State Sen. Kehoe Drops Anti Fouling Paint Bill

[SunDevil]

Originally Posted by roverhi

Yes, and the mercury given off by coal plants doesn't seem to be a problem. It's so well dispersed that it doesn't come near dangerous levels. If it did, the EPA wouldn't be trying to strangle the coal electrical generating industry but shoot it on the spot.

City lakes attract more airborne mercury than those further away | Great Lakes Echo

Rain and water runoff from rain storms downwind of power plants tend to contaminate the lake more it turns out.

Some fish aren't as affected by Mercury levels, and some are hanging out in the wrong places and getting exposed to more. Other fish eat more Hg contaminated food. It is hard to get rid of it.

[sdowney717]

The vote fell down party lines 100%

Ooops - Environmental Boating Issues on the Big Bay and elsewhere: SB623 banning copper paint passes California Senate on party lines

It is time to get rid of recreational boaters polluting waterways?

Take it to the extreme green edge and if your just there your fouling up the place, bottom paint or no bottom paint. Extremism to save the planet from people is bad, people belong here, the extreme liberal green consensus should volunteer themselves for removal from the earth 's ecosystem.

I think it will not end with bottom paint, there will come up another issue like engine pollution into the water. Why not ban IC engines exhausting their poisonous toxic pollution into the water killing the little fishes? Clean exhaust? Breathe in exhaust fumes and your dead, so you know this must be of interest to those looking to agitate against the people and for mother earth in what they think is it's best interest.

They can get a scientific study of this issue of copper in the water killing off the ecosystem and produce a biased report. Their is no consensus on AGW and there wont be one here, IMO on copper paints.

[fstbttms]

Originally Posted by sdowney717

The vote fell down party lines 100%

Yes, welcome to June of last year. If you are going to continue a misguided argument, at least quote something current and relevant.

When I say your argument is misguided, what I mean is you and most of the others here advocating against regulating copper in anti fouling paint in California do not really understand the issue. You characterize SB 623 as some wacko legislation put forth by a liberal, Earth-first tree hugger. What in fact is going (and I'll explain it again for those of you who still don't get it) is that hundreds of California water bodies are impaired for copper as per USEPA guidelines. The federal government has mandated that California bring these water bodies into compliance. That is what SB 623 was supposed to do, since 20 years of voluntary measures have failed. This is not a case of hippies screaming, "Save the Earth!", it is the state attempting to do what the federal government has told them they must.

[micah719]

A related question....I read somewhere that if you take your salt-boat into fresh for a couple of weeks it kills all the sea-critters clinging to your hull. I suppose that's why sharks like swimming up the Brisbane River all the way to Ipswich. True, for boats, or just a furphy?

[fstbttms]

100% true. Be careful though. Freshwater will kill some anti fouling paints as well as the critters living on them.

[micah719]

Oh. Not a good tradeoff. Another thing to look into more carefully. Thanks!

[sdowney717]

As to cost, none of the paint or boatyard attendees seriously disputed an estimate of $9000 to strip an repaint with an approved non-biocide product. It was suggested the “slick” paints would be more.

Ooops - Environmental Boating Issues on the Big Bay and elsewhere

Or they could pay you fstbttms, to clean their boats.

So you are in the camp that says copper in the paint is so bad it should be banned. This SB 623 bill will be reintroduced, so all of it is still relevant. They are just waiting and will do some scientific quesswork study and conclude copper should be either eliminated or leach so slowly it wont do anything.

[muskoka]

I'm not familiar with the details of this but I'd like to know: Is the intent of the legislation to ban copper outright, or to simply to limit the leach rate? Does this legislation address other biocides?

[sailorchic34]

One question. Has there been studies done to determine how much the copper content in the waters of California bays will be reduced by converting recreation boat hulls to non copper paint.

I expect the answer to be inconclusive. Partly due to land based copper runoff and factoring all the commercial traffic in ports that don't need to comply. I would expect a ban on copper bottom paints would in reality have very little effect on the copper content in the water.

While I'm all for clean water, we have to keep things in perspective. some supporting data would be nice too about how many tons of copper would be removed from the water by a copper ban...

To me a bigger issue is the sewage discharges every time it rains in the SF Bay.... After all the city of San Francisco still has a combined sanitary and storm sewer. So when it rains, guess what happens...

I just know that the marine ecosystem growing on the floating docks next to the boats seem to be doing quite well. Even in the former Kaiser shipyards...

