Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
 
Old 02-22-2013, 04:44 PM   #21
TF Site Team
 
Pineapple Girl's Avatar
 
City: San Mateo, CA
Country: USA
Vessel Name: Pineapple Girl II
Vessel Model: PT 35
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 2,165
Mr sea duction, no grey water restrictions here in California. 😃
__________________
Advertisement

__________________
-Jennifer
Pineapple Girl II 1984 PT 35
San Francisco Bay Area
www.pineapple-girl.blogspot.com
Pineapple Girl is offline  
Old 02-22-2013, 04:45 PM   #22
Guru
 
Codger2's Avatar
 
City: San Diego
Country: US
Vessel Name: "Sandpiper"
Vessel Model: 2006 42' Ocean Alexander Sedan
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 5,421
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alaskan Sea-Duction View Post

It is my understanding (I could be wrong) that all boats in coastal Kookafornia must be equiped with a "grey" tank with no discharge of soap water etc overboard. Not true?
If that''s true, it's one of the best kept secrets I have ever seen!
__________________

__________________
Codger2

My passion for improving my boat(s) exceeds my desire to constantly cruise them.
Codger2 is offline  
Old 02-22-2013, 04:46 PM   #23
Guru
 
Alaskan Sea-Duction's Avatar
 
City: Inside Passage Summer/Columbia River Winter
Country: USA
Vessel Name: Alaskan Sea-Duction
Vessel Model: 1988 M/Y Camargue YachtFisher
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 3,160
Quote:
Originally Posted by manyboats View Post
or too many people slopp'in their waste into such places as Puget Sound.
See my post above. Enforce the current law. If a boater dumps raw sewage and is stupid enough not to use the "free" pumpout, then make them pay a big fine and jail time like a DUI? Then they would not be allowed into Canada. Why do we need additional regulation if we are not enforcing the laws on the books now?
__________________
1988 M/Y Camargue Yacht Fisher
Alaskan Sea-Duction
MMSI: 338131469
Blog: http://alaskanseaduction.blogspot.com/
Alaskan Sea-Duction is online now  
Old 02-22-2013, 04:48 PM   #24
Guru
 
Alaskan Sea-Duction's Avatar
 
City: Inside Passage Summer/Columbia River Winter
Country: USA
Vessel Name: Alaskan Sea-Duction
Vessel Model: 1988 M/Y Camargue YachtFisher
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 3,160
Quote:
Originally Posted by SeaHorse II View Post
If that''s true, it's one of the best kept secrets I have ever seen!
Well then I was worried about having to add a grey tank for nothing! Thanks....
__________________
1988 M/Y Camargue Yacht Fisher
Alaskan Sea-Duction
MMSI: 338131469
Blog: http://alaskanseaduction.blogspot.com/
Alaskan Sea-Duction is online now  
Old 02-22-2013, 04:49 PM   #25
Guru
 
Codger2's Avatar
 
City: San Diego
Country: US
Vessel Name: "Sandpiper"
Vessel Model: 2006 42' Ocean Alexander Sedan
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 5,421
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marin View Post
Our marina has an excellent system of fixed and portable pump out stations that make it easy and fast to pump out a boat after a cruise.

I agree with PG that dumping treated waste into the water is a good thing. But I think not dumping any waste into the water is a better thing.
__________________
Codger2

My passion for improving my boat(s) exceeds my desire to constantly cruise them.
Codger2 is offline  
Old 02-22-2013, 04:52 PM   #26
Guru
 
caltexflanc's Avatar
 
City: North Carolina for now
Country: USA
Vessel Name: Small Incentive
Vessel Model: Boston Whaler 130 Sport
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 3,803
Quote:

George,

It is my understanding (I could be wrong) that all boats in coastal Kookafornia must be equiped with a "grey" tank with no discharge of soap water etc overboard. Not true?
Not true. You are indeed wrong.
__________________
George

"There's the Right Way, the Wrong Way, and what some guy says he's gotten away with"
caltexflanc is offline  
Old 02-22-2013, 04:55 PM   #27
Scraping Paint
 
City: -
Country: -
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 13,748
Quote:
If so why do we need more regulation? Why not enforce the current law?

