Scrapping old boats

[twistedtree]

The issue of aging boats, holding and repair costs that exceed boat value, abandoned boats, and public nuisance/burden has come up a number of times.


This morning we saw a dilapidated boat getting towed in for hauling. When it was hauled, the slings crushed right into and through the hull, it was so rotten. Thankfully it was being hauled in order to scrap it, because it sure wasn't going back in the water like that. I talked to the boat moving company that's hauling it away and got some of the back story.


The owner called the WA EPA people (don't know what the department name actually is) and told them the he had no money and the boat was going to sink, so they could come get it now while it's still floating, or deal with it after it sinks. Nice to have his problem dumped on the public, but at least all of get to pay the cheaper cost of scrapping it while still floating.


Cost was estimated to be about $75k. Fuel had to be pumped out, oil pumped out, anti freeze pumped out, any other wastes removed, all before the boat could even be moved. Then it took two work boats to tow it over to the marina four haulout where a truck and transport trailer were waiting. Thanskfully the whole thing didn't break up while lifting. This afternoon they were cutting up the flybridge, presumably to get the height down for road transport. I don't think I'd want to be the company hauling that down I-5.


It then goes to a salvage yard, and apparently there are several around the break down boats, salvage metals, then crush what's left. We were all speculating about such outfits here in the last few days, so now we know. Yes, they do exist.

 

[Insequent]

At least the owner took some action....

Likely an issue wherever good boating can be done. Here is a link to the local State Govt program, which has been a great success but had a A$20m price tag.

https://www.msq.qld.gov.au/About-us...rce-continues-gaining-ground-in-war-on-wrecks

 

[twistedtree]

At least the owner took some action....

All the owner did was dump the problem on the State. He just did it before the boat sank rather than after. To me, this is why insurance should be mandatory. I don't care if people want old or new boats or whatever, but they need to take full responsibility for it, and this owner didn't.

 

[Snapdragon III]

Had a conversation with a boat yard owner about abandoned boats. He said fiberglass ones were generally not too bad as they could usually find some dreamer that would buy them for next to nothing, and start paying to keep it in the yard or move them. Wood boats were bad but at least they could have their yard guys cut them up and throw them in a dumpster. The worst were Ferrocement boats. Nobody wants them, they had to rent a trackhoe to bust them up, and they are super heavy and expensive to dispose of the waste.

 

[Action]

twistedtree, how long was the vessel you posted pictures of in the first post?

 

[psneeld]

In the southern New Jersey area, this evolution is why most marinas I dealt with would no longer haul wooden boats. Pretty sure only marine railways would.

Beware buying older wooden boats.

 

[O C Diver]

All the owner did was dump the problem on the State. He just did it before the boat sank rather than after. To me, this is why insurance should be mandatory. I don't care if people want old or new boats or whatever, but they need to take full responsibility for it, and this owner didn't.

While I appreciate your point of view, the question then becomes, "what happens to the boat", when no insurer will cover it. This is one of those situations where the taxpayers are going to pay the bill, which way is least expensive.

Ted

 

[Bmarler]

From what I understand, Washington state put together a fund to handle derelict boats. Usually, if the boat is under 40 feet you can just call them and arrange for it to be destroyed. The boat posted is obviously longer than 40 feet, but I guess they decided it was the better way to deal with it. Personally, I don’t mind paying a little each year to fund the program, not sure exactly where I’m paying it. But it’s much better than having old derelict vessels littering up the waterfront.

 

[twistedtree]

twistedtree, how long was the vessel you posted pictures of in the first post?

Min 50s range for length. Not a small boat.

 

[twistedtree]

In the southern New Jersey area, this evolution is why most marinas I dealt with would no longer haul wooden boats. Pretty sure only marine railways would.

Beware buying older wooden boats.

I was initially a bit surprised the yard hauled it, at least until I learned that it was to go directly to the dump with a truck ready and waiting. I'm told the yard manager here has refused boats from time to time. The last thing a yard wants is to get stuck with such a boat. In this case I think the risk was that the boat would completely come apart in the slings and block the launch way. The trucking guy seemed to really know his business and said the keel seemed solid and was carrying the weight on the truck, so he was OK hauling it.

 

[twistedtree]

While I appreciate your point of view, the question then becomes, "what happens to the boat", when no insurer will cover it. This is one of those situations where the taxpayers are going to pay the bill, which way is least expensive.

Ted

I think the owner should have to dispose of it if they can't get someone to take on the risk. Or post a bond to cover the cost. That's common when someone wants to take on a risky operation using public facilities.

 

[Pete Meisinger]

Even a fiberglass boat can be mostly recycled. Simply grind the hull and use the chips and dust for any number of uses.

The problem and expense are incurred before the boat is ready to be ground up. like the O.P. stated, all the hazardous materials must be removed, fuel, oil, antifreeze, freon, batteries, blackwater and sometimes mold.Then the dis similar metals must be removed. Engine blocks, glass, tin, bronze, shafts, rubber, wires, stainless steel and unknown materials. That is where the expense is incurred.

pete

 

[psneeld]

Disposal is not such a simple solution.... otherwise, it would not still be a problem....

