What is the carbon footprint for the US MSD program?

[Auspicious]

Originally Posted by Cadence

Delineating the regs. should not be that complicated in this day of electronics.

Three and twelve mile lines have been on the charts for years.

[Cadence]

Originally Posted by Auspicious

Three and twelve mile lines have been on the charts for years.

I was referring to any areas that may be a reasonable exception. I think the 200 mi. line has been there also which is a little odd around borders.

[Auspicious]

Originally Posted by Cadence

I was referring to any areas that may be a reasonable exception. I think the 200 mi. line has been there also which is a little odd around borders.

What sort of exception? Middle of the Chesapeake? Long Island Sound? Puget Sound? Lots of law and regulation and possibly some international treaties would have to change. "Reasonable" is a loaded word. *grin*

While there is some disagreement in specific locations the EEZ is pretty well defined in areas where national borders are closer than 200 miles.

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

I'd like to think that common sense would make it apparent that it's not desirable to have boats discharging human waste near other humans, and in restricted or enclosed places where it wouldn't dissipate quickly... but I guess I'm just subject to emotional appeals.

No one is suggesting dropping a turd in your bath water while you are there. How far away is it before it's not "near other humans" and "dissipates quickly". What is a "restricted" or "enclosed" place?

I'm not suggesting a free for all (I don't think anyone on this thread has). I saying we should have some objective method to determine the distance. You simply avoided the question by claiming "common sense" yet, your "common sense" left the answer vague and poorly defined.

[Cadence]

Originally Posted by Auspicious

What sort of exception? Middle of the Chesapeake? Long Island Sound? Puget Sound? Lots of law and regulation and possibly some international treaties would have to change. "Reasonable" is a loaded word. *grin*

While there is some disagreement in specific locations the EEZ is pretty well defined in areas where national borders are closer than 200 miles.

I think you may have nailed it as exceptions. Not sure about the Chesapeake only because of the oyster industry, natures water filter.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by valhalla360

No one is suggesting dropping a turd in your bath water while you are there. How far away is it before it's not "near other humans" and "dissipates quickly". What is a "restricted" or "enclosed" place?

I'm not suggesting a free for all (I don't think anyone on this thread has). I saying we should have some objective method to determine the distance. You simply avoided the question by claiming "common sense" yet, your "common sense" left the answer vague and poorly defined.

Well, especially in the case of enforcement, I think I've given enough specifics, and I gave reasons for why I thought the current 3-mile limit was something that could be enforced efficiently. I'm open to other suggestions, but it should come with some description of why it is superior, including some specifics of how it would be enacted and enforced.

One thing we haven't mentioned - I believe the current regulations apply to ALL vessels, including larger or commercial ones. Is it worth the effort to craft a different set of rules for pleasure craft, or something based on size? Maybe we meter the discharge - you're allowed to discharge X quarts of waste per week where X is proportional to your gross tonnage, and it has to be at least 1000 ft times your draft away from shore.

Enforcement hell...

Most of us say please and thanks, and we don't f4rt in elevators, and we generally don't conduct ourselves in ways that burden or offend those around us. No-one needed to conduct a cost-benefit analysis to agree that this is desirable behaviour.

So, to address your last statement - do you really think that it's possible to objectively determine a practical, enforcable rule for how far offshore one should be allowed to dump? I'd love to hear about how you'd go about doing that.

When the rationale is more aesthetic and/or cumulative, you always will have an arbitrary set-point. And it will always displease some.

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Well, especially in the case of enforcement, I think I've given enough specifics, and I gave reasons for why I thought the current 3-mile limit was something that could be enforced efficiently. I'm open to other suggestions, but it should come with some description of why it is superior, including some specifics of how it would be enacted and enforced.
If enforcement efficiency is your goal, lets set it at the 200 mile limit. That will make it even more efficient. You've talked about enforcement efficiency but not what problem you are actually solving.

