On July 22, Congress passed “The Clean Boating Act of 2008.” In so doing, they gave recreational boaters new hope that they will not be required to undergo a complicated permitting process, as had been feared. All that is needed now is the President's signature. Should he sign the bill, recreational boating will be able to continue uninterrupted.
“We are relieved Congress took proper action in favor of recreational boaters, saving it from the doom that was awaiting the fate that had been imposed by the U.S. Courts,” said F. Ned Dikmen, Chairman of the Great Lakes Boating Federation. “Now, we are eagerly awaiting the President’s signature on this important legislation.”
The need for the bill stems from a California district court’s ruling that all boats, including recreational boats, would have to begin following strict National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) regulations that had previously applied only large commercial ships, water-treatment facilities and other large operations. Since 1973, the EPA had exempted recreational boats from these NPDES requirements. The court’s decision would have revoked that exemption as of September 30, 2008. The result—that all boaters would have been required to secure permits and endure rigorous tests to prove their discharges were clean—would have been disastrous. This new bill will ensure that recreational boating remain the carefree pastime it has always been.
The Clean Water Act is meant to regulate industrial shipping and not local recreational boaters. A cargo ship can carry as much as 10 million gallons of ballast water and typically dumps it every two or three weeks. This water carries foreign organisms and species from around the world, which can threaten local ecosystems. There is no comparison between those vessels and recreational boats.
There are approximately 13 million state-registered boaters in the U.S. Annually they generate almost $60 billion, with $16 billion of that coming from the Great Lakes alone.
The Great Lakes Boating Federation, which serves the 4.3 million recreational boaters on the Great Lakes and the inland waterways east of the Mississippi, has been involved in the efforts to overturn the court’s decision since it was first announced. By sending tens of thousands of letters and emails to their representatives, boaters pressed Congress to pass this vital legislation and safeguard the future of boating. Now, it’s up to President Bush to follow the will of the boaters, sign the bill and ensure that recreational boats not be overburdened with permitting and regulation.
Wednesday, July 23, 2008
Monday, July 21, 2008
BOATING IS PERSONA NON GRATA WITH IJC
When the International Joint Commission (IJC) encouraged the Great Lakes Boating Federation to participate in a May 3 workshop on lake level considerations, it appeared that the commission was finally ready to hear the voice of 4.3 million boaters. But the invitation was ditched at the last minute, proving once again that the IJC, a bi-national agency entrusted to provide adequate water level to all its users of the Great Lakes, isn’t interested in hearing what one of their primary stakeholders thinks.
The abortion of the invite was apparently due to “telephone problems,” but the Great Lakes Boating Federation (GLBF) believes that this was an admission by the IJC's part that they're incapable of dealing directly with recreational boating. The last time such harsh behavior occurred was when boating representation was denied participation at the first meeting of the Public Interest Advisory Group (PIAG).
Beyond the time wasted in preparation for a meaningful exchange with the other stakeholders, what was really lost was the chance for a meaningful study. What kind of results can be expected when the concerns of the recreational boating community are not included? This denial appears to be a blatant admission by the IJC that they cannot deal with recreational boating directly.
When the IJC formed the PIAG, it’s aim was to “assist the Study Board” in order to make “sure that the views of the public are given due consideration.” In response to the growing concerns over dropping lake levels seen on the Great Lakes, the IJC instituted a five-year International Upper Great Lakes Study, which will, among other objectives, “determine the factors that affect water levels and flows in the upper lakes.”
Thus, one would assume the IJC, as it assembled the PIAG, would seek to include a representative of the boat owners on the Great Lakes, someone to speak for six million people who will be affected by their decisions. After all, which user group on the Great Lakes is more impacted by the dropping lake levels than recreational boaters?
At first, the IJC advised the GLBF that the PIAG would be formed of 20 members and asked that a name be provided for consideration. The Federation replied to the IJC’s request with a suitable nomination. That nomination was rejected and the PIAG panel was formed with only 11 members, evidently with no place for a boating representative. The IJC held its first meeting late last year without a boating representative.
After much media pressure about this slight of boaters, the IJC yielded and appointed a boating industry representative rather than a boat owners representative to stand up for 4.3 million American and 1.5 million Canadian boat owners. The GLBF, the advocacy voice of boaters in the U.S. and Canada, was neither consulted nor briefed about the closed door meeting that selected this individual to represent recreational boaters' needs. What is known at the present time is that the individual is part of a Great Lakes boating trade industry association. The marine industry trade is governed by an agenda distinctly different than that of individual boat owners. To assume that one can represent the other is misguided.
