Cruising Lake Champlain

[backinblue]

Bob
Can you cite the Vt regs that ban gray water discharge?
I have looked for it in NY and Vt regs but could never find it.
I have seen lake association pamphlets that state no gray water discharge but when I wrote to them (twice) for clarification and reference to state laws I never received a response. My belief (until I see it in print in the regs) is that it is similar to " champy"... oft repeated myth or folk lore with no bearing to facts.
I've been wrong before but still waiting for evidence.
I've cruised there several times... never been stopped / checked not seen or heard of anyone being stopped.
The hose disconnect reqmt is another story... it is state regs but conflicts w Feds. I've been in comp,isnce some times and not others... never been asked.

I don't really think grey water is an issue but it does exisit in some documents. I asked my surveyor who is a life-long sailor on the lake and he looked at me like I was crazy. However, I did just find this on https://www.lakechamplaincommittee.org/, not sure it holds any water (pun intended). Personally I wouldn't worry.

 Dispose of greywater properly. "Greywater" is rinse water
from boat sinks and showers. It is illegal in New York and
Vermont to discharge greywater into Lake Champlain.

 

[Bacchus]

Bob
"It is illegal in New York and Vermont to discharge greywater into Lake Champlain."
Again I say show me a state law / boating regulation.Not some committee, association, non-profit or other advocacy group that is trying to coerce boaters into doing as they say.
Show me the law...

 

[Blues]

The lake is quite beautiful with lots of interesting places to visit, a lot of work has gone into improving water quality with more to go. Enjoy the scenery, enjoy the limited boat traffic, but if you don’t intend to respect the wishes of those who live here please take your boat, your turds, and your crappy attitude elsewhere.

 

[newt]

Bacchus and Backinblue, please read what I posted a couple of posts ago. The Champlain Committee is an enviro group. Well meaning but not a government group at all. Gray water discharge is fine. See the sea grant opinion I posted and I had Langrock(law firm up here) research and confirm.

 

[Bacchus]

The lake is quite beautiful with lots of interesting places to visit, a lot of work has gone into improving water quality with more to go. Enjoy the scenery, enjoy the limited boat traffic, but if you don’t intend to respect the wishes of those who live here please take your boat, your turds, and your crappy attitude elsewhere.

That is not my point... I certainly a supporter of clean water and clean boating practices. I donate to our local clean water association. What I object to is associations pretending that there are regulations that don't exist. Grey wayer discharge is not our worst enemy. I boated & camped on Lk George for many years and respect their attempts to control/ protect the beautifully clean waters of Lk George. That is different and is codified in state law.
Educate and encourage boaters to be more considerate of water quality... don't pretend there is law that doesn't really exist.

 

[Bacchus]

Bacchus and Backinblue, please read what I posted a couple of posts ago. The Champlain Committee is an enviro group. Well meaning but not a government group at all. Gray water discharge is fine. See the sea grant opinion I posted and I had Langrock(law firm up here) research and confirm.

Newt
I read and agree / support the message. That is exactly the position I have tried to convey to others... there is no legitimate state regulations preventing recreational boaters from discharging gray water on Lk Champlain.
Many individuals have been mislead by well intentioned but less than honest organizations.

 

[backinblue]

Bob
"It is illegal in New York and Vermont to discharge greywater into Lake Champlain."
Again I say show me a state law / boating regulation.Not some committee, association, non-profit or other advocacy group that is trying to coerce boaters into doing as they say.
Show me the law...

I hear you, there is likely not an offical law that says such. I don't disagree, I am just saying when I was in Lake Champlain and saw that kind of language, I had questions.

 

[catalinajack]

BTW information only - I did not see it mentioned but Y Valve must be completely removed on Lake Champlain. Closed and locked does not comply.



That said, all other comments about the lake and trip.are true. Enjoy

Wrong. Lake Champlain is a federally regulated waterway. The State of Vermont cannot impose any laws of its own on those passing through. Close the cock, secure it and all will be well.

 

[twistedtree]

The lake is quite beautiful with lots of interesting places to visit, a lot of work has gone into improving water quality with more to go. Enjoy the scenery, enjoy the limited boat traffic, but if you don’t intend to respect the wishes of those who live here please take your boat, your turds, and your crappy attitude elsewhere.

