Attention all recreational boaters: Go immediately to your appointments calendar and draw a big circle around Sept. 30. That's the date when the federal government may extend its ballast-discharge permit requirements to recreational vessels, making it illegal for you to operate your boat unless you buy more anti-pollution equipment and possibly obtain a federal permit.

If that happens, and you don't have a permit, you could find yourself operating your boat illegally, subject to civil suits filed by environmental groups, a fine of up to $32,000 a day – possibly even jail time.

The situation stems from a 1999 court suit, originally intended to affect ocean-going cruise ships and cargo vessels, that has been expanded to include recreational boats and small fishing vessels – and it has boating organizations sounding the alarm.

Shells, mostly Zebra mussels, Pile up on a beach in Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore, in Michigan. The Zebra mussel (Dreissena polymorpha) is an invasive species in the Great Lakes. September 30 is the date that a U.S. District Court has set for the new system to take effect, unless Congress or an appeals court calls a halt.

BALLAST WATER

The suit, filed by a coalition of environmental groups, initially sought to crack down on the discharge of pollutant-laden ballast water by oceangoing passenger vessels and cargo ships.

These large ships take on ballast water to maintain stability underway, and then dump it as they near port. Scientists say this water typically contains a wide variety of bacteria, viruses and other biological materials that can do extensive damage to aquatic ecosystems. It's also believed to be a major source of invasive species in U.S. waters.

Environmental groups say more than 21 billion gallons of ballast water are released into U.S. waters each year. As a result, court documents say, more than 10,000 marine species are carried around the globe each day, among them the zebra mussel, a native of the Caspian Sea region of Asia, which was brought into the Great Lakes in the late 1980s by vessels traversing the St. Lawrence Seaway.

They've since spread to the Mississippi, Hudson, Ohio, Missouri, Arkansas and Colorado rivers, disrupting ecosystems and damaging harbors, power plants and water plants, whose intake gates bring the microscopic organisms into the facility. The Coast Guard says the economic impact of this invasion costs the U.S. about $5 billion a year.

The Environmental Protection Agency has regulated ballast discharge for years, but has exempted recreational boats and small charter vessels. In late 2005, the U.S. District Court for Northern California ordered the agency to include smaller vessels, and expanded the coverage beyond ballast water to cover bilge water, deck runoff and "gray water" as well.

The District Court decision, which is now being reviewed by the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals in San Francisco, has all sides scurrying to prepare for the Sept. 30 deadline.

ON THE FRONT

Organizations such as the BoatUS (the Boat Owners Association of the United States) and the National Marine Manufacturers Association have begun rallying their members to lobby Congress for emergency legislation that would restore the EPA exemption for recreational boats and smaller charter vessels. Efforts to garner support for a new bill are just beginning, and whether a measure will pass still is unclear.

The EPA is backing the appeal, but is drafting proposed regulations anyway, in case the appeals judges affirms the district court decision. The agency expects to make the proposed procedures public in May, with a final set of rules in September if necessary.

Unless Congress or the courts intervene, recreational boats may be covered by a law intended to govern large ships. There's no indication when the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals will issue its decision, but some of those involved in the case say the ruling could come as early as this month or as late as mid-September, forcing all sides to act quickly. If the EPA hasn't worked out an expanded permit system by then, boaters could be left violating the law with no way to get into compliance.

The government may decide that boaters don't need to get a federal permit after all, but instead require them to buy special anti-pollution equipment – such as oil-absorbent pads and towels – in order to comply with permit requirements.

Or, the government may opt to do nothing at all.

ON THE WATER

Of course, what finally emerges from the government's regulatory mills may not be as oppressive as some boating groups fear. While EPA officials haven't said so officially, those familiar with the proposed regulations say the agency is unlikely to require every boat owner to apply for a permit individually. Instead, it would issue a "general" permit that would enable boaters to operate their boats as before, so long as they equipped them with required gear.

While boaters wouldn't have to obtain individual permits, their vessels would be subject to inspection by the Coast Guard or other law enforcement agencies. Skippers whose boats don't have the required gear would be subject to prosecution.

Also, while the regulations technically would apply to all boats -- even rowboats and canoes, they'd be tougher on larger vessels that have engines and bilge pumps. Recreational and commercial boats longer than 100 feet might have to submit paperwork. Details are expected to be made public in the May proposal.

With 18 million recreational boats in use across the United States, the agency is trying to take "a common-sense approach," one official says.

Several boating organizations oppose any effort to require recreational boaters to obtain permits, including BoatU.S. and the National Association of Marine Manufacturers. Even so, boating organizations aren't taking any chances. BoatU.S. recently e-mailed its entire membership – more than 600,000 people – urging boaters to ask lawmakers to support legislation to exempt recreational boats from permit requirements. The measure also would require EPA and other agencies to make a three-year study of discharges from recreational boats and offer recommendations on how to deal with them.

Margaret Podlich, BoatU.S.'s vice-president for government affairs, concedes that EPA may not require permits (or impose fees) for recreational boaters this time around, but is skeptical about what may happen in years to come, particularly if the agency delegates permitting authority and enforcement to the states. Many believe that such a step is likely, since EPA does not have the resources to deal with millions of boaters on an individual basis.

Podlich also contends it's likely that regulations, once in place, will get tougher year by year. "The permit is unlikely to remain the same," she says. "It would constantly evolve. And, given what I know about state budgets right now [when tax revenues are falling short of targets], I would expect states to begin charging for these permits once they're given the job of issuing them."

For the moment, the push for emergency legislation is not as far advanced as the EPA's rulemaking. An earlier version of the bill in the House last year attracted 70 co-sponsors, but the legislation never got traction, and the new bill faces a difficult time in the Senate as well.

Meanwhile, all sides are hoping that the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals will deliver an early decision on the case. It's not certain yet whether the Bush administration would take the case to the U.S. Supreme Court if the appeals court judges fail to overturn the District Court decision. But the controversy is bound to make waves in the boating community.