One More Harbor Dropping Dye Markers in Holding Tanks

[foggysail]

Originally Posted by Bash

Can you document a single instance where an environmental group has pressured legislatures to deal with MSD regulations? Honestly?

Sure, below is one from Massachusetts where I live and boat.

SWIM Issues and Concerns

[foggysail]

Originally Posted by w1651

I don't understand the problem here. If you bought a sailboat I assume you know how to sail and want to sail.So sail three miles out and dump your tank.

Its not that easy. For example, here in Massachusetts, the entire Buzzards Bay is a no discharge zone. Further the 3 mile limit is established by the state's boundary which includes islands. I have not measured the distance but from my dock it is probably over 15-20 miles. Again, my position is no discharge in harbors, period. Discharing outside of harbors and conjested areas should be authorized if proper on board processing is done such as with a Type 2 MSD system.

I remain strongly against state officials climbing on my boat. But enough said on that.

HEY!!! AM I THE ONLY ONE ON THIS WEB SITE THAT BELIEVES IN ON BOARD TREATMENT SYSTEMS?????

Foggy

[hummingway]

Originally Posted by foggysail

HEY!!! AM I THE ONLY ONE ON THIS WEB SITE THAT BELIEVES IN ON BOARD TREATMENT SYSTEMS?????

Foggy

I call my treatment system a composter and don't dump it overboard.

Are on board systems infallible? The specs I've seen show fecal coliform being released from the biological treatment plants, even with the addition of chlorine and to get to the latest standards a membrane system has to be in use, correct? Prehaps the sewage from your boat is tolerable but how many boats discharging does it take to create a problem? You live in a densely populated contry with a lot of boaters.

That said there are a lot of boats in my part of the world with nothing between their crap and deep blue see but a pump handle. It concerns shellfish farms greatly and if you go to the areas where oysters are commercially farmed you'll often see signs asking people to be aware. I'm judicious about where I harvest because, quite simply, people aren't to be trusted and too many think there is no problem.

[Deck Scrubber]

I agree with you all, well almost but if they are going to come on board and put dye in ..... can I at least have a colour Choice?

[rebel heart]

I don't disagree with onboard treatment options but I just don't think it's practical. It was a hard enough sell to get people to install holding tanks and those are dirt cheap compared to their more complex counterparts that kill of bacteria via electronics, even if you made them cheaper by production.

It would take a massive amount of legislation, that would be near unanimously opposed by boat owners and the boating industry. And even then, it would only apply to new vessels.

To me it's like gun control. Sure, I'd love it if guns didn't exist at all. But they do, so there you go. Gotta deal with the reality of the situation.

[rgscpat]

It might be nice to know which jurisdictions deserve a failing grade for not making pump-outs readily available and free or at least affordable. One other really nice thing I saw when visiting a lake in another state was floating bathrooms so people don't have to go to a congested marina or haul out or make a long hike ashore.

Free the pump-outs!

[Serenity_]

I agree

If they are going to have such strict rules then maybe they should give other options like free pump outs or as suggested above, floating bathrooms. That would deter many from pumping overboard.

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by Serenity_

I agree
If they are going to have such strict rules then maybe they should give other options like free pump outs or as suggested above, floating bathrooms. That would deter many from pumping overboard.

Vessel sewage discharge is regulated under Section 312 of the Clean Water Act. States can have all or portions of their waters designated as a no discharge zone for vessel sewage to:

1. protect aquatic habitats where adequate and reasonably available pumpout or dump station facilities are available for the safe and sanitary removal and treatment of sewage;

2. protect special aquatic habitats or species [the state does not have to show that there are reasonably available pump-out or dump stations]; and

3. safeguard human health by protecting drinking water intake zones [the state does not have to show that there are reasonably available pump-out or dump stations].

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by rebel heart

I don't disagree with onboard treatment options but I just don't think it's practical. It was a hard enough sell to get people to install holding tanks and those are dirt cheap compared to their more complex counterparts that kill of bacteria via electronics, even if you made them cheaper by production...

If not as a required substitute for holding tanks, would you support (effective) on-board treatment as an acceptable alternative?

[gettinthere]

Alternatives are good. It's around $10 to $15 for a pumpout. With 2 tanks, $30/week adds up quick. maybe you don't cr@p aboard very often so you only need one a month. Having choices that fit your needs is a good thing.

[David_Old_Jersey]

Be easier to put up a couple of "Swim at your own risk" signs (for those too thick to realise that the water in a harbour or anchorage ain't ever gonna be swimming pool quality).

But no money in that. nor fun to be had whilst pretending to "do something"

In response to an earlier poster: AM I THE ONLY ONE WHO REALISES THAT **** HAPPENS? and that it's something somewhere's.............lunch

[rebel heart]

Originally Posted by GordMay

If not as a required substitute for holding tanks, would you support (effective) on-board treatment as an acceptable alternative?

I think that's completely fair. If an owner wants to spend the thousands of dollars to solve the problem, that sounds fair. There's still the "gross" factor though. Take a busy harbor like Avalon, with 150 boats moored in usually crystal clear waters.

Even if the effluent being discharged has been treated, do you really want your loved ones snorkeling or swimming to shore through "treated" effluent and toilet paper shards?

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by rebel heart

I think that's completely fair...
... Even if the effluent being discharged has been treated, do you really want your loved ones snorkeling or swimming to shore through "treated" effluent and toilet paper shards?

That could be addressed through the definition of "(effective) on-board treatment".

[foggysail]

I hope this is not considered beating this to death. I would IN A MINUTE order and install a Type 2 system for use in Massachusetts waters IF THE STATE AUTHORIZED DUMPING OF PROPERLY TREATED WASTE!! I am NOT referring to harbors; this state has made almost all of its waters NO DUMPING!

Foggy

[rebel heart]

Originally Posted by GordMay

That could be addressed through the definition of "(effective) on-board treatment".

I'm not sure there's a way to effectively turn effluent and toilet paper into crystal clear water that I wouldn't mind my child swimming through. If there was, than yeah I'm all for it. But the technology isn't even close to being there. The "treatment" systems that are available now, even at the highest end, simply electrically and chemically kill anything in there.