Here's an article explaining....

https://www.proboat.com/2021/01/fiberglass-disposal/

 

[Tator]

Alaska has had a program for the past couple of years that collects money from other boat owners to be used to help deal with this problem. I believe it is something like $14/yr. We pay for it at the DMV office and get a sticker to be displayed on our boat.

Tator

 

[SeaDogAK]

I think the owner should have to dispose of it if they can't get someone to take on the risk. Or post a bond to cover the cost. That's common when someone wants to take on a risky operation using public facilities.

That all sounds good in theory but in practice these boats work their way down the food chain as they get older until they get to someone who can’t afford to deal with them. Oftentimes they’re living on a derelict boat because they’re essentially homeless. You can spend a lot of taxpayer money trying to squeeze blood out of that stone.

 

[Marco Flamingo]

I have wondered about my Marina selling boats at public auction when the owner walks away. A boat across from me sold for next to nothing, to a new owner who knew nothing. He could not get the engine to run to take it back to his home port, 50 MI away. He is gone now, but I wonder where the boat is.

 

[Portage_Bay]

Washington State appears to be taking steps in the right direction. Since 2014 requiring boats over 35 ft length and 40 yrs or older to carry marine pollution insurance. The law require sellers of such boats to provide survey data to the buyer. It also requires buyers to provide proof of insurance to the seller and the state.

Vessel Requirement for For Vessels 35 feet or Longer and 40 Years or Older

All well and good but in my opinion short sighted when reality enters the picture. As a boat ages and gets handed from owner to owner it looses value which means it’s purchase price decreases until the last owner is all too often someone who cannot afford the boat, it’s maintenance and lastly it’s proper disposition. If the law were enforced then I see the scenario where the 2nd to last owner is saddled with the full cost of disposition, very likely something they cannot afford. Take that logic ‘upstream’ and imagine where it goes, at what point it a boat’s life as expressed by it’s value does it get scrapped?

And there are some practical matters as well relating to enforcement. I bought a 1971 40 Tolly in 2015 and sold it in 2018. In 2018 I bought a 1983 42 Californian. Both boats came under that law. In those three transactions I was never informed of the 2014 law. Honestly, had I been the Tolly would have been scrapped and the Californian never purchased because the cost of scrapping the Tolly would have consumed the funds to purchase the Californian. Not purchasing the Californian is a personal issue. However the tale illustrates the problem in waiting until a boat is old to attach the requirements in the 2014 law.

The State has developed a fund, but it is my opinion woefully inadequate with a $2.5Mil balance for 2021 - 2023

Fund Balances - Derelict Vessel Removal Program


There is a paltry attempt to assess boat owners.

From my 2022 registration
Derelict Vessel Surcharge $1.00
Derelict Vessel Removal $5.00

I have a different idea. A concept that will put the financial burden on all of the boat’s owners throughout it’s life. And put the state in a position to handle irresponsible old boat owners. I know it will never come to pass but I can dream can’t I? A fee, bond, insurance, license I don’t care what that instrument is called is assessed the first time a boat is registered or titled in the State of Washington. An accounting is kept to determine if there are enough funds in a boat’s account to cover the costs. An annual fee is then assessed and paid to keep the account value current against costs. It would be in some sense actuarial. Working similar to life insurance. The risk of a new production boat becoming derelict is quite small. As the boat ages the risk goes up but so has the account’s value.

 

[Action]

I would have issues with going back to previous owners to pay for the mess.
If I were a previous owner I would want to know that my liability ended when I sold the asset.

It is a problem and that problem has a cost. If there is going to be an assessment it has to be spread over a bigger universe of payers.

 

[mvweebles]

..... I bought a 1971 40 Tolly in 2015 and sold it in 2018. In 2018 I bought a 1983 42 Californian.

"And" versus "Or" has an incredibly important distinction. If the language in the URL is accurate, the vessel must be over 35-feet and over 40 years old. Your Californian would not have fallen under that law until this year.

There's no way to stop derelict vessels. While i agree with TTs thoughts on requiring insurance, fact is folks will fly under the radar. While not entirely fair, boaters in general should bear the lions share of removing derelict. Collecting a few bucks on every registration makes as much sense as I can come up with. I know, penalizes law abiding folks because a few bad actors out there, but best I can come up with. If there was an insurance requirement for anchor outs, at least LEO could impound a derelict before it sinks. Of course, then you have a homeless person putting pressure on other parts of the social safety net.....

Hard for me to imagine now but there was a time in my life where I worried a lot about ending up living beneath a bridge. I have a lot of compassion for homeless and near-homeless. But I sure get tired of having public spaces co-opted. Last time I went to a library (San Francisco right after a $50m remodel), it was disgusting. Same with many parks. And of course derelict boats in anchorages.

Tough call. Wish there was a better answer.

Peter

 

[Portage_Bay]

mvweebles, I stand corrected on my arithmetic error. My main point is to find a way to fund clean up so that the non boating tax payers don't have to cover the costs. It's not realistic to think the buyer of an old tired boat, which is where most derelicts come from, can cover those costs. Start collecting the clean up fee early in the boat's life not when it's already old.

