Bill to ban copper bottom paint passes senate
Mar 10 2011 in Currents, Environment by Deborah Bach
Copper-based paints are highly effective in preventing growth on boat bottoms, but toxic for marine life, especially salmon. John Papajani photo
Washington is one step closer to becoming the first state in the nation to ban copper-based paints used on boats.
A bill that would eliminate copper bottom paint on recreational boats by 2020 was passed by the state senate last week with a vote of 46 to 3. The bill, SB 5436, now moves to the state House of Representatives for approval.
“We’re right where we want to be to get the bill passed this session,” said Peter Schrappen, director of government affairs for the Northwest Marine Trade Association, which introduced the bill.
The bill is intended to provide sufficient time to ensure that effective alternatives to copper-based paint are available and for boat manufacturers and sellers to adjust.
Under the bill’s current wording, no new boats with copper-based bottom paint could be sold in Washington after Jan. 1, 2017. The state Department of Ecology would be required to survey paint manufacturers about the types of antifouling paints available and report its findings to the legislature by Jan. 1, 2018 (the NMTA is seeking to reverse the dates for the study and the new-boat restriction, so the study would be done in 2017 and the new-boat restriction would start a year later).
By 2020, no antifouling paint containing more than 0.5 percent copper could be sold in Washington. Violators could face fines of up to $10,000 daily.
But the legislation would not prohibit boat owners from purchasing copper-based bottom paint out of state and using it on their boats, nor would it restrict the sale of used boats with copper bottom paint in Washington. Those restrictions were not included in the bill because they would be too difficult to enforce, Schrappen said.
“Our hope is that we accomplish the same effect by restricting paint at the point of sale,” he said.
The bill currently applies to all recreational boats, but Schrappen said the NMTA and People for Puget Sound, an environmental group NMTA has been working with on the bill, will push for an amendment making the legislation applicable only to boats 65 feet and under.
Some have questioned why the legislation would not apply to larger yachts or commercial vessels. Schrappen said the thinking was that larger boats are more likely to be cruising in warmer waters where bottom growth can be more problematic and alternatives to copper-based paints may not be as effective. Commercial vessels weren’t included, he said, because they do not fall under the NMTA’s purview.
“We’re a recreational boating and trade association,” he said. “We haven’t gone the commercial route because that isn’t really in our bailiwick.”
The NMTA bill follows one passed last year in the state that phases out brake pads containing more than 0.5 percent copper by 2025. Washington is the first state to restrict the use of copper in brake pads and is now on its way to become a national leader in prohibiting copper-based paint.
Copper is extremely effective in preventing growth on boat bottoms but is toxic for marine life, particularly salmon. Even low levels of copper in the water can reduce a coho’s sense of smell, making it difficult to find food or locate its home stream for spawning.
Gary Bailey, the state Department of Ecology’s water quality permit specialist, said the bill fits with Ecology’s overall objective of eliminating toxins from the environment.
“Where there are alternatives available at an equivalent cost, it just makes sense to do it,” he said.
Related Stories
Millions at stake with new boat tax proposal
Washington becomes first state to ban copper paint for recreational boats
Clean Boating Foundation gets grant, moves ahead
Bill would make state first to ban copper boat paint
No easy answers in quest for eco-friendly bottom paints- Slide show | How one boatyard is getting the copper out
- Explainer | Copper and other pollutants threaten marine life
Jay N said on March 12, 2011
As Pat and Ahoi say, this bill fails to pass the “sniff” test, as it is obviously self-serving for the NMTA. It is obvious that we need to remove toxins from the water, but there needs to be an acceptable subsitute solution for boat bottoms, including commercial vessels. In a perfect world, the “solution” would come from the paint manufacturers. The impact of eliminating copper-free brake pads and other shoreside sources is much bigger than the impact from recreational vessel acitivities. Absent a more environmental friendly solution, and for the foreseeable future, I will simply take my underwater coating and associated shipyard requirements to British Columbia, which I assume the NMTA has figured into their strategy.
Pat said on March 10, 2011
“There are two things important in politics, the first is money and I can’t remember what the second one is.”
Hmm, so commercial boats are excluded because they are outside of the NMTA purview. So I guess this legislation is by the NMTA for the NMTA. How many more haulouts, pressure wash jobs, and paint jobs is this going to drive to the bottom line of NMTA members, on the backs of the recreational boaters?
I am in favor of using this legislation to drive the paint manufacturers to develop better products, but let’s make it real by including the commercial boats as well. Maybe commercial interests are outside of the NMTA purview, but why do our elected representatives feel themselves to be similarly constrained? My theory is the commercial interests will come out with both barrels loaded in a massive lobbying effort if they are targeted as well, something the recreational boat owner is not setup to do.
Ahoi said on March 10, 2011
Yes, Pat. Follow the money trail. Thanks for your well thought out comment. There is something about this bill that stinks. I guess it’s too many years of disappointment and ultimately outrage to trust any sort of government action to actually serve the “little people”. Letting big boat people off the hook because they are more likely to be in warmer waters is an interesting touch.