One thing we haven't mentioned - I believe the current regulations apply to ALL vessels, including larger or commercial ones. Is it worth the effort to craft a different set of rules for pleasure craft, or something based on size? Maybe we meter the discharge - you're allowed to discharge X quarts of waste per week where X is proportional to your gross tonnage, and it has to be at least 1000 ft times your draft away from shore.A couple of things. First, large vessel rules (not just for waste) are already substantially different. For example lights displayed, safety equipement, etc... But since the reality is the issue is concentration, yes, setting the rules based on quantity does make sense. Of course large ships that would be dumping thousands of gallons typically spend a lot of time far offshore,
so it's less of a burden for them. A cruise ship with thousands of guests rarely spends more than a day or two before heading 50-100miles offshore,
so the burden would be negligible.

So, to address your last statement - do you really think that it's possible to objectively determine a practical, enforcable rule for how far offshore one should be allowed to dump? I'd love to hear about how you'd go about doing that. For starters, do some testing on how long it takes to break down and typical current patterns. This should include field tests.
Since currents rarely flow directly at a beach, even a 2-3kt tidal current may take hours before reaching shore and there may be no measurable concentration by that point. It could also suggest other solutions such as a macerator pump incorporated as small bits break down more quickly.

When the rationale is more aesthetic and/or cumulative, you always will have an arbitrary set-point. And it will always displease some.

Arbitrary is bad and opens you up to debate. But if you have good defendable logic, you are in a much stronger position than saying 3 miles because "I said so". So far other than enforcement convenience, no data has been put forth supporting a 3 mile limit.

[Kenomac]

If the current is flowing away from the coast, why not make it a 300 meter limit and save boaters all the trouble.

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by Kenomac

If the current is flowing away from the coast, why not make it a 300 meter limit and save boaters all the trouble.

In principal that's fine.

I'm not suggesting complications with compliance and enforcement should get zero consideration but so far there has been no justification other than making enforcement easy given for the 3 mile limit. So far there has been no evidence of even a single illness, death or environmental problem due to boats dumping near shore. So what problem are we solving?

If 99.999% of the time 1 mile creates no problems and it eliminates 30% of illegal discharges in areas where there are negative consequences, pushing it to a 3 mile rule can actually have a negative overall impact.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by valhalla360

I'm not suggesting complications with compliance and enforcement should get zero consideration but so far there has been no justification other than making enforcement easy given for the 3 mile limit. So far there has been no evidence of even a single illness, death or environmental problem due to boats dumping near shore. So what problem are we solving?

People having to see $h1t etc in the water, in places where they expect to hang out, swim, float, waterski, tube, canoe, windsurf, snorkel, etc. Isn't that a problem worth solving? This is where 90+% of recreational boating happens.

If 99.999% of the time 1 mile creates no problems and it eliminates 30% of illegal discharges in areas where there are negative consequences, pushing it to a 3 mile rule can actually have a negative overall impact.

Yes you've tried to rationalize that, and I'm still not buying it. The goal is 100% reduction where people are likely to be, btw. 30% is a fail.

[buzzstar]

Three miles works for me. Zero miles did not (I was around then). Maybe 2.9 miles would as good, but maybe not. There are traditional (marine tradition) and legal reasons for three miles. Likewise, 3.1 miles might be better. On and on, until the zero was back, and it was no good, in fact downright yucky. BTW, I am not an environmentalist. Once every great while the bureaucrats or the lawmakers get it right. They did this time, and I can see 200 miles at their next chance. That is my story, and I am sticking to it.

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

People having to see $h1t etc in the water, in places where they expect to hang out, swim, float, waterski, tube, canoe, windsurf, snorkel, etc. Isn't that a problem worth solving? This is where 90+% of recreational boating happens.

How far out before they don't see it and more importantly,
it's no longer a hazard? You still haven't addressed an issue. If you have to push the brown trout out of the way to swim, it's probably too close and probably pretty easy to provide scientifically justifiable reasons why we should stop it. You still haven't provided any evidence to support the 3 mile rule.

Yes you've tried to rationalize that, and I'm still not buying it. The goal is 100% reduction where people are likely to be, btw. 30% is a fail.

