Do the potty police have science on their side?

[Exile]

Originally Posted by sailingharry

In the 50 years or so that ElectroSans have been an acceptable alternative, there has been no movement of any sort toward that slippery slope you refer to. No one is next. It's been static. The slope has been in the other direction -- removing alternatives, not adding them.

The survey conclusion is pretty obvious. If 95% (probably higher than that) of boaters have holding tanks, and are therefore not impacted by an NDZ, then of course 95% of boaters think it's a great idea. It would be better to ask the 5% that would have a huge retrofit expense what THEY think of it. Everyone is in favor of rules that someone else has to pay for!

Especially when the cheerleader for the reg is a daysailor. The bottom line is that installation & use of onboard treatment systems -- whether combined with a holding tank or not -- should not be discouraged. Whether you're coprophobic (thanks Ken ), sincerely interested in improving water quality, are an environmental absolutist, or just like to self-identify on the internet as a sanctimonious greenie, then it shouldn't be hard to understand that a certain number of boaters are going to discharge no matter what, and it'd be better for the environment if that discharge was subject to some level of treatment first. Heck, if you have such a mindset, then it should be encouraged for offshore discharge as well!

Or is it the reality that some find so irksome the fact that nothing we do in this area as boaters has, does or will matter??

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by sailingharry

If 95% (probably higher than that) of boaters have holding tanks, and are therefore not impacted by an NDZ, then of course 95% of boaters think it's a great idea. It would be better to ask the 5% that would have a huge retrofit expense what THEY think of it. Everyone is in favor of rules that someone else has to pay for!

Other than porta-potties, I'll bet that the majority of boats with holding tanks also have Y valves and/or the ability to dump their tanks overboard. An NDZ is an "imposition" on them too. So your point doesn't really stand, does it?

Also, I'm asking cos I don't know: how many (or percentage) of boats with types 1 or 2 MSDs also have holding tanks? Again I'm guessing (without proof) the majority. So they already have the ability to store for later dumping or pumpout.

Finally... for the boats that have types 1 or 2 and no holding tank... what do they do at their marina or yacht club (if they don't make the walk ashore), or at a popular anchorage? Just flush and dump whenever/wherever?

Originally Posted by Exile

Especially when the cheerleader for the reg is a daysailor.

Uh, most boaters are daysailors/daytrippers. Most "cruisers" are daysailors (or dock queens) when they're not actually making passage. Also, we do trips and overnights, both in our small boat, and with friends. What's your point?

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

It's all part of the package.

The most recent doc i linked to, and several others, showed that a significant majority of all boaters surveyed were accepting of the NDZs and intended to comply.

The myth of "every little bit" which ignores that eliminating this tiny bit is several orders of magnitude more expensive and complicated to enact.

I'm not buying a survey that asks if you will violate the law...most people won't admit they are taking the reasonable action that violates the law..

[Kenomac]

Originally Posted by SuW

Ganges Harbour, Salt Spring Island, British Columbia. We were anchored on a brilliant sunny day. Looking over the side into crystal clear water, the bottom of the harbour was liberally coated with sheets of toilet paper...it put the idea of swimming out of my mind, anyway. The mussels and barnacles were particularly huge around there.

That is not possible. TP breaks down almost immediately and is never expelled from a boat in the form of “sheets” which will fall to the bottom as you describe.

[sailingharry]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Other than porta-potties, I'll bet that the majority of boats with holding tanks also have Y valves and/or the ability to dump their tanks overboard. An NDZ is an "imposition" on them too. So your point doesn't really stand, does it?

Also, I'm asking cos I don't know: how many (or percentage) of boats with types 1 or 2 MSDs also have holding tanks? Again I'm guessing (without proof) the majority. So they already have the ability to store for later dumping or pumpout.

I only know the plumbing details of two boats with LectraSans, and neither have a holding tank. I also only know one other boat with a LectraSan, but I don't know his arrangement. The plumbing for having both would be rather complex, and of limited value (you would only use a holding tank in an NDZ, and if you normally boated in an NDZ you would never use a LectraSan).

I think we have to accept that we will never understand each other on the impact on NDZ for a boat with just a holding tank. For the last 50 years, it has been illegal for a boat with just a holding tank to discharge inside of the 3 mile limit, either through a Y-valve or by a macerator pump. An NDZ does not change that. I fail to understand how an NDZ impacts the vast majority of boats that were built with holding tanks. Using you as a case study -- how will an NDZ impact you?

Me, as an owner of a smallish (34') old boat without a holding tank and a small spot for a LectraSan, I would have to pay a mechanic (carpenter? plumber? who?) a grand or two to install an inadequate holding tank (5-10 gallons max), and then would have to add a 1-2 hour round trip each weekend to the nearest pumpout station (if it is working, that is).

