Do the potty police have science on their side?

[LEOCAT66]

Originally Posted by Exile

Well, he's both wrong & right. What (it looks like) he's doing is obviously illegal but it's doubtful it can be stopped.

Going on for several years, undetected until recently, no concern nor interest from the marina, local LE or the USCG. Maybe this all suggests they have (much) higher priorities when it comes to public health or the safety of marine life? Btw, I also agree the USCG isn't the same as it was in the past -- it's a lot better imo! I bet you'd get more of a response to a significant fuel spill at your marina, but that's arguably more of an environmental threat to one boat out of a 100 dumping overboard.

Yours is a useful example of why the installation of onboard treatment devices should not be discouraged. It also serves to illustrate why enforcement is simply not a factor, and the regs are 99% dependent on voluntary compliance. NDZs do nothing to deter illegal discharge, but are largely the reason boaters remove or decline to install treatment systems. A classic example of how uninformed, emotionally-based policies do more harm than good.

The marina, until just before my post, had been totally unaware of the problem. Hard to be concerned about that of which you have no knowledge. They have not ignored it. The person in question has been there for probably 12 years or more. The current Harbor Master has only been there for one year, and has no authority to inspect the boat in question, and the authorities apparently have no interest in the problem. It does seem that S_ _t does happen.

[jtsailjt]

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. Also, we do trips and overnights, both in our small boat, and with friends. What's your point?

The point is that your perspective is obviously colored by not really having a dog in this fight as a cruiser who is much affected by these laws. Now I know you're going to claim that everyone who lives on planet earth should be concerned about the environment (have a dog in THAT fight) and I wouldn't disagree, but this discussion is about a particular law that may actually harm the environment by discouraging the installation of onboard treatment units.


This discussion isn't about dock queens because their owners can always skip on up to the marina's bathrooms or arrange for a pumpout without even untying their dock lines and it's not about day sailors who can use their porta-potti or onshore facilities. It's about a law that, if enforced, would cause a huge inconvenience for actual cruisers without any discernible benefit to the environment, and may possibly have the unintended consequence of causing even MORE damage to the environment by discouraging the installation of onboard treatment systems.

Remember when the government mandated that ethanol be put in our gasoline in order to help clean up the environment? Now we know that it does great damage to small engines that are used seasonally and it actually generates MORE greenhouse emissions to produce the ethanol than burning gasoline mixed with the ethanol saves. The unintended consequences of the ethanol mandate have caused both great expense and more pollution that it has saved and yet, for political reasons, the mandate remains in effect long after we realized it had a net negative effect on the environment.

These NDZ laws are like that. This isn't a green vs polluting redneck discussion like you seem to think it is, with you (of course wearing your "good guy" white hat) championing the green side. It's about the REALITY of what's best for the environment and for boaters who are actually impacted by these NDZ's.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by jtsailjt

The point is that your perspective is obviously colored by not really having a dog in this fight as a cruiser who is much affected by these laws. Now I know you're going to claim that everyone who lives on planet earth should be concerned about the environment (have a dog in THAT fight) and I wouldn't disagree, but this discussion is about a particular law that may actually harm the environment by discouraging the installation of onboard treatment units.


This discussion isn't about dock queens because their owners can always skip on up to the marina's bathrooms or arrange for a pumpout without even untying their dock lines and it's not about day sailors who can use their porta-potti or onshore facilities. It's about a law that, if enforced, would cause a huge inconvenience for actual cruisers without any discernible benefit to the environment, and may possibly have the unintended consequence of causing even MORE damage to the environment by discouraging the installation of onboard treatment systems.

Remember when the government mandated that ethanol be put in our gasoline in order to help clean up the environment? Now we know that it does great damage to small engines that are used seasonally and it actually generates MORE greenhouse emissions to produce the ethanol than burning gasoline mixed with the ethanol saves. The unintended consequences of the ethanol mandate have caused both great expense and more pollution that it has saved and yet, for political reasons, the mandate remains in effect long after we realized it had a net negative effect on the environment.

These NDZ laws are like that. This isn't a green vs polluting redneck discussion like you seem to think it is, with you (of course wearing your "good guy" white hat) championing the green side. It's about the REALITY of what's best for the environment and for boaters who are actually impacted by these NDZ's.

Nicely put. The labeling that all too often goes on in these types of threads from the self-proclaimed "environmentalists" only results in a downturn to the quality of the discussion and a hardening of positions. Rather than personalizing & stereotyping the "type" of people we imagine lie behind the opinion, it'd be best to analyze/debate the opinion itself.

As for the ethanol issue, L-E will tell you the mandate came about mainly on account of energy independence, an important political priority at the time but obviously no longer in play. He may be right about that one, but the fact remains that the environmental issues were also very much in play and a major political selling point. I think even the more diehard environmentalists now concede it was folly. I always figured the mandate hasn't yet been done away with (and is now pushing E-85 ) because Iowa (i.e. its wealthy & powerful farm interests) is the first presidential primary. Call me a cynic . . . .