On April 3 of this year, the IJC announced three workshops for the International Upper Great Lakes Study in Bay City, Port Huron and Muskegon. The GLBF was invited to participate in the Muskegon meeting and to present to the IJC the boat owners’ lake level needs for the upcoming 2008 boating season.
The GLBF informed the IJC that it would be difficult to present an accurate cross-section of boaters’ views at this workshop panel due to the lack of a comprehensive recreational boating economic impact study that would assess the lake levels that are necessary to keep boating sustainable. Additionally, with the fear of the water diversionary measures (initiated by the Corps of Engineers' ill-advised dredging on the St Clair River) not being brought under control, many marinas on the upper Great Lakes could be in grave danger.
The GLBF informed the IJC that the recreational boating study available was not sufficient to provide accurate recommendations. Recreational boating impact study that was presented to the public in July 2007 by the Great Lakes Commission has yet to be officiated and accepted by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, who paid the Great Lakes Commission (GLC) $408,000 to conduct the study.
On May 3, complying with the persistent plea from the IJC to participate in their workshop and to represent the needs of boaters, the IJC asked the GLBF to: 1) examine physical processes and possible ongoing St. Clair River changes and its impacts on levels of Lake Michigan and Huron, 2) review the operation of structures controlling Lake Superior outflow in relation to impacts of such operations on water levels and flows, and consequently affected interests, 3) assess the need for changes in the Orders or regulation plan to meet the contemporary and emerging needs, interests, and preferences for managing the system in a sustainable manner, including under climate change scenarios, and 4) evaluate any options identified to improve the operating rules and criteria governing Lake Superior Outflow regulation. Additionally, depending on the nature and extent of St. Clair River changes and impacts, recommend and evaluate potential remedial options.
The Great Lakes Boating Federation agreed to participate and planned to present the IJC with desired lake levels to help them develop the appropriate metrics for formulating and evaluating various options.
.
A few minutes prior to the beginning of the scheduled meeting, which the GLBF was due to participate in via teleconferencing, a message was received from the IJC that it was aborting the GLBF’s participation due to telephonic hardware problems, a problem that sounds like a flimsy excuse. The IJC, with its vast resources, has a hard time justifying such a glitch in today’s twenty-first century high tech world.
It is quite clear that no one is paying attention to the $16 to $18 billion dollar annual economic impact derived from recreational boating to the Great Lakes region. What does it take to make the IJC embrace recreational boating with this bountiful revenue resource for revitalizing of our coastal cities? Boating is a logical replacement for the dwindling commercial shipping industry, which has introduced invasive aquatic nuisances to the lakes and led to the proliferation and expansion of decaying brown fields on our lakefronts. It is in keeping with where North America’s trend toward the service sector and away from product manufacturing.
The dis-invitation further illustrates the IJC’s inability to deal directly with the GLBF, and consequently, with boaters. This latest failure to hear the voice of recreational boaters is further proof that recreational boating will continue to be ignored by a body that allegedly represents the interests of all Great Lakes stakeholders. Instead of rendering boating voiceless once again, it seems that the GLBF had been dealt a backhanded compliment from the IJC, which has acknowledged that the GLBF has become a competing and increasingly formidable voice for a large share of Great Lakes users and stakeholders, the six million boaters and counting.
The abortion of the invite was apparently due to “telephone problems,” but the Great Lakes Boating Federation (GLBF) believes that this was an admission by the IJC's part that they're incapable of dealing directly with recreational boating. The last time such harsh behavior occurred was when boating representation was denied participation at the first meeting of the Public Interest Advisory Group (PIAG).
Beyond the time wasted in preparation for a meaningful exchange with the other stakeholders, what was really lost was the chance for a meaningful study. What kind of results can be expected when the concerns of the recreational boating community are not included? This denial appears to be a blatant admission by the IJC that they cannot deal with recreational boating directly.
When the IJC formed the PIAG, it’s aim was to “assist the Study Board” in order to make “sure that the views of the public are given due consideration.” In response to the growing concerns over dropping lake levels seen on the Great Lakes, the IJC instituted a five-year International Upper Great Lakes Study, which will, among other objectives, “determine the factors that affect water levels and flows in the upper lakes.”
