For Immediate Release November 11, 2009 Proposed Marina Permit Regulation Provokes Heated Opposition at MRA Conference In a series of briefings at last week's Marina Recreation Association 38th annual Educational Conference and Trade Show, MRA members were unified in opposition to a proposed coastal marina permit regulation being developed by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). The MRA briefings were led by Randy Short, President of ALMAR Marinas and a past president of MRA. Short said the proposed regulation is greatest threat to the industry in the last 20 years. "It will have a serious detrimental effect on an industry that already is a leader in environmental responsibility and pro-active clean-water management," he said. "If we don't have clean water, we don't have boating, and we know it." As currently drafted, the regulation applies to coastal marinas. "Inland and fresh water marinas will be next," said Short. During Tuesday's meeting the more than 200 conference attendees, including many who operate the marinas that are at the heart and soul of California's boating activities, expressed deep concern at the enormity of the economic burden that would be placed on the marina industry (and eventually on California boaters) by the proposed regulation. MRA speakers briefing the membership were especially critical of the SWRCB process. "The permit is under development in a vacuum," said Short. "The state held a 'rollout' briefing with little advanced notice. I was the only marina operator physically in attendance, although a small number tried to listen on a poor telephone connection but were unable to ask questions." Those who did attend the first SWRCB meeting or later meetings were particularly dismayed by the lack of understanding of marina economics and operations demonstrated by the regulators. There are strong apprehensions that Water Board staff is not too concerned about the high cost of compliance and testing proposed in the regulation. When staff was asked if they had any idea how expensive testing and compliance would be, they said, "Somebody is going to have to pay for it." "We are following these events very closely," said Jim Hayes, President of the MRA, "as is the Recreational Boaters of California (RBOC). The state's marina operators are dedicated, hard-working protectors of water resources. This regulation will not improve water quality, but it will create lasting economic damage to an important component of the California economy." The proposed permit mandates periodic analysis of water and bottom sediment for coastal marinas with more than ten slips. The permit is primarily designed to target copper in marine sediment. The SWRCB feels this is a problem caused by recreational boaters despite numerous potential sources and the legal use of registered bottom paints. The permit regulations now under consideration also stipulate "violations" if anything "unidentified" drifts into a marina. Marina operators at the MRA conference said this happens virtually every hour of every day. These objects must then be reported and tested, and fines can result. The permit places the cost of monitoring water quality and bottom sediment pollution onto the marina owners and operators. It also ignores the fact that marinas in operation over many years (and there are many of them) may have accumulated metals in their sediments completely unrelated to bottom paints, and the evidence linking these metals to the marina and to effects on local biology is scarce. Finally, the permit suggests the State could actively limit the occupancy of a marina as a remediation method. Numerous consultants, including Dr. Joshua Burnam of Anchor QEA and Barry Snyder of AMEC have attempted to estimate the cost of the testing requirements. "The cost of compliance and testing will be extraordinarily expensive relative to the economics of running and managing a marina," said Burnam. "It has been estimated that an average marina could pay as much as $230,000 per year for testing based on the current version of the permit. Obviously this will have to be passed on to the boater. The cost of testing is bad enough, but the effects of lost revenue if the State limits slip occupancy would be even more devastating." MRA President Jim Hayes said, "We educate and police ourselves at no expense to the state and the results are evident everywhere there are marinas and boaters. The Clean Marinas Program, administered by the MRA, is an ongoing example of the initiative of this industry in respect to water quality. This regulation appears to have no other purpose than to place the boating community in the crosshairs of ideologues with no appreciation for the importance of boating to the economy or the quality of life in California." Carey Clausen of Brickyard Cove Marina, Pt. Richmond, CA, attended a later hearing on the marina permit regulation also chaired by Munz. Clausen asked Munz how the new regulation would result in cleaner water. "She told us it would have no effect on water quality," said Clausen. "Boaters are among the most fervent environmentalists," Clausen added. "Many of them are members of the Sierra Club and other environmental groups. We hope they will actively oppose this poorly conceived regulation within their environmental groups and in any way they can." Photo below: Randy Short of ALMAR Marinas briefs the Marina Recreation Association's 38th Annual Educational Conference & Trade Show. For additional information, contact Mariann Timms at or email questions to timms@marina.org.