States begin banning copper-based anti fouling paints

[fstbttms]

Are you sure, have you checked? Algae grows in CA as well as in CT.

Yes, I'm sure. I've read the copper loading studies. I've spoken with the state scientist who conducted marina-by-marina measurements. I've attended Regional Water Quality Control Board meetings. I've even testified before the State Senate about the SB 623. I consider myself pretty well-versed on the subject.

 

[Gilldiver]

Yes, but what Gilldiver fails to understand in his rants against banning copper is that his situation in Connecticut is quite different than ours here in California. As previously mentioned, sewage or water treatment plants are not a source of copper loading here. Further, we do not moor or berth our boats on rivers, which provide signifcant flushing. Our boats tend to congregate in poorly flushed basins, which concentrates the copper in small areas. .

You should see Stamford, Norwalk, Bridgeport, Millford, and New Haven harbors, amung others, all have major treatment plants on them and are not flushed by rivers to any great extent. I picked the Stratford, CT treatment plant as it is the one next to my plant on the Housatonic River. It's design level is 20 million gallons a day with a maximum output of 40 million gallons per day due to old mixed storm water/sewage drains. The plants on the harbors are quite larger. Also, all CT plants drain into Long Island Sound, along with many major NY citiy and Long Island plants. The Sound has limited flushing to the open sea through The Race into Block Island Sound and Hells Gate into New York Harbor. So, if you want to compare CA vs. CT as apples to apples we would need to look at total drainiage.

By the way, few boats are moored on the river near the shore line as river access is very limited, the majority are "in poorly flushed basins" and harbors.

 

[fstbttms]

By the way, few boats are moored on the river near the shore line as river access is very limited, the majority are "in poorly flushed basins" and harbors.

Well, I can't speak to Conneticut's situation specifically. Every region has different issues. It may be there is no copper loading problem where you live. But the fact remains that there are hundreds of bodies of water in California that are impaired for copper and the federal goverment, 10 or 13 years ago, mandated that the state bring those bodies into compliance. Every effort to date has failed. Now we are down to legislating change. Don't get me wrong, as a hull cleaner, I love copper-based anti fouling paints. They work great and make my job easy. But what I don't love is the ever-increasing pressure to reduce copper loading, much of which is directed at hull cleaners, a largely powerless, and almost voiceless, group. For that reason, the organization I represent, the California Professional Divers Association, supports SB 623.

 

[Gilldiver]

One last thing, when you get into the real base numbers of any study, you sometimes need to ask if any loadings were excluded. Studies funded by governmental sources are many times eddied in ways to not implicate, or cost that, or other governmental agency.

For a subject like copper loading you need to go back and ask if all sources of loading are considered and specifically ask if copper from drinking water treatment was included. If you do, you might find that it was not as there are no adequate, and cost effective, alternatives and the copper is added for public health. I’m sorry if I come across as anti-environmental but I have been dealing with the State and Federal environmental agencies for a long time and know where, and when, they burry the bodies.

It will all come down to politics eventually not science. Boats less than 65’ are easy targets with relatively small voting base. Boats, and ships, greater than 65’ get into the commercial area, most are not pleasure yachts. Is your legislation being framed for only non-commercial boats or is it also being framed to include/exclude commercials ships?

 

[fstbttms]

It will all come down to politics eventually not science. Boats less than 65’ are easy targets with relatively small voting base. Boats, and ships, greater than 65’ get into the commercial area, most are not pleasure yachts. Is your legislation being framed for only non-commercial boats or is it also being framed to include/exclude commercials ships?

My understanding is that vessels over 65' were exempt, but upon re-reading the current version of the bill, I don't find the language stating that. So I'm actually not sure now.

 

[Peter_C]

There are millions of causes and issues out there. Each person has their own reasons for supporting or denouncing them. I think we all agree copper is not the best thing for the environment/ecosystem. Sometimes we have to overlook the obvious larger issues and focus on our smaller local issues at hand. Everything is a starting point, and change can happen.

All I can say is I am damn glad I put a reverse osmosis system onto my drinking water. The first filter comes out really dirty after running our city water through it. Our city touts it as clean water ready to be ingested. I don't think so...

The San Francisco Bay is highly polluted and has every kind of nasty heavy metal there is. Mercury poisoning is so high we are told to not eat more than one fish a week from our local waters. Anything we can do to stop it's continuing contamination is a good thing. Of course the worst polluters pay off the politicians, we call them oil companies. There are also plenty of manufacturing facilities that leak contaminants into the water/soil. The watch dog groups and government agencies to help control these companies do so as much as possible, without hurting revenue or all the other things that get in the way of saving the environment. Yeah my faith in some of these agencies/companies is not much. I hate politics!

 

[Gilldiver]

There are millions of causes and issues out there. Each person has their own reasons for supporting or denouncing them. I think we all agree copper is not the best thing for the environment/ecosystem. Sometimes we have to overlook the obvious larger issues and focus on our smaller local issues at hand. Everything is a starting point, and change can happen.

All I can say is I am damn glad I put a reverse osmosis system onto my drinking water. The first filter comes out really dirty after running our city water through it. Our city touts it as clean water ready to be ingested. I don't think so...

The San Francisco Bay is highly polluted and has every kind of nasty heavy metal there is. Mercury poisoning is so high we are told to not eat more than one fish a week from our local waters. Anything we can do to stop it's continuing contamination is a good thing. Of course the worst polluters pay off the politicians, we call them oil companies. There are also plenty of manufacturing facilities that leak contaminants into the water/soil. The watch dog groups and government agencies to help control these companies do so as much as possible, without hurting revenue or all the other things that get in the way of saving the environment. Yeah my faith in some of these agencies/companies is not much. I hate politics!

I agree with most of this, but bad old industry is not always, if ever, the largest source. Non point source is the largest - that is all the stuff that gets washed down the drain at every rain. Over here mercury is not the major problem, our largest problem in nitrates and phosphates from fertilizer run off and sewer treatment plant discharges causing low and zero oxygen zones in the western sound. It is kind of hard to get wound up on poisons when the fish are dying from oxygen starvation caused by algae rotting after being fertilized by the run off.

We also have a lot of metals from old industries and I have one friend who got lead poisoning from eating crabs from Southport Harbor; there was an Exide battery factory just up stream for about 100 years or so. What I get wound up about are those who go after the small sources and make it look like they got the major ones.

 

[hullscrubber]

Fstbttms is right about one thing, money talks... here in Florida those who can afford it take their boats to the Bahamas to get painted, so I imagine I'll be seeing both tin and copper paints for awhile.

 

[Peter_C]

What I get wound up about are those who go after the small sources and make it look like they got the major ones.

Sometimes the small sources are just stepping stones to the larger issues. First you have to start the change process then slowly the larger polluters are forced to follow. I hear you though and agree the little issues are not the big ones. They do all add up together though, and can not be overlooked.

Just because they spilled an insane amount of oil in the Gulf doesn't mean it is right for me to pour 4 quarts down the drain by my house.