[thinwater]

Originally Posted by jtsailjt

... may possibly have the unintended consequence of causing even MORE damage to the environment by discouraging the installation of onboard treatment systems.

Remember when the government mandated that ethanol be put in our gasoline in order to help clean up the environment? Now we know that it does great damage to small engines that are used seasonally and it actually generates MORE greenhouse emissions to produce the ethanol than burning gasoline mixed with the ethanol saves. The unintended consequences of the ethanol mandate have caused both great expense and more pollution that it has saved and yet, for political reasons, the mandate remains in effect long after we realized it had a net negative effect on the environment.

These NDZ laws are like that....

Well said. I wonder if the parties involved would have been satisfied with restricting discharge of untreated waste south of the Canadian boarder and out of the ocean, but still allowing discharge of treated waste? That is the case in the Chesapeake Bay, but as I explained in my post, the regulations do NOT provide a regulatory framework for doing that in the Puget sound. Strange, but that is the way the underlying regulation is written. The only practical option was NDZ. It was much easier.


As for enforcement, that may change. I've been boarded several times, perhaps because I too am in an NDZ (Herring Bay, MD).


I will say, that once pump-outs are fully installed, it may not be a big deal. It's easy here, just something you do every week when you are on the boat full-time. Some are free, some are $5. Often it is where you are getting fuel or water.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by thinwater

I will say, that once pump-outs are fully installed, it may not be a big deal. It's easy here, just something you do every week when you are on the boat full-time. Some are free, some are $5. Often it is where you are getting fuel or water.

I've been to a couple of marinas where it is actually dockside, either through a central system or by a cart on wheels. Where my boat is now there's also a nonprofit organization that will come around with a mobile cart upon request. High volume mooring fields such as Boot Key in Marathon, FL have boats that will come out and pump you out w/o leaving your mooring (affectionately known as "turd tugs" ). Such facilities are far from universal, however, and may never become so. In most places it's just not a priority, environmentally speaking.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by thinwater

I wonder if the parties involved would have been satisfied with restricting discharge of untreated waste south of the Canadian boarder and out of the ocean, but still allowing discharge of treated waste? That is the case in the Chesapeake Bay, but as I explained in my post, the regulations do NOT provide a regulatory framework for doing that in the Puget sound. Strange, but that is the way the underlying regulation is written. The only practical option was NDZ. It was much easier.

Notwithstanding the apparent jurisdictional issue, the regs still require a science-based justification. In other words, a threat to water quality that the existing regs fail to adequately address. And that's the case whether the NDZ was instigated by the state or the feds. Are you aware of any such water quality issue in Puget Sound?

[senormechanico]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Wusses. Real sailors wipe with a winch-handle. The knurled side.

Maybe that's how you got those " 'roids " you warned against in a previous post?

[Pelagic]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

....And coprophiliacs need to accept that their preferences aren't universally shared.

Now there's a word you don't hear very often!

Had to look.it up ....
...but then it introduced me to words like "coprophagia" and its causes....

Sometimes ignorance is bliss![emoji33]

[john61ct]

Yes as a hardcore "Earth First!" tree-hugger going back to getting a Silent Spring first edition for my birthday when it was first published,

the resources put into growing ethanol biomass would be very much deployed to produce food instead.

To the extent subsidized by our taxes, continue to do the same to help feed poor families.

[thinwater]

Originally Posted by Exile

Notwithstanding the apparent jurisdictional issue, the regs still require a science-based justification. In other words, a threat to water quality that the existing regs fail to adequately address. And that's the case whether the NDZ was instigated by the state or the feds. Are you aware of any such water quality issue in Puget Sound?

The threshold for proof is very, very low at the fed level. Really nothing. I believe this is intentional. The EPA wants the states to take responsibility for their waters and for sewage treatment, but states cannot directly regulate shipping in navigable waters. But they can make it really easy for the states to make an NDZs.


It's a bureaucratic twist, not a logical approach. The ONLY thing a state can do re. boaters and cruise ships in the PS is NDZ. There is no middle road. That's too bad.

[Pelagic]

I remember years ago learning in San Diego that the US Navy had an exemption on holding tanks, when NDZ began to be enforced

No idea of this is still the case.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by thinwater

The threshold for proof is very, very low at the fed level. Really nothing. I believe this is intentional. The EPA wants the states to take responsibility for their waters and for sewage treatment, but states cannot directly regulate shipping in navigable waters. But they can make it really easy for the states to make an NDZs.


It's a bureaucratic twist, not a logical approach. The ONLY thing a state can do re. boaters and cruise ships in the PS is NDZ. There is no middle road. That's too bad.

Maybe in the case of PS it is geared more towards cruise ships, ferries, and other commercial vessels which carry a lot of passengers. Such vessels may actually be deterred given the more serious penalties as opposed to private vessels. But then the NDZ also deters them from installing treatment devices (Type 2 if over 65') so doubtful there's anything gained.

