In 2019, the California Air Resources Board commissioned a report from Cal Maritime with a title that would cause the eyes of even the most nerdy bureaucrat to glaze.

The name of the 135-page thicket of tables and diagrams?

“Evaluation of the Feasibility and Costs of Installing Tier 4 Engines and Retrofit Exhaust Aftertreatment on In-Use Commercial Harbor Craft.”

Sounds downright Shakespearean, right? A real page-turner.

Stakeholders in San Diego’s chase for tuna and everything else hauled onto the decks of the passenger vessels driving untold millions that ripple through hotels, restaurants, tackle shops, repair shops, fuel docks and more, need to pay attention.

Someone should pull everyone off the water, chain them to chairs in front of laptops and force the group to read every word. Their boats and careers literally depend on it.

The reason: If the proposed regulations born out of that report go into effect in 2023, scores of owners and operators could be out of business by 2030. In San Diego at H&M Landing, the largest of its kind in California, owner Frank Ursitti issued a dire warning.

“These boats weren’t designed for this type of equipment,” said Ursitti, a 40-year-plus veteran of the industry. “Some of it isn’t even available. In our basin in America’s Cup Harbor, we have a fleet of about 70 boats. We’d likely lose, I could conservatively say, 75 to 80 percent of them.

“Now’s the time to say, ‘Let’s look down the road (and address emissions improvement).’ But we can’t destroy our fleet, tie it to the dock and say you’re out of business. We can’t just crush an industry.”

The bottom line, without getting into the very substantial and confusing weeds: Tier 4 engines and a diesel filtration system likely to be required the next decade could cost owners, at minimum, hundreds of thousands of dollars.

That’s if they can navigate the structural and financial challenges to retrofit older boats, which few are in position to do. The sole option left on the table by the air board is to buy new boats, a multimillion-dollar proposition for most.

CARB pointed out it finds itself sandwiched between two powerful and passionate sides as it attempts to find a fair and viable middle.

“We have environment groups that are pushing us to require zero emission from every harbor craft,” said Bonnie Soriano, a branch supervisor at CARB. “We’ve worked with the industry to work on flexibility (and) coming to a middle ground based on what’s feasible and … what we feel that the economics could support.

“We’re confident we’re bringing to the board the best proposal that we can. … We are looking at the balance of getting the best public health benefits we can.”

Those in San Diego sportfishing define middle ground quite differently. They argue a move to Tier 3 engines would improve emissions considerably across the fleet. They say the equipment is available, while side-stepping scores walking off docks for good.

The Cal Maritime report through CARB includes some damning language about the cart leaving the horse in its wake.

“There are no Tier 4 engine options available for this engine power subcategory,” the report stated, before adding that “retrofit will have adverse effects on vessel stability and will reduce passenger count by 8-30 persons, depending on the technology implemented.”

A report on impacts of the regulations released this month details the confusion for those sorting through the compliance puzzle.

“(Tier 4 engine) option available: no … Feasibility: N/A … Additional machinery required: N/A … Added weight: N/A … Total installed cost: N/A.”

Decreasing passenger counts because of the extra space required to repower and retrofit boats — if possible, though unlikely for most — would lower capacity by closer to 40 percent, according to Ken Franke, president of the Sportfishing Association of California.

The financial meteor heading toward boat owners only begins there.

“Say you owe $400,000 on boat loan and it’s wooden or fiberglass,” Franke said. “You can’t put the engines they’re proposing in there. There are stability and safety issues. You have six years to comply or take it out of service.

“If you can’t (comply), which most can’t, the (CARB) suggestion is to sell the boat. We’ve told them, there’s no resale value because the boats are uniquely built and they wouldn’t comply. Who would buy that boat?

“So you approach a bank and say, ‘I’m upside down on a $400,000 loan.’ How do you convince a lender to help you on a new vessel? Who is going to loan you the money for that? These current boats are part of people’s retirement plans.”

Talking to local captains and insiders, none argued against moving toward stronger emission standards. In fact, they say the group has been a leader in doing that on its own to protect livelihoods.

San Diego sportfishing representatives suggested mirroring the proposed requirement for straight-to-market commercial fishing vessels that would be required to run on Tier 3 engines.

Why are those boats treated differently than those fishing with passengers? Great question. A CARB spokesperson said consumers can buy tuna sourced from any number of places beyond California, so that sector cannot pass along costs — whereas passenger operations can.

The murkiness of that notwithstanding, the more likely prospect of buying new boats terrifies many. The Cal Maritime report estimated the cost of a new vessel at $1.3 million.

Art Taylor, the owner and captain of Searcher Sportfishing, laughed.

“It says $1.3 million? No way,” said Taylor, who represents one of 174 of the large-scale passenger boats in the San Diego fleet. “Maybe for a half-day boat that doesn’t have all the safety equipment the Coast Guard requires us to have. That’s ludicrous.

“If you could get financing, which you probably can’t, you’re looking at somewhere between $5 million to $7 million for a new boat (with Tier 4 technology). You can’t charge enough to cover that.”

The captains and CARB disagree on most things … the pass-along costs for customers to cover compliance, the life expectancy of boats, technology realities, important and unresolved safety issues, and on and on.

Soriano, of CARB, was asked what the group would tell owners who fear they could lose their business.

“I don’t want to sound defensive or act like we don’t appreciate their concern,” she said. “We’ve built flexibility into the regulation to allow extensions (of up to six years) where we can; and provided a path forward in response to their concerns.”

Meanwhile, the massive stakes rise.

Soriano mentioned that there will be a chance for public comment when the full board addresses the proposal in November. Change is possible, she insisted, though the board ultimately will dictate details and direction.

There’s way, way, way too much swirling in the debate to even scratch the surface.

Consider this a warning flare.

Proposed harbor craft regulations