What difference does more regulation make if it doesn't change what people are supposed to be doing anyway?

You're right, not enforcing regulations doesn't give much credibility to the value of the regulation. But if you don't even have the regulation, enforcement, no matter how little, can't be done at all.

Making Puget Sound an NDZ means that on paper, at least, the pollutants entering the Sound will be reduced. This is particularly important in critical areas like Hood Canal.

Now whether these regulations are enforced or not is another matter. Enforcement priority is determined by the courts or the enforcement agencies or governments. But if, for example, the marine life die-off in Hood Canal becomes serious enough to warrant taking heavy action, having the NDZ requirement in place means the enforcement agencies have an enforceable regulation in place to enforce.

If the NDZ designation is not already in place, it means that a ton of time will be required to create and pass it while the marine life continues to die off.

Anyone who believes the creation of a regulation is going to have an immediate effect on fixing a problem is pretty naive, I think. But if you don't at least start with the regulation, you can never have enforcement which means the problem can't be addressed at all, now or in the future.
Marin is offline  
Old 02-22-2013, 05:05 PM   #28
Guru
 
Codger2's Avatar
 
City: San Diego
Country: US
Vessel Name: "Sandpiper"
Vessel Model: 2006 42' Ocean Alexander Sedan
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 5,421
Quote:
Originally Posted by manyboats View Post
I don't know enough to make calls on this Chuck but the actions by the State of Washington Dept of Ecology may be entirely responsible and reasonable.
For quite a long time, I believed that these EPA efforts were an additional PITA to boaters. But when I'm taking an evening cruise with my beautiful wife (She's only 30 ) and 3 or 4 wild dolphins (not the Navy's trained dolphins) swim by, that's about as cool as it gets for me.

I don't know "what or who" the big polluters are, all I know is San Diego Bay is cleaner now that when I first moved here in 1996.

( P.S. Just kidding about my wife! Not her beauty, her age! )
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	Renee @ the Helm.jpg
Views:	62
Size:	107.7 KB
ID:	16683   Click image for larger version

Name:	DSC07057.jpg
Views:	76
Size:	98.9 KB
ID:	16684  
__________________
Codger2

My passion for improving my boat(s) exceeds my desire to constantly cruise them.
Codger2 is offline  
Old 02-22-2013, 05:16 PM   #29
Guru
 
Alaskan Sea-Duction's Avatar
 
City: Inside Passage Summer/Columbia River Winter
Country: USA
Vessel Name: Alaskan Sea-Duction
Vessel Model: 1988 M/Y Camargue YachtFisher
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 3,160
Quote:
Originally Posted by SeaHorse II View Post
For quite a long time, I believed that these EPA efforts were an additional PITA to boaters. But when I'm taking an evening cruise with my beautiful wife (She's only 30 ) and 3 or 4 wild dolphins (not the Navy's trained dolphins) swim by, that's about as cool as it gets for me.

I don't know "what or who" the big polluters are, all I know is San Diego Bay is cleaner now that when I first moved here in 1996.

( P.S. Just kidding about my wife! Not her beauty, her age! )
What are you talking about Walt, She looks 30 to me!!!
__________________
1988 M/Y Camargue Yacht Fisher
Alaskan Sea-Duction
MMSI: 338131469
Blog: http://alaskanseaduction.blogspot.com/
Alaskan Sea-Duction is online now  
Old 02-22-2013, 05:24 PM   #30
TF Site Team
 