Thus, one would assume the IJC, as it assembled the PIAG, would seek to include a representative of the boat owners on the Great Lakes, someone to speak for six million people who will be affected by their decisions. After all, which user group on the Great Lakes is more impacted by the dropping lake levels than recreational boaters?
At first, the IJC advised the GLBF that the PIAG would be formed of 20 members and asked that a name be provided for consideration. The Federation replied to the IJC’s request with a suitable nomination. That nomination was rejected and the PIAG panel was formed with only 11 members, evidently with no place for a boating representative. The IJC held its first meeting late last year without a boating representative.
After much media pressure about this slight of boaters, the IJC yielded and appointed a boating industry representative rather than a boat owners representative to stand up for 4.3 million American and 1.5 million Canadian boat owners. The GLBF, the advocacy voice of boaters in the U.S. and Canada, was neither consulted nor briefed about the closed door meeting that selected this individual to represent recreational boaters' needs. What is known at the present time is that the individual is part of a Great Lakes boating trade industry association. The marine industry trade is governed by an agenda distinctly different than that of individual boat owners. To assume that one can represent the other is misguided.
On April 3 of this year, the IJC announced three workshops for the International Upper Great Lakes Study in Bay City, Port Huron and Muskegon. The GLBF was invited to participate in the Muskegon meeting and to present to the IJC the boat owners’ lake level needs for the upcoming 2008 boating season.
The GLBF informed the IJC that it would be difficult to present an accurate cross-section of boaters’ views at this workshop panel due to the lack of a comprehensive recreational boating economic impact study that would assess the lake levels that are necessary to keep boating sustainable. Additionally, with the fear of the water diversionary measures (initiated by the Corps of Engineers' ill-advised dredging on the St Clair River) not being brought under control, many marinas on the upper Great Lakes could be in grave danger.
The GLBF informed the IJC that the recreational boating study available was not sufficient to provide accurate recommendations. Recreational boating impact study that was presented to the public in July 2007 by the Great Lakes Commission has yet to be officiated and accepted by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, who paid the Great Lakes Commission (GLC) $408,000 to conduct the study.
On May 3, complying with the persistent plea from the IJC to participate in their workshop and to represent the needs of boaters, the IJC asked the GLBF to: 1) examine physical processes and possible ongoing St. Clair River changes and its impacts on levels of Lake Michigan and Huron, 2) review the operation of structures controlling Lake Superior outflow in relation to impacts of such operations on water levels and flows, and consequently affected interests, 3) assess the need for changes in the Orders or regulation plan to meet the contemporary and emerging needs, interests, and preferences for managing the system in a sustainable manner, including under climate change scenarios, and 4) evaluate any options identified to improve the operating rules and criteria governing Lake Superior Outflow regulation. Additionally, depending on the nature and extent of St. Clair River changes and impacts, recommend and evaluate potential remedial options.
The Great Lakes Boating Federation agreed to participate and planned to present the IJC with desired lake levels to help them develop the appropriate metrics for formulating and evaluating various options.
.
A few minutes prior to the beginning of the scheduled meeting, which the GLBF was due to participate in via teleconferencing, a message was received from the IJC that it was aborting the GLBF’s participation due to telephonic hardware problems, a problem that sounds like a flimsy excuse. The IJC, with its vast resources, has a hard time justifying such a glitch in today’s twenty-first century high tech world.
It is quite clear that no one is paying attention to the $16 to $18 billion dollar annual economic impact derived from recreational boating to the Great Lakes region. What does it take to make the IJC embrace recreational boating with this bountiful revenue resource for revitalizing of our coastal cities? Boating is a logical replacement for the dwindling commercial shipping industry, which has introduced invasive aquatic nuisances to the lakes and led to the proliferation and expansion of decaying brown fields on our lakefronts. It is in keeping with where North America’s trend toward the service sector and away from product manufacturing.
The dis-invitation further illustrates the IJC’s inability to deal directly with the GLBF, and consequently, with boaters. This latest failure to hear the voice of recreational boaters is further proof that recreational boating will continue to be ignored by a body that allegedly represents the interests of all Great Lakes stakeholders. Instead of rendering boating voiceless once again, it seems that the GLBF had been dealt a backhanded compliment from the IJC, which has acknowledged that the GLBF has become a competing and increasingly formidable voice for a large share of Great Lakes users and stakeholders, the six million boaters and counting.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
