Enforcement of NDZ Puget Sound

The friendliest place on the web for anyone who enjoys boating.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
You are correct.

NDZ= No Dump Zone


I have a composting toilet being installed on my boat so I don't follow anything to do with typical head problems, issues, and related gear, dump out zones etc. So my bad for not recognizing NDZ.
 
You are correct.

NDZ= No Dump Zone


I have a composting toilet being installed on my boat so I don't follow anything to do with typical head problems, issues, and related gear, dump out zones etc. So my bad for not recognizing NDZ.
Like you I am Canadian, and for me, I rarely travel in US waters anymore. However when I do, I ensure that my thru hull for the waste, is locked off to show compliance.
To the best of my knowledge, if you are using a composting toilet and are boarded for "inspection" (in Washington waters), you may have to show how you are storing and disposing of your waste products including the urine to be in strict compliance with the NDZ rules?
Just something to think about to avoid potential fines, but in reality probably not a large chance of it actually happening.
 
We seem to be getting more and more 'laws' and regulations written by people who are willfully ignorant of the area that they're addressing. I see it in CA where regulations are drafted by people not qualified to do so with an active disinterest in practicality, impact, comseqiemces. amd enforceability. I once saw an interview of a 22 year old who said that her objective when leaving college was to 'write policy'. Based on what? Her vast experience? So in the end we're forced to decide what laws we can reasonably comply with and which we can't. It isn't supposed to be that way but that's where we've reached.
 
Its worse than that. In San Francisco, they won't enforce laws against public urination because homeless have no other choice. Although they didn't say so explicitly (mentioning only urination), the same logic would preclude enforcement of public dedication laws, and there is enough of that going on there that is sure seems like they are not enforcing that either. Similarly, it has become commonplace for meth addicts to grab and run off with laptops from the hands of Starbucks customers. And our state is addressing the problem by building housing for the homeless at prices in excess of $700K per unit. And don't get me started on the state's immigration enforcement policies, although it seems hypocritical to complain about income inequality and that import as much poverty as possible, knowing that there is already a "housing shortage". San Francisco used to be such a great city.

A small example from Seattle...

Me: “Chief Best (SPD), we’ve had several fatalities caused by reckless drivers recently. Could you please assign some traffic enforcement to our neighborhood?

Chief Best: “We’ll investigate solutions, but many of the drivers using this street are low income, and I don’t want to create a ”debtors prison” situation in Seattle.”
 
But the most ironic example happened in December.

Every summer, we get several new neighbors that set up households in RVs. These folks have broad immunity from most laws. Many arrive in May and stay until October.

But SPD had the will and resources to ticket and impound my boat trailer parked near the RVs.
 
Just thinking

So I was at the Seattle Boat Show yesterday. In discussion with a recreation boating advocate group, the subject of the NDZ came up.

Our conversation was around many subjects, but the NDZ and fairly new Canadian Rules seems to be squeezing recreational boating.

Then I was told that the USCG has informed the State of Washington that they would NOT be enforcing the NDZ rules.

The USCG Auxiliary a few booths down stated they did not were not aware of the USCG's position.

WHAT?:eek::eek:

Are federal officers responsible for enforcing local and state laws?
 
It's not just state/local law....its the Clean Water Act in which I think the states determine the details but once the EPA rules, it is Federal too. The states can't just do it on their own and the approval is recorded in the Federal Register, referencing the CFRs.

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

How is an area designated as an NDZ under the CWA?
The CWA lists three circumstances where a state may initiate the process to establish an NDZ:

The state determines that the water body requires greater environmental protection, and EPA finds that adequate pump-out facilities are available. (Commonly known as a 312(f)(3) NDZ) A state may completely prohibit sewage discharge from vessels, whether the sewage is treated or not, into some or all of its waters if:
the state determines that the protection and enhancement of the quality of the waterbody requires greater environmental protection than the current federal standards allow; and
EPA determines that adequate facilities for the safe and sanitary removal and treatment of sewage from vessels are reasonably available. (33 U.S.C. 1322(f)(3) (PDF)(10 pp, 170 K)).

The EPA, upon application by the state, determines that the protection and enhancement of the water body requires establishment of an NDZ. (Commonly known as a 312(f)(4)(A) NDZ) If the EPA determines, upon application by a state, the protection and enhancement of specified waters requires sewage discharges to be prohibited, the EPA will prohibit, by regulation, sewage discharge from a vessel. This prohibition will occur whether the sewage is treated or not into those waters. Unlike NDZs established pursuant to CWA section 312(f)(3) (described above), the state does not have to show adequate pump-out facilities are reasonably available to request this type of NDZ be established (33 U.S.C.1322(f)(4)(A) (PDF)(10 pp, 170 K)).

Drinking water intake zones. (Commonly known as a 312(f)(4)(B) NDZ) The EPA, upon application by a state, will prohibit, by regulation, sewage discharge from vessels within a drinking water intake zone. The purpose of this NDZ is to safeguard human health through the protection of intake waters used for drinking. The state does not need to show that adequate pump-out facilities are reasonably available to establish this type of NDZ. (33 U.S.C.1322(f)(4)(B) (PDF)(10 pp, 170 K)).
Who enforces the NDZ requirements?