[FlyingCloud1937]

Tributyltin oxide (TBTO) -- Tributyl tin oxideTBTO is an organotin product with a strong biocide power against fungi, bacteria and algae. It is used in the paint industry as an antifouling agent, in the production of agricultural pesticides and in the conservation of timber, textiles and leather.







Can be purchased at many Fine Art supply houses.

[SunDevil]

I would like to see an improved product, and hopefully that is what will happen. One that lasts for 15-20 years or so. It would be one thing if this product existed already and people weren't choosing it for performance or cost reasons...

But, even as an environmentalist, this seems a little extreme compared with all of the other water pollution that is easier to stop and would have a bigger impact.

[fstbttms]

Originally Posted by sdowney717

Or they could pay you fstbttms, to clean their boats.

Boat bottoms are gonna need to be cleaned regardless of whether copper is reduced or eliminated or whatever. They haven't invented the magic bullet that will eliminate fouling.

Originally Posted by sdowney717

So you are in the camp that says copper in the paint is so bad it should be banned.

No, I'm not. I like copper-based anti fouling paints because they work well and make my job easier. I'm in the camp that says because California has failed to meet federally-mandated water quality objectives for copper, in-water hull cleaning could easily be banned. Then I'm out of a job. And if I'm out of a job, you get to take your boat to a yard 4-15 times a year (or more, depending on where your boat lives in this state) and pay them to haul it and pressure wash the hull. Does that potentiality sound like something that will be convenient and relatively inexpensive for you, the boat owner?

[FlyingCloud1937]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tin

[roverhi]

Actually the sewer discharges seem to be taken care of by the environment quite easily. Not that suddenly doing away with sewage treatment plants wouldn't have an effect but occasional large sewage discharges seem to be accomodated in short order. A couple of years ago the high pressure sewage line serving Waikiki broke. It dumped all the sewage generated by Waikiki into the AlaWai Canal. Waikiki used to be a swamp and the AlaWai is the drainage canal keeping it from reverting. It's that body of water inland from Waikiki and is a very slow moving body of water that dumps into the ocean through the AlaWai Yacht Harbor just down from the Hilton Hawaiian Village. Took them something like 4 days to find and fix the leak. They closed Waikiki beach, the AlaWai smelled like sh** for a few days after but all sign of the spill had disappeared in less than a week. Makes you wonder about the justification for No Discharge Zones

The issue with most of the EcoNuts efforts is that they have very little, if any benefit to the environment. Mostly it's making people feel like they are doing something good and the Politicians a justification for wating our time and money.

As far as copper, there was a study done of the silt under one of the small boat harbors in Washington. They did find a significantly higher level of copper in the marina but the ocean bottom just outside the harbor had a normal level. Don't know if they did any serious analysis to determine where the copper came from and/or whether it had any effect on the flora and fauna in the marina. Know that my old Marina which was the former home of Alaska Packers and had been continuously a commercial and pleasure boat harbor for well over a century had no shortage of marine and bird life, even a few rats.

It's doubtful that banning copper will have any great effect on the water quality or the marine life that swims in it. If they don't get a substitute for copper in bottom paint, and it doesn't look like they have one yet, owning a boat is going to get way more expensive and FSTBTTMS is going to make a lot more money. Talked with a yard manager in Washington last summer and he was smiling at the Washington copper ban. Said they have not found a non copper paint that will last more than a year and not all that effective even when new. He expected to be way more busy when the ban goes into effect something like 5 years down the line. The really costly thing about the Washington law is all boats will eventually have to be stripped of any copper antifouling paint.

[fstbttms]

Originally Posted by muskoka

I'm not familiar with the details of this but I'd like to know: Is the intent of the legislation to ban copper outright, or to simply to limit the leach rate? Does this legislation address other biocides?

The bill (now tabled indefinitely) as originally written would have banned copper in anti fouling paints entirely (it said nothing about other biocides.) Then it was amended (at the behest of the paint manufacturer's lobbyists) to allow copper to remain legal in "low leach-rate" formulations. Then the boater's advocacy group, Recreational Boaters of California, launched a campaign of disinformation and outright bullsh*t that made the proposed legislation so unpopular that Senator Kehoe decided it didn't stand a chance of making it through the state legislature before her term ended. So she dropped it and that's where we stand now.

Word from the Senator's staff is that another legislator (as yet unnamed) will reintroduce the bill at a later date.