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Uh, most boaters are daysailors/daytrippers. Most "cruisers" are daysailors (or dock queens) when they're not actually making passage. What's your point?

I was referring to a type of boat. One that is designed & used mostly for daysails as opposed to multi-day cruises and/or liveaboard. You know, take your crap before going out, take another crap if need be when you get back to the dock. Or have a pottie onboard that you can dump in the marina bathroom when you return to the dock. Kapeesh??

My point (along with others) is that it's all too easy for such boaters to favor costly regs on others who don't have such options, in this case the installation of expensive treatment systems that are rendered useless by misplaced policies. Oh but wait, people who own cruising boats are all wealthy and can afford it, so who cares!

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Kenomac

That is not possible. TP breaks down almost immediately and is never expelled from a boat in the form of “sheets” which will fall to the bottom as you describe.

Especially the marine/rv type of TP that's designed to dissolve almost immediately when contacting water (as in while still in the bowl). Even regular TP doesn't last long.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Exile

I was referring to a type of boat. One that is designed & used mostly for daysails as opposed to multi-day cruises and/or liveaboard. You know, take your crap before going out, take another crap if need be when you get back to the dock. Or have a pottie onboard that you can dump in the marina bathroom when you return to the dock. Kapeesh??

Again, most "cruisers" behave pretty much the same way when they daysail too. As already stated, pumping out isn't their favourite pastime. For the record, we have a Type 3 "pottie" with a deck pumpout (required in Canada). Hilarious to line up at the pumpout with a 40 footer behind me, while I do my 30 sec pumpout (3 rinses).

My point (along with others) is that it's all too easy for such boaters to favor costly regs on others who don't have such options, in this case the installation of expensive treatment systems that are rendered useless by misplaced policies. Oh but wait, people who own cruising boats are all wealthy and can afford it, so who cares!

Let's see the numbers. How many type 1 & 2 -equipped boats without holding tanks are there, sailing in NDZs? How many will potentially be affected, really?



Few regulations, like the NDZ ones, get to 100% compliance quickly. Sometimes never. It's a goal. Knowing that you mainly sail in a NDZ, would your next boat have a holding tank or not? The point of the law isn't to harrass boaters, it's to achieve a goal.

[sailingharry]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Let's see the numbers. How many type 1 & 2 -equipped boats without holding tanks are there, sailing in NDZs? How many will potentially be affected, really?



Few regulations, like the NDZ ones, get to 100% compliance quickly. Sometimes never. It's a goal. Knowing that you mainly sail in a NDZ, would your next boat have a holding tank or not? The point of the law isn't to harrass boaters, it's to achieve a goal.

And now you are getting to the point. VERY FEW boats have Type 1 & 2, so it has very little effect on water quality (the ultimate goal, at least what the politicians say). But, that minimal impact comes at a VERY HIGH cost for those very few impacted boats.

Your point about compliance and purchasing decisions is sort of contradictory. While I can probably get by without complying, for as long as I keep my boat, the day I go to sell it I either have to spend a couple grand to retrofit it, or discount the price so the next guy can do it. Either way, one way or another, an NDZ has a rather staggering cost on the affected people.

But, to your statement on the point of the law. It is NOT to improve the water quality, because there aren't enough affected boaters to have an impact. The point of the law is to APPEAR to be improving the quality, while bringing up an issue that SEEMS so serious, without actually irritating voters. I follow this matter closely, as you can imagine, and I have yet to see a single report, study, analysis, or calculation that shows what (if any) impact an NDZ would have -- it's all done on an emotional level.

In Maryland, a few years back, we instituted a stormwater fee, dubbed a "rain tax" that would fund ambitious efforts to curb runoff into the Chesapeake Bay. While it was a trivial cost (under $100/year per property), it was massively decried, and has been repealed. Everyone is in favor of improving the environment, but only if we can have someone else pay the cost -- and once someone else is paying, it doesn't matter how effective it is!

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by sailingharry

And now you are getting to the point. VERY FEW boats have Type 1 & 2, so it has very little effect on water quality (the ultimate goal, at least what the politicians say). But, that minimal impact comes at a VERY HIGH cost for those very few impacted boats.

NDZ law addresses ALL boaters with the ability to dump, which is far more than just those with just type 1/2 treatment and no holding tank. That's the point of the NDZ, especially where they extend past the 3 mi boundaries.

Your point about compliance and purchasing decisions is sort of contradictory. While I can probably get by without complying, for as long as I keep my boat, the day I go to sell it I either have to spend a couple grand to retrofit it, or discount the price so the next guy can do it.

... or sell it to someone who doesn't mainly sail in an NDZ. There are options, and opportunities. Maybe someone (even Electro-San) will mass-market a retrofit tank kit. At the end of the day, progress has costs, and they're not always evenly borne, sorry. If someone sold you an Electro-San with the guarantee that it will always be suitable for discharging anywhere, demand your money back; they lied to you.