You are mixing two issues up.
- If you drop a turd in the center of the Atlantic, by some strange random chain of events, it's possible for a single infectious microbe to survive a ride thousands of miles to the beach and infect a swimmer causing the downfall of humanity. It's so infinitesimally small of a chance, it's not worth bothering with. That is the 99.99% I was referring to. At some point, the odds of a discharge doing harm is so small as to be a non-issue. This is what we need to find out. There is no such thing as 100% zero risk, so it's foolish to expect 100% zero risk.
- The 30% was in reference to compliance rates within a distance that is determined could cause harm. So if after study, it is determined that within 1.5 miles has a significant possibility of causing illness and by dropping the limit from 3 miles to 1.5 miles, you get 30% better compliance within the 1.5 mile limit, that may significantly outweigh the very tiny chance that a discharge from 3 miles out makes it to the beach and causes harm but if we refuse to even consider the question, we will never be able to make the program more effective.

Again, we don't know if it's 0.5 miles, 1 mile, 3 miles, 10 miles, etc... where a typical cruising boat discharge is harmless because people refuse to look at it objectively for some reason.

So what if based on objective research, there are dozens of people dying per year who wouldn't if it was set at 10 miles? Would you support putting it at 10 miles? At this point I'm agnostic in regards to the actual distance. 1 mile is just an example. I want it determined thru a logical defendable process, not what is convenient for a govt agency to generate profits thru tickets or well off property owners to drive off cruisers thru unjustifiable rules.

[Lake-Effect]

You keep harping on the disease/ecology thing, even though we've all agreed that recreational boats have a net effect that's mostly negligable. Do you not recognize the other reasons we don't particularly want discharges close to shore?

It's pretty clear too that you're only thinking about cruising boats, and not the vast majority of boats that have MSDs and are NOT cruisers.

Originally Posted by valhalla360

At this point I'm agnostic in regards to the actual distance. 1 mile is just an example. I want it determined thru a logical defendable process, not what is convenient for a govt agency to generate profits thru tickets or well off property owners to drive off cruisers thru unjustifiable rules.

Here's a possible benchmark - if someone making recreational use of the water is likely to have to travel through your discharge before it has dissipated, it's in the wrong place.

So there, I've just framed a logical defendable study. What's the distance X at which less than say 5% percent of other water users are likely to encounter your discharge? Of course with the reasonable (yet unresearched) assumption that those out past distance Y would be the sort of user that would not be concerned with the discharge (eg they are other cruisers or transiting boats). I'd be ok with 1 mile as this distance, except that I don't think it can be efficiently enforced, and it results in MSD behaviour that's more likely to result in more illegal discharges. Hence my support of 3 miles.

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

You keep harping on the disease/ecology thing, even though we've all agreed that recreational boats have a net effect that's mostly negligable. Do you not recognize the other reasons we don't particularly want discharges close to shore?

If there is no point, why place a burden at all? The justification for the current rules are the clean water act which is all about the disease/ecology thing. Take that away and the current rules lose all purpose.

It's pretty clear too that you're only thinking about cruising boats, and not the vast majority of boats that have MSDs and are NOT cruisers.

Care to back that with statistics? Coastal boats are mostly cruisers (maybe weekend cruisers but cruisers none the less). I suppose you could argue fishermen don't qualify but functionally, they operate pretty similarly with the exception of very small boats that have no MSD.

Here's a possible benchmark - if someone making recreational use of the water is likely to have to travel through your discharge before it has dissipated, it's in the wrong place.

This supports a much smaller range, especially if you use a mascerator pump to discharge. It takes a suprisingly small distance before it is has dissipated to a point where it is no longer visible.

So there, I've just framed a logical defendable study. What's the distance X at which less than say 5% percent of other water users are likely to encounter your discharge? Of course with the reasonable (yet unresearched) assumption that those out past distance Y would be the sort of user that would not be concerned with the discharge (eg they are other cruisers or transiting boats). I'd be ok with 1 mile as this distance, except that I don't think it can be efficiently enforced, and it results in MSD behaviour that's more likely to result in more illegal discharges. Hence my support of 3 miles.

Finally at the end, we are finally getting you to consider things logically. Compliance can be studied. If there is evidence that a greater distance results in greater compliance, then fine but again, without evidence it's speculation not a justifiable rule.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by valhalla360

If there is no point, why place a burden at all? The justification for the current rules are the clean water act which is all about the disease/ecology thing. Take that away and the current rules lose all purpose.

Uh, ok... I guess you don't.