Pineapple Girl's Avatar
 
City: San Mateo, CA
Country: USA
Vessel Name: Pineapple Girl II
Vessel Model: PT 35
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 2,165
Ok PNW boaters, I am confused. Isn't it already illegal for boaters to discharge untreated waste in Puget Sound? per the 3 mile limit rule? So making it a NDZ steps it up to where even treated waste cannot be discharged? As Marin pointed out, there are not that many recreational boaters with waste treatment devices. So why punish that small segment that have chosen to spend a few boat bucks to be able to LEGALLY discharge their waste by making it a NDZ? Why not ENFORCE the current law that untreated waste cannot be discharged? Or am I incorrect and now it is legal to dump untreated waste in Puget Sound?
__________________
-Jennifer
Pineapple Girl II 1984 PT 35
San Francisco Bay Area
www.pineapple-girl.blogspot.com
Pineapple Girl is offline  
Old 02-22-2013, 05:29 PM   #31
Guru
 
Alaskan Sea-Duction's Avatar
 
City: Inside Passage Summer/Columbia River Winter
Country: USA
Vessel Name: Alaskan Sea-Duction
Vessel Model: 1988 M/Y Camargue YachtFisher
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 3,160
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marin View Post
What difference does more regulation make if it doesn't change what people are supposed to be doing anyway?

You're right, not enforcing regulations doesn't give much credibility to the value of the regulation. But if you don't even have the regulation, enforcement, no matter how little, can't be done at all.

Making Puget Sound an NDZ means that on paper, at least, the pollutants entering the Sound will be reduced. This is particularly important in critical areas like Hood Canal.

Now whether these regulations are enforced or not is another matter. Enforcement priority is determined by the courts or the enforcement agencies or governments. But if, for example, the marine life die-off in Hood Canal becomes serious enough to warrant taking heavy action, having the NDZ requirement in place means the enforcement agencies have an enforceable regulation in place to enforce.

If the NDZ designation is not already in place, it means that a ton of time will be required to create and pass it while the marine life continues to die off.

Anyone who believes the creation of a regulation is going to have an immediate effect on fixing a problem is pretty naive, I think. But if you don't at least start with the regulation, you can never have enforcement which means the problem can't be addressed at all, now or in the future.
I agree with you that the creation of a regulation doesn't guarantee enforcement.

Do we not already have regulations on the books for the dumping of sewage overboard within 3nm? (see below) Is so why do we need more regulation? You CAN NOT pump non-treated sewage overboard. Plain and simple.

If the live a boards or anyone else is dumping raw sewage then they need to be held accountable. Grant you I am looking at this from a recreational boater point of view, but I bet there are also laws already on the books if industry is dumping into Puget Sound illegally.

From: http://www.uscgboating.org/assets/1/...ations/420.PDF


The discharge of treated sewage is allowed within 3 nautical miles of
shore except in designated “No Discharge Zone” areas (Untreated
sewage may be discharged beyond 3 nautical miles )



A “No Discharge Zone” is a body of water where the discharge of
treated or untreated sewage is prohibited. When operating a vessel
in a No Discharge Zone, the operator must secure the device in a
manner that prevents any discharge. Some acceptable methods are:
padlocking overboard discharge valves in the closed position, using
a non-releasable wire tie to hold overboard discharge valves in the
closed position, closing overboard discharge valves and removing
the handle, and locking the door to the space enclosing the toilets.
Note: these methods for preventing the overboard discharge are only
required when operating in a No Discharge Zone. State and local laws

may place further restrictions on overboard discharges.
__________________
1988 M/Y Camargue Yacht Fisher
Alaskan Sea-Duction
MMSI: 338131469
Blog: http://alaskanseaduction.blogspot.com/
Alaskan Sea-Duction is online now  
Old 02-22-2013, 05:30 PM   #32
Guru
 