Under section 312 of the CWA, the U.S. Coast Guard and the state in which the NDZ has been designated may enforce the NDZ requirements. (33 U.S.C. 1322(k) (PDF)(10 pp, 170 K)).
 
Last edited:
We seem to be getting more and more 'laws' and regulations written by people who are willfully ignorant of the area that they're addressing. I see it in CA where regulations are drafted by people not qualified to do so with an active disinterest in practicality, impact, comseqiemces. amd enforceability. I once saw an interview of a 22 year old who said that her objective when leaving college was to 'write policy'. Based on what? Her vast experience? So in the end we're forced to decide what laws we can reasonably comply with and which we can't. It isn't supposed to be that way but that's where we've reached.


I think she got elected to office in New York
 
Ok got it

It's not just state/local law....its the Clean Water Act in which I think the states determine the details but once the EPA rules, it is Federal too. The states can't just do it on their own and the approval is recorded in the Federal Register, referencing the CFRs.

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

How is an area designated as an NDZ under the CWA?
The CWA lists three circumstances where a state may initiate the process to establish an NDZ:

The state determines that the water body requires greater environmental protection, and EPA finds that adequate pump-out facilities are available. (Commonly known as a 312(f)(3) NDZ) A state may completely prohibit sewage discharge from vessels, whether the sewage is treated or not, into some or all of its waters if:
the state determines that the protection and enhancement of the quality of the waterbody requires greater environmental protection than the current federal standards allow; and
EPA determines that adequate facilities for the safe and sanitary removal and treatment of sewage from vessels are reasonably available. (33 U.S.C. 1322(f)(3) (PDF)(10 pp, 170 K)).

The EPA, upon application by the state, determines that the protection and enhancement of the water body requires establishment of an NDZ. (Commonly known as a 312(f)(4)(A) NDZ) If the EPA determines, upon application by a state, the protection and enhancement of specified waters requires sewage discharges to be prohibited, the EPA will prohibit, by regulation, sewage discharge from a vessel. This prohibition will occur whether the sewage is treated or not into those waters. Unlike NDZs established pursuant to CWA section 312(f)(3) (described above), the state does not have to show adequate pump-out facilities are reasonably available to request this type of NDZ be established (33 U.S.C.1322(f)(4)(A) (PDF)(10 pp, 170 K)).

Drinking water intake zones. (Commonly known as a 312(f)(4)(B) NDZ) The EPA, upon application by a state, will prohibit, by regulation, sewage discharge from vessels within a drinking water intake zone. The purpose of this NDZ is to safeguard human health through the protection of intake waters used for drinking. The state does not need to show that adequate pump-out facilities are reasonably available to establish this type of NDZ. (33 U.S.C.1322(f)(4)(B) (PDF)(10 pp, 170 K)).
Who enforces the NDZ requirements?

Under section 312 of the CWA, the U.S. Coast Guard and the state in which the NDZ has been designated may enforce the NDZ requirements. (33 U.S.C. 1322(k) (PDF)(10 pp, 170 K)).

So in essence, the sound would become a federal NDA. Do cities really take drinking water out of the sound, which I am guessing is brackish at best, at least further up the sound?
 
Last edited:
I think it already is according to the EPA page...not sure of the description based on geographic points I am no familiar with.
 
Enforcement agencies and individuals aren't allowed to pick which laws they agree with, and which they disagree with, and enforce accordingly. That would effectively have them doing the law making. But lots goes on that is illegal, and continues until it's challenged.



So there might be a loop hole there since those are Federal laws, and I don't think states have an obligation to enforce federal laws. They can't break them, but I think also aren't required to enforce them. That may be the case with the previous comment about local enforcement of new gun laws, if those are federal laws.


1. I'm saying that state, city & county LE agencies cannot cooperate with the Feds (in this case ICE) as "ordered" by the governor, mayors and county execs in WA. So those politicians are choosing which laws to enforce and which to ignore, based on their political expediency.


2. Some "gun laws" that are not being enforced is because certain Sheriff's choose to actually obey the duty they swore to, under oath...to obey & defend The U.S. Constitution. Huge difference.


The first group ignores laws, thus putting citizens in danger. The latter upholds the US Constitution.
 
Last edited:
So in essence, the sound would become a federal NDA. Do cities really take drinking water out of the sound, which I am guessing is brackish at best, at least further up the sound?


Puget Sound is salt water. There is brackish water only where the myriad rivers meet The Sound, but The Sound is huge and the volume of sea water that ebbs/flows from The Pacific is unfathomable. I know of only one entity that takes drinking water from The Sound; Gedney aka Hat Island. They have their own, private desalinization plant. It's possible that others exist that I am unaware of, but the large metro areas get their water from the mountain snow melt.
 
Agreed. I do ‘t believe enforcement agencies get to be selective about what laws to enforce. Doing so would effectively make them law creation or more accurately validation or affirmation entities, and they are not. That said, I think we all know that in practice blind eyes get turned all the time.