 

[tiltrider1]

In Washington State there is a law that prevents larger boats from being sold to incompetent owners. I believe it starts at 65’ but I am not sure of that. The law says that the seller must be able to prove he sold the boat in to a buyer capable of maintaining the vessels in a seaworthy condition.

I have not heard of any court cases regarding this law so I am unaware of how effective the law has been. The law was aimed at commercial boats being sold for a minimum sum to homeless people as a way jettisoning all liability for scrapping old commercial boats.

 

[Action]

In Washington State there is a law that prevents larger boats from being sold to incompetent owners. I believe it starts at 65’ but I am not sure of that. The law says that the seller must be able to prove he sold the boat in to a buyer capable of maintaining the vessels in a seaworthy condition.

Wow that is interesting. HOw is that proved?
Testing?
Is it a license?
Financial statement necessary at the time of ownership change?

I am pretty ignorant and have no desire to own a yacht that large. (Although I was offered a 72 foot yacht in the Puget Sound for stupid low money because the owner was in very poor health and liked me) However it seems to me that is a bit of government overreach.

The maintenance of something less than 25 is nothing as compared to greater than 50 feet. Well at least as I am thinking.

 

[Bmarler]

In Washington State there is a law that prevents larger boats from being sold to incompetent owners. I believe it starts at 65’ but I am not sure of that. The law says that the seller must be able to prove he sold the boat in to a buyer capable of maintaining the vessels in a seaworthy condition.

I have not heard of any court cases regarding this law so I am unaware of how effective the law has been. The law was aimed at commercial boats being sold for a minimum sum to homeless people as a way jettisoning all liability for scrapping old commercial boats.

i wonder what the bar is for proof of a competent buyer? seems like a pretty big gray area.
i also don't like that previous owners could be held liable for actions of subsequent owners.
proof of insurance at time of title change should be enough. it's tough to get insurance on a near derelict vessel. in fact it's getting harder to insure perfectly good older vessels.

 

[tiltrider1]

My understanding is that recreational sellers have been doing their own surveys before sale and requiring buyers to show they are pre approved for a loan.

Again, I have not heard of any court cases so it is still unknown how this will go.

 

[DDW]

In some European countries, there is a law which says if you manufacture and sell a product, then you must take it back at end of life. If you are the 5th owner of a BMW that is rusted out and barely running, you can drive it to BMW and hand them the keys. That creates incentives to make the product out of something more easily recycled or disposed of, and/or charge enough to consider end-of-life issues. I don't know it if applies to boats but maybe.

Perhaps some scheme could be thought of for boats. Problem here is they last longer than the typical manufacturers, and may be a long way from home at end-of-life.

Absent that it is a public problem, created by the boat owning community; logically we would be tasked with cleaning up our own mess.

 

[Insequent]

Here in Queensland for a boat over 50' you need to show a recent photo it at the Marine Safety Queensland office and have it endorsed in order to get it registered.

This is targeted at people buying ex: commercial vessels no longer seaworthy for commercial purposes, or large recreational vessels in poor condition. I imagine that if the photo is unconvincing then a physical inspection or survey would be required.

As well, mandatory insurance of at least $250k for pollution clean-up (recreational vessel, $500k ex:commercial vessel) and $10m for salvage and wreck removal. Vessels over 50' registered elsewhere need to have that insurance cover as well.

 

[O C Diver]

I think the owner should have to dispose of it if they can't get someone to take on the risk. Or post a bond to cover the cost. That's common when someone wants to take on a risky operation using public facilities.

Doesn't that bring us back to the current situation? Owner claims he has no money. Do you want him to take it out and pull the plug (accidentally) and create an environmental impact, or do what's happening now? Don't get me wrong, I believe every boat owner should be required to have liability and wreck removal insurance. When insurance becomes unavailable and the boat becomes a financial liability, some people will take the environmentally unfriendly way out.

Ted

 

[Snapdragon III]

Every sunken boat in the world within scuba diving depth is a major attraction. I don't understand why they don't just pump the oil and fuel out of these boats and sink them in designated dive parks. At least in Washington, sunken boats attract an amount of life that is unbelievable. They could also create deeper ones that are too deep for divers, but there for fishermen. Cities should be fighting for who gets all the sweet derelict boats!

 

[psneeld]

Till I worked a job that did help sink boats for reefs, I used to think the same.

Generally smaller (say less than 65 feet) tend to move around too much with storm action. Fiberglass fully submerged just isn't heavy enough. This is what I have heard from those I worked with on reef projects on the East coast.

Maybe a combo of concrete instead of a reef ball placed in the hull would work.

Again..... the cost of cleaning them then towing them to scene and having a way to sink them is way more than a barge full of cheap reef balls that are easy to disperse... so for now economics seem to kill the idea too.

 

[Pete Meisinger]

Getting an owner, or previous owner to take responsibility is a tough nut to crack. Those birds are pretty good at removing traces of ownership. As stated in the O.P. the owner had no money. Could be true or could be a lie but like the old saying goes, "You can't get blood from a turnip".

I'd pay an extra $20 a year to a clean up fund for derelict boats.

pete