Alaskan Sea-Duction's Avatar
 
City: Inside Passage Summer/Columbia River Winter
Country: USA
Vessel Name: Alaskan Sea-Duction
Vessel Model: 1988 M/Y Camargue YachtFisher
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 3,160
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pineapple Girl View Post
Ok PNW boaters, I am confused. Isn't it already illegal for boaters to discharge untreated waste in Puget Sound? per the 3 mile limit rule? So making it a NDZ steps it up to where even treated waste cannot be discharged? As Marin pointed out, there are not that many recreational boaters with waste treatment devices. So why punish that small segment that have chosen to spend a few boat bucks to be able to LEGALLY discharge their waste by making it a NDZ? Why not ENFORCE the current law that untreated waste cannot be discharged? Or am I incorrect and now it is legal to dump untreated waste in Puget Sound?
What she says.
__________________
1988 M/Y Camargue Yacht Fisher
Alaskan Sea-Duction
MMSI: 338131469
Blog: http://alaskanseaduction.blogspot.com/
Alaskan Sea-Duction is online now  
Old 02-22-2013, 05:56 PM   #33
Guru
 
Codger2's Avatar
 
City: San Diego
Country: US
Vessel Name: "Sandpiper"
Vessel Model: 2006 42' Ocean Alexander Sedan
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 5,421
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alaskan Sea-Duction View Post
What are you talking about Walt, She looks 30 to me!!!
I'll certainly pass that on!

BTW, Don't you get sick & tired of people referring to you as PG?
__________________
Codger2

My passion for improving my boat(s) exceeds my desire to constantly cruise them.
Codger2 is offline  
Old 02-22-2013, 05:58 PM   #34
Guru
 
City: North Charleston, SC
Country: USA
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 4,390
I'm pretty sure people who intend to dump sewage (treated or otherwise) overboard will continue to do it regardless of laws or "zones". It's as simple as making sure there's not another boat within 500 yards or so and then hitting the switch.

These are "feel good" laws intended to get politicians publicity and hide some of the other laws they are passing.

The federal government was considering requiring all boat owners to get a permit for runoff (from rain and from washing) from their boats untill BoatUS stepped in. Hows that for the people we elect to public office?
rwidman is offline  
Old 02-22-2013, 06:11 PM   #35
Scraping Paint
 
City: -
Country: -
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 13,748
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pineapple Girl View Post
Ok PNW boaters, I am confused. Isn't it already illegal for boaters to discharge untreated waste in Puget Sound? per the 3 mile limit rule? So making it a NDZ steps it up to where even treated waste cannot be discharged?
Correct. Because treated waste is not "good waste." It's just "not as bad" waste. All it means is that the waste meets some government standard for waste.

Are you willing to drink, or if you were a fish or dolphin or crab live in "treated waste?" If your answer is yes, then you're right, removing the ability to dump treated waste into Puget Sound is meaningless. If your answer is "no," then why shouldn't the water in Puget Sound be cleaned up that much more?

And while the argument can be made that marine "treated waste" meets the same standard set for the treated waste that is dumped into the Sound by the municipalities in the area (and I don't know that it does) the municipal waste enters the Sound in places that have been deemed to have very high rates of water exchange. But boaters can dump their "treated waste" wherever they want, even in super-sensitive places like Hood Canal or low-exchange rate bays and anchorages.

You're correct in that it is currently illegal for boaters to dump "really bad" untreated waste into Puget Sound. An NDZ would make it illegal for boaters to dump "somewhat less bad" treated waste into Puget Sound, too. From the point of view of the incredibly diverse life that calls Puget Sound home, what's the downside?
Marin is offline  
Old 02-22-2013, 06:20 PM   #36
Guru
 
windmist's Avatar
 
City: Port Orchard, WA
Country: USA
Vessel Name: Violet A
Vessel Model: Nordic Tug 42
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 908
A fact that needs to be determined that IF? Puget Sound is exhibiting higher pollution levels than where is this higher pollution coming from? Is it from the shore based population dumping their sewage into sewage plants which then dump it into Puget Sound or is it pleasure boats? Are there any studies on this that is not based on guesses.

I would like to know how anyone can measure the pollution from boats without attaching sensors to the boat that would accurately determine the pollution output from a boat. Anything else is just guessing.

To me, it is easier to blame boaters, if there is really a problem than to go after municipalities whose volume of discharge is millions?, billions? more than pleasure boats. Another case of a government with too many bureaucrats trying to keep busy.

