Owners of smaller vessels say they are worried about the costs.

“If we impose what are essentially requirements of what are essentially large vessels down to the smaller and smaller vessels, it's a cost,” said Mark Vinsel, executive director of the United Fishermen of Alaska. “Obviously it's a big concern to all commercial fishermen, but depending on how far they reach, it's a concern to even canoeists. Any vessel on the water is implied.”

Dick Bishop, president of the Alaska Outdoor Council board, was not aware of the notice until contacted for this story.

“It sounds like something that should be examined,” Bishop said.

Bruce Warner, spokesman for the Alaska Sport Fishing Alliance, said his organization is concerned.

“What this means is, if it passes, all boats are going to have to have holding tanks and offload their sewage,” Warner said.

Ruby Cooper, of the EPA's wastewater management program in Washington, D.C., said a response from the court could come as soon as the fall, but could not say what might happen after.

“This is a new universe for us. Vessels traditionally have not been permitted under our particular program,” Cooper said.

Options available to the EPA include the creation of a general permit for discharges by vessels in specified categories, congressional action to amend the Clean Water Act or involvement of the U.S. Coast Guard, Cooper said. “The Coast Guard has authority for vessels as well, so we are exploring our options now.”

It's uncertain whether Alaska's efforts to takeover management control of NPDES permits from the EPA would affect the issue. A bill that would have been the last piece needed to complete the state's formal application for NPDES primacy failed to pass the Legislature earlier this year. Assuming the bill passes during the 2008 legislative session, the primacy application would be filed that fall, according to the state Department of Conservation, which is just beginning to consider responses to the court ruling.

The EPA held a teleconference with environmental regulators from all 50 states recently, but didn't provide much information on what to expect.

Nationwide, as many as 18 million private boats could be subject to NPDES requirements, EPA told state personnel. The varying sensitivities of Alaskan waters, including those that are listed as critical habitat, spawning zones or fragile for other reasons, would make vessel permitting difficult, according to Sharmon Stambaugh, who manages DEC's wastewater discharge program. She said a general permit would appear to be the most practical approach to the issue.

“I don't see how you could issue individual entity NPDES permits for every vessel. It would overwhelm EPA and the states to have to write this many individual permits,” Stambaugh said.

Battle of the bilge

The court ruling is part of an eight-year legal battle. Oregon-based Northwest Environmental Advocates petitioned EPA in 1999 to repeal the regulation allowing the blanket exemption. In 2003, the agency formally rejected the request. The environmental groups NEA, Ocean Conservancy and Waterkeepers of Northern California filed suit that year arguing that the regulation was beyond the EPA's authority under the Clean Water Act.

The states of New York, Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania intervened in support of the environmentalists and the ad hoc Shipping Industry Ballast Water Coalition intervened in support of the EPA.

Judge Illston granted a summary judgment for the NEA in March 2005, and the ruling last fall was a response to the group's request for an injunction to force the EPA to fix its illegal rule. NEA did not respond to multiple phone calls and e-mails seeking comment for this story. EPA spokeswoman Cooper would not make the EPA's legal counsel available for an interview.

EPA denied that the court had the ability to address the challenged regulations and asked that it send back the original administrative petition to the agency for further proceedings without deadline. The shippers' coalition asked that the old rule remain in place while the EPA worked on a new one, also without a specific deadline.

Judge Illston acknowledged that her ruling would have huge impacts, but said the danger from exotic species imported in cargo vessel ballast water is huge and current protections are inadequate.