The EPA to get a Pay cut

Will-C

New member
I'm thinking this is a good start, see below, which is a section clipped from the new passed budget cuts! The EPA must have pissed someone else off besides me. And I guess the environment won't suffer all that much. They have so many laws on the books I think we will be fine. :D

"$1.6 billion reduction in the Environmental Protection Agency budget, almost $1 billion of which would come from grants for clean water and other projects by local governments and Indian tribes".

D.D.
 
I disagree. I would rather see a reduction in the USPS budget for example than the EPA.

I think the EPA needs more enforcement powers. Big business has a vested interest in the ability to pollute and I'm discouraged when environmental gains are reversed. We don't have to look very far to see the outcome.
 
NORO LIM":19ad0lvp said:
Let's talk about boats, shall we?

Be our guest! This should probably be in a brats only forum like "That's Life"! The EPA thoughts started with a post I made about regulations that may affect boating. We're being "nice"!

Charlie
 
NORO LIM":1uz0zjmn said:
Let's talk about boats, shall we?

You're right - I fell off the wagon there for a moment and should practice what I preach!

I'm tickled to have successfully figured out a way to lift Napoleon off the trailer for painting. 1/3 of the hull has 2 coats of Pettit's new "eco friendly" ablative paint called Ultima Eco. The other 2/3's has 1 coat (ran out of daylight). I will complete the bottom paint this weekend. Beneath these two coats is 2 coats of Pettit Vivid I applied prior to last season.
 
Being the cut from the EPA are just the give away grants ( handouts and paybacks) I don't see this hurting the EPA's ability to regulate that much if at all. Cutting there budget is a good thing as all budgets across the board should be cut until we balance the budget or at least get out of debt.
What the EPA really need is over site from congress and stop acting as a independent force with its own social agenda. It is a tool to be used to enforce policy of elected officials not create their own policy.

USPS should be sold to ups or who ever wants it. relic of a system no longer needed. If it can not turn a profit ( and it cant) then it needs to be sold off or closed down as should Amtrak as long as we are at it.

And I would really like to hear ( in a personal email) how it is in big businesses best interest to pollute?? what so they gain by it? how does it help them make a profit? why would people buy their product? are they not people to that care about the world? lets stop the demonization of business. you know the companies we all work for. the companies that pay the taxes that pay your salary( with the exception of GE) if you are a public employee. and like I said email it to me and get back to boats.
 
The EPA is directly involved in regulations that affect the cost of boating, so from that stand point, it is boat related. While C-Dory's are trailerable boats, they are less affected, because an owner can do whatever work he chooses in his own driveway (unregulated).

But not all owners want to do their own service work, and want to have dealers and yards available to do that work. Over regulation is starting to drive these business owners out of the industry, as the cost of meeting regulations increases beyond the point of profitability (and most of these yards are family owned mom and pop type of places).

It's not that these business owners want to pollute the resource that is the reason for their business. Instead self appointed saviors are dictating unrealistic bench marks for a business to acheive (even as the city water coming out of the hose can't meet the requirements).

Just sayin.... :dog
 
Well, Charlie I should have put this on the back of your original thread. Sorry Charlie. Never the less any one following along knows that boat yards and marinas have ben effected by EPA regs. Matt's reply points to that. I just wanted to say my intention was boat related and I'm not taking a partison view here and was not looking to be confrontational. I just thought the EPA being concerned about my gray water as a recreational boater indicated they have too much time and money on their hands. The harder they make it for the recreational boater the few boaters there will be IMHO. And once more maybe the gumint in general could let the boating industry get back on it's feet before imposing more laws to make it harder for them to do business. In a lot of areas marinas are selling out because of all the regs and selling to condo builders for developments on the water which is probably worse for the environment than the marina. The upshot is fuel and transient slips are getting harder find as marinas sell out. So it really is about boating. :hug
D.D.
 
Will-C":1q17zl4q said:
Well, Charlie I should have put this on the back of your original thread. Sorry Charlie. Never the less any one following along knows that boat yards and marinas have ben effected by EPA regs. Matt's reply points to that. I just wanted to say my intention was boat related and I'm not taking a partison view here and was not looking to be confrontational. I just thought the EPA being concerned about my gray water as a recreational boater indicated they have too much time and money on their hands. The harder they make it for the recreational boater the few boaters there will be IMHO. And once more maybe the gumint in general could let the boating industry get back on it's feet before imposing more laws to make it harder for them to do business. In a lot of areas marinas are selling out because of all the regs and selling to condo builders for developments on the water which is probably worse for the environment than the marina. The upshot is fuel and transient slips are getting harder find as marinas sell out. So it really is about boating. :hug
D.D.

I too am concerned about your gray water in the marina (and mine). So are most marinas (independent of the regulations). Most marina's I know of restrict the discharge of grey water, restrict one from washing the boat with soap etc. In a crowed marina it doesn't take too much gray water to produce a "interesting sheen" or suds on the surface of the water. Most marinas are behind break waters and are in confined areas where the flushing of the marina doesn't happen that often.

As for condos and developments being "probably" worse for the environment - I rather doubt that - especially in today's world where most water front developments are fairly tightly regulated in terms of sewer and storm water runoff and environmental impact studies are the norm. Now back in the day (before environmental impact studies etc), waterfront development was allowed to go forward unrestricted and it has had great negative impact on the environment which we can't undo now due to the "property rights" of those who developed the water fronts.
 