Ron
windmist is offline  
Old 02-22-2013, 06:22 PM   #37
TF Site Team
 
Pineapple Girl's Avatar
 
City: San Mateo, CA
Country: USA
Vessel Name: Pineapple Girl II
Vessel Model: PT 35
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 2,165
Ah, Marin I see your point re low flow areas. Seems like there, as here w Richardson bay, those areas could be made NDZ and areas w better flow left as they are? In any case, it seems the idea is just being "floated" at this point?

Walt, PG is better than some of my other nicknames.
__________________
-Jennifer
Pineapple Girl II 1984 PT 35
San Francisco Bay Area
www.pineapple-girl.blogspot.com
Pineapple Girl is offline  
Old 02-22-2013, 06:39 PM   #38
Scraping Paint
 
City: -
Country: -
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 13,748
The health of Puget Sound is being addressed at many, many levels. Boaters are not being singled out. It's just that this particular consideration of an NDZ is aimed at vessels. There are ongoing studies of the effect of storm water runoff, agricultural runoff, industrial runoff, municipal treatment standards, pesticide and fertilizer migration into the Sound, etc. etc, etc. Some of these may-- or already have-- resulted in new or tightened restrictions.

This is not a closely-held secret. Read the daily paper(s) and these topics come up again and again throughout the year.

So don't go thinking that the major big focus is on boaters. We are just one of many, many factors that are tied into the health of Puget Sound. Compared to some, our effect is pretty small potatoes. Compared to others, we may represent a bigger impact.

But whether you dump a ton of sh*t into the Sound or just a teaspoon, it's still sh*t as far as the life in the Sound is concerned. If you lived in the Sound, or if your livelihood depended on the health of the Sound, what's important is not that this guy dumped a ton of sh*t in the water and that guy only dumped a teaspoon. What's important is that you're living in a ton and a teaspoon of human sh*t.
Marin is offline  
Old 02-22-2013, 06:54 PM   #39
Master and Commander
 
markpierce's Avatar
 
City: Vallejo CA
Country: USA
Vessel Name: Carquinez Coot
Vessel Model: 2011 Seahorse Marine Coot hull #6
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 10,265
Hey, guys. Please "hold it" until you've gone 40 miles westward so you're outside the three-mile limit.

__________________
Kar-KEEN-ez Koot
markpierce is offline  
Old 02-22-2013, 07:12 PM   #40
Senior Member
 
Chuck Gould's Avatar
 
City: Seattle
Country: USA
Vessel Name: Dear Prudence
Vessel Model: Eagle 40
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 131
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marin View Post
I don't believe the NDZ regulations in effect or being considered include gray water. Even if they were, this would not impact our own boating at all. We use very little fresh water on a cruise. Washing dishes and showers are all and we use very little water in each case. And it would be comparatively simple to plumb the sinks and shower to go to the holding tanks.

But I'm not advocating this other than thinking it would be a good idea for new-built boats to incorporate it in their designs.

Toilet sewage, treated or not, is the issue at hand here. And I see no penalty whatsoever to boaters to making all of Puget Sound an NDZ. Other than the relative (I suspect) few who have a treatment system on board and who won't be able to use it anymore.

Everyone else is supposed to pump to shore facilities now, so nothing changes.
Flaw in the logic.

The waste that is pumped out to be treated in the municipal sewer plant reenters the sound. When it does, according to figures from the EPA, Seattle Metro, etc, it is measurably dirtier after treatment in the municipal system than if it is treated onboard.

The stuff we flush from home, or pump out into the marina pump out, doesn't just magically "disappear", it winds up right back in the sound. Less effectively treated.

So it's all going into the sound anyway, the only difference is whether it should be legal to treat it on board, to a standard *higher* than municipal treatment achieves.

Nobody, at least that I know, is advocating that raw sewage should be a permissible discharge.
__________________

Chuck Gould is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off





All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:39 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0
Copyright 2006 - 2012