Wake World Home

 

© 2019 eWake, Inc.    
Advertise    |    Contact    |    Terms of Use    |    Privacy Policy    |    Report Abuse    |    Conduct    |    About Us