Update For Puget Sound NDZ

[Alaskan Sea-Duction]

I thought I would start a new thread as there are several that deal with the NDZ, but not necessarily the Court Action.

For some reason I could not find the actual case decision in December 2020. Is this because it is a continuing case and the Court just wanted further comments? Those of you on TF who are the legal beagles might be able to find it.

RBAW posted this:

Puget Sound-wide No Discharge Zone (NDZ): Late in 2020, a federal court ruled in favor of the American Ways Operators (AWO) on parts of a legal challenge it had filed against the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) that called into question some of the decisions that led EPA to grant approval to the state Department of Ecology for establishment of a Puget Sound-wide No Discharge Zone (NDZ). In the aftermath of that ruling, Region 10 of the EPA reopened the public record for submittal of comments related to technical issues surrounding the NDZ, such as the “sufficiency” of pump-out service. Because we have supported the AWO’s efforts and expressed a number of previous concerns with the NDZ designation, Board Members – led by Treasurer Loyd Walker and Past President Wayne Gilham – spent a significant time crafting formal RBAW comments. We submitted these comments to EPA Region 10 in late January.



here is the case info:

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
THE AMERICAN WATERWAYS
OPERATORS,
801 North Quincy Street, Suite 200
Arlington, VA 22203,
Plaintiff,
v.
ANDREW WHEELER, Acting Administrator of
the United States Environmental Protection
Agency,
and
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY,
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20460,
Defendants.
Case No.: 18-2933

 

[gswearin]

Hi, Here is the link
https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2018cv2933-66

 

[Alaskan Sea-Duction]

Hi, Here is the link
https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2018cv2933-66

Thanks. The case was an interesting read. It would appear that EPA has until beginning of March to explain a few things.

 

[HeadMistress]

About time we started fighting back! However, American Waterways' challenge is based solely on availability of pumpout facilities. It failed to challenge the need to ban treated waste from recreational vessels, which is based on erroneous assumptions that fail to take into account the following:

1. Federal law has required all recreational vessels equipped with toilets to either hold or treat sewage since Jan 1, 1980. Cost and power requirements for treatment devices have resulted in fewer than 5% of recreational vessels with toilets that have onboard treatment devices installed, already requiring 95% of boats with toilets to hold sewage for pumpout.

2. There is NO evidence that a large percentage of vessels equipped with treatment devices discharge partially treated waste.

3. Although federal regulations permit a pathogen count of 1000/100 ml, the pathogen count in the discharge from treatment devices in use today is <10/100 ml.

Therefore, there is no environmental benefit to disallowing treatment devices.

--Peggie

 

[Alaskan Sea-Duction]

About time we started fighting back! However, American Waterways' challenge is based solely on availability of pumpout facilities. It failed to challenge the need to ban treated waste from recreational vessels, which is based on erroneous assumptions that fail to take into account the following:


1. Federal law has required all recreational vessels equipped with toilets to either hold or treat sewage since Jan 1, 1980. Cost and power requirements for treatment devices have resulted in fewer than 5% of recreational vessels with toilets that have onboard treatment devices installed, already requiring 95% of boats with toilets to hold sewage for pumpout.



2. There is NO evidence that a large percentage of vessels equipped with treatment devices discharge partially treated waste.



3. Although federal regulations permit a pathogen count of 1000/100 ml, the pathogen count in the discharge from treatment devices in use today is <10/100 ml.


Therefore, there is no environmental benefit to disallowing treatment devices.


--Peggie

I agree. RBAW has sent a letter to the Court expressing those same facts. Unfortunately the Environmental Wacos seem to run the ship.

 

[HeadMistress]

Unfortunately the Environmental Wacos seem to run the ship.


Only if we let them. They're bullies who expect us to cave in under pressure from 'em. But they CAN be beaten if it matters, as long as you have facts to counter their opinions. And while I don't expect anyone to take my word for anything, I can provide you with irrefutable sources for those facts.


--Peggie