Come on, that's not fair. Nobody is advocating any violation of the NDZ law. The issue is very specific to the requirement that one modify their boat that is otherwise compliant, specifically for Vermont, just so they can pass through.

 

[twistedtree]

Here's the law, section E https://legislature.vermont.gov/statutes/section/23/029/03306


(e) Every marine toilet on board any vessel operated on the waters of the State shall also incorporate or be equipped with a holding tank. Any holding tank or marine toilet designed so as to provide for an optional means of discharge to the waters on which the vessel is operating shall have the discharge openings sealed shut and any discharge lines, pipes, or hoses shall be disconnected and stored while the vessel is in the waters of this State.

 

[backinblue]

Doesn't the statle line of NY and VT run down the middle of the lake? What do NY boaters do, stay on their side? Nobody is saying they want to discharge black water, but removing plumbing is a bit "overboard" especially for a visiting boat that is registered elsewhere and passing through.

 

[Porgy]

NY law has the very same language as TT quoted from VT.

 

[backinblue]

NY law has the very same language as TT quoted from VT.

I believe it if you say so. I didn't search for long but did find this on a NY website which is not the same as the VT language and more standard for most NDZ:

When operating in a NDZ, the US Coast Guard regulations state MSDs Type I and Type
II must be secured to prevent discharge. Examples provided by the Coast Guard for
securing Type I and Type II MSDs include closing the seacock and padlocking it, using
a non-releasable wire tie, using a door handle lock, or removing the seacock handle
(with the seacock closed).

 

[Porgy]

Laws of NY Chapter 37, Article 3, Section 33D.

“Lake Champlain...Any holding tank designed so as to provide for an optional means of discharge to the waters on which the craft is operating shall have the discharge openings
sealed shut and any discharge lines, pipes or hoses shall be removed or
disconnected and stored while operating on the waters of said lake, its
tributaries or outlets.”

 

[backinblue]

OK, then I guess it comes down to federal law vs. local law regarding NDZ. If you believe that local laws trump federal laws, then maybe you need a gray water tank too.

 

[Bacchus]

OK, then I guess it comes down to federal law vs. local law regarding NDZ. If you believe that local laws trump federal laws, then maybe you need a gray water tank too.

No gray is very different than black...
The hose disconnection for black is in the state laws so agree with the conflict between state & fed but only re: black.
I could never find any regulations in either NY or VT that support the myth about gray water.

 

[Porgy]

It’s not uncommon for state or local governments to enact laws that modify, add to or are stricter than that of the superseding gov’t law. As long as there’s no blanket preemption and the lower government’s law does not conflict with the higher law, there is often no material issue. In this case the CG regulation gives examples such as removing the handle, a lock or a zip tie. VT and NY go further by stating removal of the hose. That requirement doesn’t usurp or conflict with the intent of the federal law. Both are intended to limit overboard discharge. I think removing the hose will be a royal pain and not defending it but, it isn’t necessarily illegal, unless someone can point to the case.

 

[catalinajack]

It’s not uncommon for state or local governments to enact laws that modify, add to or are stricter than that of the superseding gov’t law. As long as there’s no blanket preemption and the lower government’s law does not conflict with the higher law, there is often no material issue. In this case the CG regulation gives examples such as removing the handle, a lock or a zip tie. VT and NY go further by stating removal of the hose. That requirement doesn’t usurp or conflict with the intent of the federal law. Both are intended to limit overboard discharge. I think removing the hose will be a royal pain and not defending it but, it isn’t necessarily illegal, unless someone can point to the case.

Except no state law can pre-empt Federal law on any navigable waterway. Lake Champlain is navigable. Therefore, boats need only to comply with Federal law and regulations. It doesn’t matter a wit what the NY and VT laws state.

 

[backinblue]

Except no state law can pre-empt Federal law on any navigable waterway. Lake Champlain is navigable. Therefore, boats need only to comply with Federal law and regulations. It doesn’t matter a wit what the NY and VT laws state.

I did a little more research and it appears that although State Laws can pre-empt Federal laws, they are allowed to add more stricter regulations than the Federal law if they see fit. In which case, boaters are to comply with the stricter regulation.