But, to your statement on the point of the law. It is NOT to improve the water quality, because there aren't enough affected boaters to have an impact.

Um, an NDZ is for all boaters, and not just boaters. It's a particular GOAL. Achieving that goal should have a significant effect.



I recall a Mr Exile boasting how Chesapeake Bay was rebounding. Unless you subscribe to divine intervention, then you must have observed that some people made some analyses, issued some recommendations, some of which became guidelines, regulations and laws... and the Bay is getting better. Even though some of the steps seemed (or maybe in hindsight were) counterproductive.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Again, most "cruisers" behave pretty much the same way when they daysail too. As already stated, pumping out isn't their favourite pastime. For the record, we have a Type 3 "pottie" with a deck pumpout (required in Canada). Hilarious to line up at the pumpout with a 40 footer behind me, while I do my 30 sec pumpout (3 rinses).

Another reminder that there have been many, many times when I have wished I had stuck with a daysailor. But I think you're missing the point. It's not about what daysailors vs. cruising boats do when they're both out daysailing, but the often wasted expense of cruising boats installing Lectrosans, etc., only to find out that they're legally useless if the entirety of their primary cruising area is an NDZ. That's why we've been seeing posts from people in Annapolis (although the Chesapeake is apparently not an NDZ??), RI, coastal Maine, Puget Sound, among others. Getting out to the 3-mile limit just to pump out is unrealistic, and (working) pump-out stations are few & far between. Or they don't have the space for a holding tank or installing one was impractical, so they are legally prohibited from using their head at all! Understand the issue better now? It may make you personally feel good, but you're sadly mistaken if you've convinced yourself that boaters who complain about NDZs don't care about water quality or the environment.

Let's see the numbers. How many type 1 & 2 -equipped boats without holding tanks are there, sailing in NDZs? How many will potentially be affected, really?

I don't have the numbers, but I do know that the aft head in my own boat had a Lectra-San and no holding tank. I wound up removing it for the very reason we're discussing, and installed a small holding tank in an even smaller locker (or so it seemed at the time ), all at huge expense. (Started off with a bladder tank which was a disaster and had to be redone). So the bottom line is that there may be more Type 1's & 2's out there without holding tanks than one might think since this is a big incentive for installing one.

Few regulations, like the NDZ ones, get to 100% compliance quickly. Sometimes never. It's a goal. Knowing that you mainly sail in a NDZ, would your next boat have a holding tank or not? The point of the law isn't to harrass boaters, it's to achieve a goal.

It doesn't matter what the point of the law is, only that it has had a disproportionate impact with little or no desired effect. It wouldn't be the first environmental law that had unattended consequences after all. Try not to be so naive as to think that environmental protection is always the "goal" of such laws despite being stated as such.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

I recall a Mr Exile boasting how Chesapeake Bay was rebounding. Unless you subscribe to divine intervention, then you must have observed that some people made some analyses, issued some recommendations, some of which became guidelines, regulations and laws... and the Bay is getting better. Even though some of the steps seemed (or maybe in hindsight were) counterproductive.

If your assertion or implication is that the potty laws had anything to do with it then you'll need to support it with some science. Otherwise it strains credibility.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Exile

If your assertion or implication is that the potty laws had anything to do with it then you'll need to support it with some science. Otherwise it strains credibility.

Don't strain, you'll pop a 'roid.


Do I think the Chesapeake was cleaned up because of "potty" laws? No. Was it cleaned up by similar direction and prohibitions around what can be dumped into the bay, directly or indirectly? Yes.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Exile

... you're sadly mistaken if you've convinced yourself that boaters who complain about NDZs don't care about water quality or the environment.

I do have to conclude just that about anyone who thinks its ok to discharge in marinas, near beaches or in busy anchorages.

It doesn't matter what the point of the law is, only that it has had a disproportionate impact with little or no desired effect. It wouldn't be the first environmental law that had unattended consequences after all. Try not to be so naive as to think that environmental protection is always the "goal" of such laws despite being stated as such.

Seriously? If not environmental, then what is the point of an NDZ? You might think it's a token effort, but it's still the point.


Some folks should stop treating every little law that happens to annoy them as gummint malfeasance or overreach.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Don't strain, you'll pop a 'roid.


Do I think the Chesapeake was cleaned up because of "potty" laws? No. Was it cleaned up by similar direction and prohibitions around what can be dumped into the bay, directly or indirectly? Yes.

How do you know that? What about restrictions on oyster & crab harvesting? All you've cited thus far is an article from a conservation organization that says what everyone already knows. Namely that certain types of pollutants in sufficient concentrations "can" have a negative impact. Has anything been done about what seems to be the #1 pollutant, namely agricultural & industrial run-off? If people don't have confidence in the effectiveness of environmental laws they will be less likely to comply. Not all of us humans are, after all, as selfless as you are.