Head bill sparks heated debate - BoatU.S. Reports

Boat/US Magazine, July, 2002

A recent Congressional hearing that was supposed to provide legislators with insight into a proposal to upgrade marine sanitation device standards, erupted into a frank and free-wheeling exchange of views among the participants before settling down to a relatively calm armistice.

At issue during the May 1 hearing before the Water Resources and Environment Subcommittee of the House of Representatives was H.R. 3673, a bill by Rep. Jim Saxton, a sailor and longtime BoatU.S. member. Saxton's legislation would upgrade the government's standards for on-board Type I flow-through treat-merit devices and make it tougher for the states to ban their use in coastal waters by declaring such areas no-discharge zones.

Chaired by Rep. John Duncan (RTN), the hearing opened with former Congressman Robert W Davis (R-MiT) telling his colleagues of his frustration at trying to find open and operable pump-out stations along the Atlantic Coast. Davis is a member of the BoatU.S. National Advisory Council and represented the association at the hearing.

"The current system is broken and it needs to be fixed by legislation that reflects the real world at sea and not some vision concocted in a plush office, ivory tower or government cubicle," said Davis, who owns a Cruisers 50.

H.R. 3673, he said, would "bring the Environmental Protection Agency's regulations - which have not been changed in over 20 years - into the 21st century."

The heart of the problem, he charged, is that current federal law only requires that a state assert that its waters require greater protection. "No field testing, no comprehensive study and no determination that recreational boats are the source of the pollution is required. All the EPA is required to do is to determine that adequate facilities for the safe and sanitary removal of sewage from vessels is reasonably available before declaring a no-discharge zone and banning the use of Type I treatment devices," he charged.

Next up was Charles Husick, sailor, pilot, engineer, past president of ChrisCraft Boats and member of the BoatU.S. National Advisory Council. Husick has volunteered literally thousands of hours in recent years trying to bring some sanity to the debate over whether Type I devices are better for the marine environment than pump-out stations connected to municipal water treatment facilities.

In his testimony, Husick argued that the nutrient waste in one discharge of a Type I device was equal to that of four oak leaves. He also testified that the chlorine discharged by a Type I into the sea, at 0.2 parts per million, is barely above the natural chlorine content of seawater.

"State and local officials and the non-boating public favor the creation of nodischarge zones," said Husick, "because they mistakenly believe that by doing so they are banning the discharge of raw sewage. However, such discharges are already illegal and have been so for 20 years. A no-discharge zone only bans the use of approved treatment devices, a very important distinction that is largely lost, or ignored, in the public debate."

Husick's presentation was followed by two scientists, Dr. Donald Drost of the University of the Virgin Islands and Dr. Ed Williams of Sheffield, England. Both testified that the effluent produced by Type I on-board treatment devices had far less impact on the marine environment than the holding tank and pump-out station system currently favored by the EPA.

Those testifying in opposition to the bill included representatives from the Ocean Conservancy, the Association of State and Interstate Water Pollution Control Administrators and Reef Relief.

In a move that surprised onlookers, Chairman Duncan then allowed the panelists to engage in a spirited debate among themselves, rather than simply answer questions posed by committee members.

By the hearing's end, it was clear that the current system was, in fact, broken, and that a new approach to the disposal of waste from recreational boats was needed.