As an example, and I'm not an expert and not going to do any more digging, there is a 3 mile limit from the coast for discharge of sewage, but may states impose a NDZ that extends farther than 3 miles.

 

[johnrupp]

I did a little more research and it appears that although State Laws can pre-empt Federal laws, they are allowed to add more stricter regulations than the Federal law if they see fit. In which case, boaters are to comply with the stricter regulation.



As an example, and I'm not an expert and not going to do any more digging, there is a 3 mile limit from the coast for discharge of sewage, but may states impose a NDZ that extends farther than 3 miles.

The states still need Federal approval to enact.

https://www.epa.gov/vessels-marinas-and-ports/vessel-sewage-no-discharge-zones


John

 

[Porgy]

I’d argue it’s not preempting the law. The CG gives examples of the minimum needed to prevent discharge and the states codified a particular method that could be considered a higher standard.

Although a navigable waterway, states still have quite a bit of regulating going on. Anchoring laws, license, speed limits, registration, drunk boating, etc. Even if you are “just passing through,” states can require you to register your boat there. They aren’t required to have reciprocal agreements with other states. As a practical matter they do but it’s clear, states not the feds establish how long you are given to just pass through. “Navigable Waterway” isn’t some magic wand that keeps states from regulating waters in their states. Unless it says so somewhere that no one can find, including me.

Edit: I still don’t think it’s entirely open shut but the language of the actual regulation in 33 CFR linked in
post #80 sounds more definitive to me than other citations of “CG examples” of how it is accomplished.

 

[twistedtree]

NY law has the very same language as TT quoted from VT.

That's what I recall from when I looked 10 years ago. This time I just when looking for the VT law.

 

[Cartouche]

We are planning on doing the Triangle Loop, leaving around June 20. Chesapeake Bay to Hudson River, NYS Canals to Lake Ontario, Kingston to Ottawa, Montreal and maybe Quebec and then back to Lake Champlain and home. Maybe we'll be bumping into you along the way!

BTW, if you come up the Chesapeake we should try and meet up somewhere.

Let us know if you need any information about Kingston to Ottawa and the 1000 islands it is our stomping ground, we are heading back up to Ottawa in June. a note to all don't plan to be on the Rideau or the 1000 islands in July or august, Over the last couple of years the dynamic has changed considerably It is Nuts We always head west in those months, and after it settles down Mid august we enjoy the Rideau again.

 

[twistedtree]

No gray is very different than black...
The hose disconnection for black is in the state laws so agree with the conflict between state & fed but only re: black.
I could never find any regulations in either NY or VT that support the myth about gray water.

The VT laws prohibit discharge of pretty much anything into the lake. I think these laws mostly contemplated shore-side civilization, and were intended to prohibit houses with toilets and gray water that dump straight into the lake. I think that is a reasonable and desirable prohibition. Discharge like that was the normal and accepted practice many years ago, including along the ocean. Over the years it was first prohibited in new construction, and eventually made completely illegal forcing upgrades to older homes. I doubt anyone was thinking about boats at the time. Also consider that most boats on Champlain are small day boats. It's even illegal to have a boat as your residence, i.e. liveaboard on the lake. That certainly doesn't contemplate transient cruisers, and technically makes them illegal.


I suspect that like many laws, not all the corner cases were considered or even realized, including the conflict between the discharge laws and federal law. But these aren't the first laws that are themselves illegal, and they won't be the last. But they stand until someone challenges them and gets them invalidated or declared illegal. Now who wants to do that on their summer boating vacation? Not me. So the laws stand.


It's completely anecdotal, but 10 years ago people were reporting getting stopped, inspected, fined, and required to modify their boat before resuming operation. Transients seemed to be targeted.


Today we have reports from a number of people spending a bunch of time on the lake with no issues. As I said earlier, that makes me wonder if the conflict wasn't pointed out enough times that officials stopped enforcing the law.


BTW, I can see such a regulation being reasonable for a boat registered in the state and kept on the lake. That's probably 98% of the boats on the lake. It wouldn't be a hardship because they will never legally use an overboard discharge, so why have one. But it's completely unreasonable to require that a visiting boat be modified to transit or visit that section of federal waterway.