Your explanation that it's a very low threshold also explains why pretty much all of RI & MA waters are NDZs. But it doesn't explain why the bulk of Chesapeake Bay is not. If the answer really is mostly political, it only feeds peoples' cynicism about such regs, whether they care about the environmental issues or not. I can see how this can all too easily morph into cynicism about the 3-mile limit for untreated sewage as well.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Pelagic

I remember years ago learning in San Diego that the US Navy had an exemption on holding tanks, when NDZ began to be enforced

No idea of this is still the case.

Would be consistent with the Navy, USCG, LE & general commercial vessels' exemption from certain types of bottom paint. Makes one wonder about the comparative environmental harm, or whether it's once again not about that.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by jtsailjt

The point is that your perspective is obviously colored by not really having a dog in this fight as a cruiser who is much affected by these laws. ... but this discussion is about a particular law that may actually harm the environment by discouraging the installation of onboard treatment units.

We've pretty much agreed upthread that the percentage of boaters who have type 1 or 2 MSDs without a holding tank as well is rather low. We know that these MSD systems reduce the amount of harmful bacteria, but not nearly as well as municipal treatment, and that these systems DO NOT reduce the amount of sewage dumped. We have heard from several here who claim that the total output from cruisers is pretty low overall compared to other things: runoff, the occasional raw dump from municipalities, etc.

Yet you and Exile maintain that the NDZ would discourage the installation of types 1 or 2 MSDs which would cause Serious Ecological Harm.

Riiiight.

Sorry, you can't have it both ways. Anyway, the most common alternative would be ... a holding tank.

This discussion isn't about dock queens because their owners can always skip on up to the marina's bathrooms or arrange for a pumpout without even untying their dock lines

...except that a dock queen without a holding tank and lazy occupants (or uninstructed guests/partiers) would be discharging right at their slip, or anchorage...

...and it's not about day sailors who can use their porta-potti or onshore facilities. It's about a law that, if enforced, would cause a huge inconvenience for [not very many] actual cruisers without any discernible benefit to the environment [except for prohibiting discharge from the other 95+% of boaters], and may possibly have the unintended consequence of causing even MORE damage to the environment by discouraging the installation of onboard treatment systems.[um, no?]

Remember when the government mandated that ethanol be put in our gasoline in order to help clean up the environment? Now we know that it does great damage to small engines that are used seasonally and it actually generates MORE greenhouse emissions to produce the ethanol than burning gasoline mixed with the ethanol saves. The unintended consequences of the ethanol mandate have caused both great expense and more pollution that it has saved and yet, for political reasons, the mandate remains in effect long after we realized it had a net negative effect on the environment.

Thanks to the corn lobby, not environmentalists.

Originally Posted by Exile

As for the ethanol issue, L-E will tell you the mandate came about mainly on account of energy independence, an important political priority at the time but obviously no longer in play. He may be right about that one, but the fact remains that the environmental issues were also very much in play and a major political selling point. I think even the more diehard environmentalists now concede it was folly. I always figured the mandate hasn't yet been done away with (and is now pushing E-85 ) because Iowa (i.e. its wealthy & powerful farm interests) is the first presidential primary. Call me a cynic . . . .

Ethanol was supposed to come from agricultural waste - stalks, chaff, rejects, spoils, etc - stuff with zero value and otherwise going into landfill - not foodstock. The corn lobby climbed aboard the ethanol bus and grabbed the wheel, and now it's a mostly GOP boondoggle in the corn belt.

10% Ethanol (E-90) in vehicle fuel is not a problem; it gets used fast enough. In small motors or other uses where the gas can sit for months, it is.

These NDZ laws are like that. This isn't a green vs polluting redneck discussion like you seem to think it is, with you (of course wearing your "good guy" white hat) championing the green side. It's about the REALITY of what's best for the environment [not really] and for the boaters who are actually impacted by these NDZ's.

Given the number of people in the thread who think that discharging macerated sewage ANYWHERE is no big whoop... I don't think the environment is front and center with many of them.

[thinwater]

Originally Posted by Exile

Maybe in the case of PS it is geared more towards cruise ships, ferries, and other commercial vessels which carry a lot of passengers. Such vessels may actually be deterred given the more serious penalties as opposed to private vessels. But then the NDZ also deters them from installing treatment devices (Type 2 if over 65') so doubtful there's anything gained.

Your explanation that it's a very low threshold also explains why pretty much all of RI & MA waters are NDZs. But it doesn't explain why the bulk of Chesapeake Bay is not. If the answer really is mostly political, it only feeds peoples' cynicism about such regs, whether they care about the environmental issues or not. I can see how this can all too easily morph into cynicism about the 3-mile limit for untreated sewage as well.

I believe the Chesapeake Bay is not because it is considered inland waters and untreated discharge is not allowed anywhere in the Bay; there was no need to trigger NDZ to control cruise ships ETC. There are several small NDZs.

The problem with the PS is that it is no inland waters and a cruise ship can discharge in the center. The Chesapeake is larger, but the regulatory status is different.

And you're not wrong about politics.


The military exemption is baked into the underlying regulation. I also doubt there is a city with a large military presence that wants to challenge that.