Recreational Boating and the EPA

[kd3pc]

Given the recent "listening sessions", Can anyone really tell me, as regards the EPA:

"What is it that the recreational boater is doing wrong, that contributes to the problem you are trying to create and then regulate"? They have been non-responsive for years to this simple question.

[mdbee]

Are you kidding me? That would be logical. The EPA is a government agency. Government agencies prime directive is to increase their size and budget.
They want control. They also think they know best.

Couple all of that together, after 75 years or so, that's how we are in the amount of debt we have today.

[travlineasy]

Ditto!

[CapnBilll]

That is exactly why they regulate emissions from weedeaters, and chainsaws that you use a few weekends a month during the summer. While ignoring emissions from trains and other commercial, (exempt) machinery that is used constantly. That is also why cruise ships, and freighters can dump tons of raw sewage 3 miles from the coast, and you will need to control your shower water, and AC condensate.

[primerate84]

Eliminate the EPA entirely and you reduce the budget deficit and immediately improve the economy.

[JaredC]

Originally Posted by primerate84

Eliminate the EPA entirely and you reduce the budget deficit and immediately improve the economy.

Yes, and the Industrial Revolution was a time of sparkling streams and fresh air...

[kd3pc]

In the 1970's the Potomac River and the Chesapeake were filthy

In the 1970's the EPA was Created

It is 2011, and the Potomac River and the Chesapeake are still as filthy as they ever were, if not worse...(see blue plains, CBF, etc)

The CBF and the EPA just agreed to postpone any real efforts for another decade, at least.

Millions, if not billions have been spent by the EPA on these two bodies alone, and still not one penny is being spent on the waters themselves. All that money goes to studies, politicking, law suits and special interest group exemptions, the states, the localities, etc, etc.

Still the runoff, still the poultry farmers do their thing, still the sewage spills and overflows, etc, etc.

[joethecobbler]

part of the issue is the realization that the watershed for the Chesapeake is so large. reaching inland as far as Ohio and N.Wetern NY. but the attitude w/ regards to the run-off from farms and lawns is that it is the other guys problem and not of local importance.
this is due in part by a general lack of understanding of the importance of the largest estuary on the east coast and how it affects everyone , not just those situated along the coast.
A sad reality.

[GaryHLucas]

Okay, a little good news.
I work for a small company building very advanced wastewater treatment systems. What our systems discharge is very close to drinking water, and with a little more work can be drinking water. We are selling very well around the Chesapeake. Most of the jobs we do are to replace older systems that are so bad they should have been replaced 20 years ago! So each one of our jobs actually makes a fairly big difference.

Just a little good news.

Gary H. Lucas

[mstern]

I understand the frustration of those who wonder why EPA is picking on boaters when the real culprits lie elsewhere; however, anyone who thinks that EPA doesn't know or understand how small potatoes we are is simply incorrect. My opinion on this is formed from 20 years of experience as an environmental attorney, first as a staff attorney at an environmental advocacy organization, and for the past 15 years as in-house counsel at a railroad.

EPA is well aware that boaters are not the primary source of pollution to near coastal waterways. Its a basic fact, and no matter what you may think of EPA staffers' political views, they are not stupid. They know.

The criticism here (and other places) seems to focus on the conclusion that EPA is leaving the "special interests" groups like sewer systems alone while hammering the poor boater. I agree. This too is true. But consider:

If EPA were to really focus in on municipal sewer systems and require them to cut back on their pollution, it would require massive capital investment in upgrades: additional treatment ponds, separation of storm and sanitary sewer lines, and probably more restrictions on inputs. No one, not EPA, not Congress, not the states or the cities have the money to do that; and not one of those entities wants to come to you and me to borrow the money or raise taxes to pay for it. That's why EPA goes looking for other polluters to clean up their acts, not because they think its the most cost-effective and reasonable method to get clean water.

Now, for those of you who don't understand why we need to have anti-pollution laws for boaters in any case, we just have a fundamental disagreement. I take pride in doing my best to keep my home waters clean, and I don't mind at all knowing that its the law.

Oh, and btw, while we haven't met the Clean Water Act goals of all waters being fishable and swimmable, we have made great progress. For those of you old timers who complain that things are just as bad now as they ever were, I think you are wrong. Every water body that I have dealt with professionally on the east cost has greatly improved water quality by almost every standard measured over the past 20 years. If you feel that a specific water body hasn't improved, it may be relative; my guess is that a lot more people live near or use that water body since the "good old days"; if the water quality hasn't improved in the past twenty years, think of how bad it would be if the Clean Water Act hadn't started ratcheting down the pollution almost 40 years ago.