 

[twistedtree]

It’s not uncommon for state or local governments to enact laws that modify, add to or are stricter than that of the superseding gov’t law. As long as there’s no blanket preemption and the lower government’s law does not conflict with the higher law, there is often no material issue. In this case the CG regulation gives examples such as removing the handle, a lock or a zip tie. VT and NY go further by stating removal of the hose. That requirement doesn’t usurp or conflict with the intent of the federal law. Both are intended to limit overboard discharge. I think removing the hose will be a royal pain and not defending it but, it isn’t necessarily illegal, unless someone can point to the case.

Again, going from memory of past discussions...


- There is language in the federal laws that prohibits restrictions beyond what the clean waters act requires. As I recall, it was Peggy Hall who pointed this out. If the states want more restrictive regulations, their only option is to petition for an NDZ. So a more restrictive law is indeed in conflict with federal law and therefore illegal.


- If the Vermont law accepted a disconnected hose as an ADDITIONAL form of compliance with the NDZ, I think that would be fine. But to require it as the ONLY form of compliance is again in conflict with federal law that lists other acceptable forms of compliance.

 

[rslifkin]

I could see it being reasonable to require the additional step for boats that are resident on the lake, but as Twistedtree points out, the federal laws are written such that it's theoretically unenforceable for transient boats (if not entirely).

 

[twistedtree]

As an example, and I'm not an expert and not going to do any more digging, there is a 3 mile limit from the coast for discharge of sewage, but may states impose a NDZ that extends farther than 3 miles.

In this case, an NDZ is a federal law, not a state law. And NDZ gets created in response to a state petition/request, but when approved it is a federal law.


In general I believe it's true that states can enact laws that are more restrictive than federal law. But in the case of the clean waters act and federal waterways, states are specifically prohibited from doing that for federal waterways. Inland lakes - yes. Federal waterways - no.



As a counter example, look at state "licensing" for boaters. As you travel from state to state you are subject to each state's recreational boater education and certification laws.

 

[garmstro55]

Let us know if you need any information about Kingston to Ottawa and the 1000 islands it is our stomping ground, we are heading back up to Ottawa in June. a note to all don't plan to be on the Rideau or the 1000 islands in July or august, Over the last couple of years the dynamic has changed considerably It is Nuts We always head west in those months, and after it settles down Mid august we enjoy the Rideau again.

That's a great offer. I am a bit familiar with the TI, having gone to college in Potsdam and having a friend in the Thomson family who have businesses in ABay.

Our tentative plan is to cross from Henderson Harbor to Kingston, Ontario around the beginning of July. We will work our way up to Ottawa from Kingston with a planned overnight at the Smith's Falls free dock. We don't have a marina selected in Ottawa as yet, do you have any recommendations?

 

[Cartouche]

That's a great offer. I am a bit familiar with the TI, having gone to college in Potsdam and having a friend in the Thomson family who have businesses in ABay.

Our tentative plan is to cross from Henderson Harbor to Kingston, Ontario around the beginning of July. We will work our way up to Ottawa from Kingston with a planned overnight at the Smith's Falls free dock. We don't have a marina selected in Ottawa as yet, do you have any recommendations?

Before Ottawa there is Hurst which is quite nice Downtown Ottawa has Hydro all long the canal that will accommodate about 20 boats and then once through the 8 Locks at Ottawa across the river is The Casino De Hull with a great Marina and down the Ottawa River toward Montreal is Montebello that is stunning, if you send me an e-mail I can send you My Route planner for Kingston to Montreal through the Rideau. it has Fuel Hydro Pump out Locales. In Smiths Falls the only accommodation in the main basin is Parks Canada by Permit or Victoria Park that is operated by the town which has power water and Laundry

 

[catalinajack]

I did a little more research and it appears that although State Laws can pre-empt Federal laws, they are allowed to add more stricter regulations than the Federal law if they see fit. In which case, boaters are to comply with the stricter regulation.



As an example, and I'm not an expert and not going to do any more digging, there is a 3 mile limit from the coast for discharge of sewage, but may states impose a NDZ that extends farther than 3 miles.

Nope, not with respect to navigable waterways.