Rodger,
I just wanted to say thank you for saying black if I say white. And may I say you are more welcomed to do so? As far as my grey water goes the chance of effecting you 3000 miles away should be minimal at best. Thankfully you are not in any postion to affect our situation.We don't really generate much grey water and do our share of cleaning up after folks who are not as tidy as we are no matter where we are. As far as your point about condo populations near water, The stuff we see on the east coast due to sewer systems and storm drains over flowing due to heavy rain fall and flooding seems to me to be more of an issue than gray water or marina issues. Keep up the good work.
D.D.
 
Florida has had a "Clean Marina" "Clean Shipyard" program--voluntary. It has worked very well. I happend to get one of our marinas started, with a visit from the state EPA (gross pollution on an already poluted body of water). Once the marina saw the advantages to the environment, and their shipyard, they were fully on board. On the other hand, there is a paper mill in town, which had been polluting for over 25 years--and no one seems to want to do anything about it....go figure.
nt
I wonder how many aboard here have actually tried working with the Federal EPA? I have, and it is a difficult beaurcy to deal with. Sometimes things maks sense--other times they don't.

Interesting comment about grey water. Generally that is not regulated--and I guess the grey water should be differentiated from boat washing/sanding/bottom paints. I know that Washington State has some of the most restrictive regulations in the country.
 
I wonder how many aboard here have actually tried working with the Federal EPA? I have, and it is a difficult beaurcy to deal with. Sometimes things maks sense--other times they don't.
I agree. From my limited observations, good programs proposed by agencies more often than not come out of Congress looking more like sausage than law. Compromise is a wonderful thing, but lately seems taken to such extreme that legislators either lose sight of the original intent of proposed law or purposely try to dilute its effectiveness. Then our mostly well-intentioned civil servants are saddled with the responsibility of enforcing these often contradictory and ineffective laws that drive many of us nuts, or at least to scratch our heads in wonder. Civil servants are the ones who bear the brunt of wonderment, disgust, and abuse from the public. They're the ones manning the public counter or the phones; not the legislators who made the bad hash that line staff have to serve.

OK, off my soapbox now...
 
Good comment, Tom - certainly often true from my experience.

An add on - Those of us who were boating before EPA (there are still a few of us around) - remember those days. I spent untold hours scraping human excrement off the sides of my boat (or canoe) as a kid. We didn't camp ashore (it smelled like - and was - a sewer of human waste and garbage) unless we could get back into the woods.

HURRAY for EPA!! - and those regs!! Sure, some are confusing, often for the very reason Tom mentioned - but our boating environment is so much healthier, cleaner, and beautiful because of them.
 
Of course we all come from different boating backgrounds. I didn't have the same experience as Bill did as a kid--but people certainly did pump sewage overboard in anchorages in S. Calif. Although EPA may have given the federal "teeth" in law, it was the State of Calif. which requested the first non discharge zones in 1975 (when I was still living in Huntington Harbor). Fast Forward, there are still multiple waterfront homes which are on inadequate septic (systems which contaminate the bays and waterways) in our part of Florida, despite full compliance of the boaters.
For example our subdivision had sewers installed about 6 years ago. The next subdivision up the bay still does not have sewer, even though they are less than a mile from a treatment plant which treats sewage to a level above Tertiary treatment and close to drinking water standards! Reason--the homeowners did not way to pay for the lift stations necessary--and they are not required to.

The Pensacola area, finally moved its primary sewage treatment plant (over 25 million gallons a day) from right down town with discharge into Pensacola Bay, and with occasional raw sewage discharge--no EPA regs against that during storm events! Fortunately the new plant is also beyond Tertiary treatment and then is allowed to perk back into the ground water or reused. Consider that some of our neighbors to the Direct North and South of the US still discharge huge volumes of raw Sewage directly into the ocean.

Another problem--and it goes to the question about industerial pollution. There was a huge amount of pollution going back over 100 years--folks just didn't think about it? The Superfund program was started in 1986 and industry paid a certain portion into the program for clean up each year. That program was not renewed, and EPA is basically out of money for clean up of Superfund Sites. There is still a bloated infrastructure in EPA left over from this program which left many clean ups only partially finished. Again, local pressure on EPA is what obtained grants to clean up the sites---some of which EPA did not even have on their books.

Todays laws are to hopefully prevent further contamination and keep our boating waters cleaner. However, there are still polluters who go unchecked because of the politics. I have mentioned it before--but there is a paper mill not far from where I live, which has been in "violation" for many years--and pays a $500 or so a day fine--cost of doing business--to pollute. State laws can be more restrictive, but local politics enter in there!

On the other hand, much of the polution has been cleaned up by organizations such as River Keepers and Surfriders. Sometimes I may not agree with some politics involved, but these organizations all do a lot to clean up the environment. It also boils down to what each of us do as boaters to keep our environment clean.
 
El and Bill":2ssuq9ol said:
...
HURRAY for EPA!! - and those regs!! Sure, some are confusing, often for the very reason Tom mentioned - but our boating environment is so much healthier, cleaner, and beautiful because of them.

El and Bill, I tend to agree. While there are many very conscientious folks out there who would do the right thing regardless of law or regulatory agency, there are those who need to be guided in the right direction...
 
I agree as well, despite my previous comments. It's some of the staffers and lobbyists that get these anti boating provisions passed that give them a bad name. Think E-10, E-15, soon to be grey water, etc. that we must live with when we are only a drop in the proverbial bucket.

Charlie
 
Back
Top