Alaskan Sea-Duction
Guru
- Joined
- Jul 6, 2012
- Messages
- 8,061
- Location
- USA
- Vessel Name
- Alaskan Sea-Duction
- Vessel Make
- 1988 M/Y Camargue YachtFisher
This seems to me to be a solution in search of a problem. I read through Ecology's own consultant's findings and it was a bit difficult to find the problem. As to private vessels, 91.1% have holding tanks. 1.3% have Type I MSDs, 3.6% have Type II MSDs, only 0.7% have neither. The study listed 9 types of commercial vessels, only 2 of which were either non-compliant or would have difficulty complying-Tugs and NOAA vessels!
So, it seems the only vessels really affected are Tugs, NOAA and 5.6% of recreational vessels (the 4.9% with MSDs and .7% with nothing). Knowledge and acceptance of pumpout locations was quite high at over 85%. It is already a violation to discharge raw sewage within 3 miles of land. Unless my charts are way off, there is no place within greater Puget Sound where one is further than 3 miles from land. So, anybody, even with holding tanks, who discharges in Puget Sound is in violation. That is an enforcement issue, not a "new regulation" issue. If there are enforcement issues with existing laws/regulations, it is interesting that in the application for the NSZ, there are no provisions for education, extending of facilities, or enforcement.
In short, what the hell is the point?
This seems to me to be a solution in search of a problem. I read through Ecology's own consultant's findings and it was a bit difficult to find the problem. As to private vessels, 91.1% have holding tanks. 1.3% have Type I MSDs, 3.6% have Type II MSDs, only 0.7% have neither. The study listed 9 types of commercial vessels, only 2 of which were either non-compliant or would have difficulty complying-Tugs and NOAA vessels!
So, it seems the only vessels really affected are Tugs, NOAA and 5.6% of recreational vessels (the 4.9% with MSDs and .7% with nothing). Knowledge and acceptance of pumpout locations was quite high at over 85%. It is already a violation to discharge raw sewage within 3 miles of land. Unless my charts are way off, there is no place within greater Puget Sound where one is further than 3 miles from land. So, anybody, even with holding tanks, who discharges in Puget Sound is in violation. That is an enforcement issue, not a "new regulation" issue. If there are enforcement issues with existing laws/regulations, it is interesting that in the application for the NSZ, there are no provisions for education, extending of facilities, or enforcement.
In short, what the hell is the point?
As many here have noted, raw and semi-treated outflows from municipalities exceeds anything the boating community (recreational and commercial) puts overboard by such an order of magnitude as to be ridiculous. If one looked at coliform counts over time (if the data is available) virtually every localized excess count occurs in the vicinity of sewage outflow points.
. Unless my charts are way off, there is no place within greater Puget Sound where one is further than 3 miles from land. So, anybody, even with holding tanks, who discharges in Puget Sound is in violation.