U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service seeks to clarify Clean Vessel Act

[ASD]

The Log Newspaper | California Boating & Fishing News - U-S--Fish-and-Wildlife-Service-seeks-to-clarify-Clean-Vessel-Act

[JPA Cate]

Seems at first read that liveaboards should be included for purposes of the Clean Vessel Act, as well as rentable vessels, etc., especially if it means that said liveaboards would be disallowed from using existing facilities, and then not have somewhere to pump out.

What say the rest of you?

Seems like another reason to have a composting toilet.

[ASD]

Little late to comment now, but it appears the USFWS sneaked it in under the radar.

[gamayun]

It was an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, which means that the proposed rule (when it comes out) will also be available for comment. See here for more info: https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-201...2015-22723.pdf, which includes the name of a contact person. Often, the agencies keep a list of people to be notified for certain actions. If you're interested in the issue, you could ask nicely if they'll do that for you.

[Sailing55]

I wonder if there would be any long term negative effects of having a live aboard vessel re-classified as a "recreational vessel"? Income tax? Personal property tax?
My boat is not a recreational vessel, it is my home. Maybe I am mis-reading the intent, but if one government agency considers a live aboard home a recreational vessel would that set a precedent?

Am I getting paranoid?

[Celestialsailor]

Well...when a "liveaboard" vessel moves out of the slip to a pump out station...how is it different than a "recreation" vessel using a pump out station?

[rognvald]

If you want something to be ineffective, confusing and costly, ask the federal government. Once again, a simple, effective solution will be circumvented and buried in inane and restrictive codes by bungling, incompetent bureaucrats who ultimately will get it wrong. If you are using Federal and State money generated by taxpayers to pay for pumpout services available to boaters, why restrict it to recreational boaters only? If the end goal is to help the marine environment, does it matter if a liveaboard or a weekend warrior has access to pumpout facilities when your goal is a cleaner marine environment? And, after using taxpayer money to effect this end, they want to charge you again for a user fee for "management costs"-- it becomes another attempt to create a bureaucracy where none is needed. Historically, the purpose of taxpayer funding for public projects has been for the betterment of the public good. Of course, the bureaucrats(to justify their jobs) must now define what is "public," and what is "good" . . . does anyone here know how to spell ethanol?

[tomfl]

Maybe a little OT but here goes.

In Florida there have been several grants passing through the FDEP to local entities to buy and maintain pump out boats. The FDEP defines live aboard as a boat having peeps on it for ten days out of the month. Not sure about the average size of a holding tank but I can understanding it being full after ten days. On the other hand some marinas say unless you are on your boat twenty five days a month you are not a live aboard but using the marina for wet storage. I have spoken to FDEP officials about the grant language and they stand by the ten day definition. The harbor master I spoke to stands by his definition.

The issue, IMHO, is things have been changing for some time. Growing up in the 1950s in Miami there was really no discussion about directly dumping human waste. In fact the first sail boat I owned had an oaken bucket. What has changed is the number of boats and the amount of waste they produce.

So what is a definition of a live aboard that we can all live with.