Enforcement agencies are required to respond to the priorities established by their chain of command. Ultimately that means there is a political component to those priorities as established by the elected officials that appoint agency heads. In criminal law this has less effect. But with respect to regulation, which is typically civil, it can have a profound effect.

Retired LEO and in the distant past, former regulator.
 
Well...

Regardless of the enforcement mechanism there is zero chance of getting caught if one walks up, turns the key to discharge, then turns it back to no discharge and removes the key.

So does that mean if I install a key operated switch for my macerator pump and remove the key in the off position , I am compliant without putting a disabling device or lock on the macerator seacock?
 
So does that mean if I install a key operated switch for my macerator pump and remove the key in the off position , I am compliant without putting a disabling device or lock on the macerator seacock?

That has been reviewed and accepted by the USCG as some boats have been built that way.....but as usual, the local L EO has to feel it meets the test.
 
So does that mean if I install a key operated switch for my macerator pump and remove the key in the off position , I am compliant without putting a disabling device or lock on the macerator seacock?


In theory, yes. My usual MO is macerator breaker off (so it would take 2 switches in 2 separate locations to activate it), seacock closed and a bright orange ziptie holding the seacock in the closed position. That should be enough to meet the intent of the system being clearly protected against accidental use and being in a state where it's obvious that you're not planning to use it.
 
1. I'm saying that state, city & county LE agencies cannot cooperate with the Feds (in this case ICE) as "ordered" by the governor, mayors and county execs in WA. So those politicians are choosing which laws to enforce and which to ignore, based on their political expediency.


2. Some "gun laws" that are not being enforced is because certain Sheriff's choose to actually obey the duty they swore to, under oath...to obey & defend The U.S. Constitution. Huge difference.


The first group ignores laws, thus putting citizens in danger. The latter upholds the US Constitution.


Some clarification here is in order. It is untrue that local (state, county, city) police in Washington state are banned or ordered not to cooperate with Federal law enforcement. A few points about that:

- Regarding "cooperation" with ICE. There are two issues that arise here, one is a matter of case law, and has been distorted by the media to the point that everyone has lost sight of it. The other is that there are very real "sanctuary" areas that are exactly what localboy is talking about. The first issue is regarding immigration detainers. There is case law from the 9th Circuit that an ICE detainer does not constitute a legal basis for arrest or detention in a jail. This is problematic for jail operators concerned about holding someone on that basis alone. Most jurisdictions are declining to honor ICE detainers (and were before the national controversy arose and we heard the term "sanctuary cities") because of that. The second issue is very real, but is not a statewide one as only certain jurisdictions (mainly King County/Seattle) are actively working against ICE or refusing to work with them. The ICE detainer issue could be solved by a legislation and/or a change in the ICE legal process which apparently no one in government has been willing or able to do. (If ICE were to come up with warrants for arrest signed by a judge, they would be in a different position than a civil order signed by an ICE agent, which is what an ICE detainer currently is....)

- Regarding working with the Feds outside of ICE, our local law enforcement works together with most of the three letter LE agencies daily, and many departments have co mingled teams of local and Federal law enforcement working together. This is especially true of our larger agencies in Western Washington. There is no legal basis and has been no attempt for a statewide coordinated refusal to cooperate with the Feds, outside of the above ICE issue. Virutally every time you see or hear of a drug task force or Violent offender task force you can almost be certain there is a mix of local and Federal LE participating.

- Twistedtree commented on the thought that states don't have an obligation to enforce Federal law. This is and is not correct. State(local) police/deputies usually have no jurisdiction to enforce Federal law, but as noted above many times work in a cooperative task force and will have a cross commission. Those cross commissions are usually a special commission for the focus of the task force. Local police also do have an obligation to investigate crimes, and when they determine the crime is Federal can legally hold everything and call a Federal agency to take over. There is also a moral obligation to keep order and peace, and call the Feds when warranted. In Washington, it gets muddied by some of the laws the state has passed, such as the legalization of marijuana but for most everything else there is a lot of cooperative work.

- It goes the same way in reverse; Federal LE can be cross commissioned to do work with local enforcement. Again, it is usually part of task force or specialized teams, and not just a cross commission to go out and commit general state law enforcement. The mechanism exist for the USCG to work in partnership with the local marine units to conduct enforcement, but of all the Federal law enforcement they are the least likely to ever do that. You generally don't see them stepping out of their role.

- As for some of the comments here about enforcement; I wouldn't think the individual opinions of a few marine patrol or USCG constitute a consensus on enforcement direction or policy for all of our marine law enforcement here in WA. Just because one local police or sheriff marine unit won't or don't do anything with NDZ doesn't mean others won't. And just because a couple USCG at the boat show today said that, doesn't mean there isn't a new commander telling them something different tomorrow. Remember too, the NDZ is a modification to rules, basically barring discharge from Type 1 and 2 MSDs. Those of us who didn't/don't have those still have to follow the existing rules for type 3 MSDs, which have been no discharge forever and basically require the same type of lockouts. The question would be, has anyone ever done enforcement in the past at all based on the previously existing rules? I don't know. No one has ever inspected my sanitation systems, I haven't even been boarded at sea, only ever been stopped by fish and wildlife checking on fishing licenses.

- Every police agency has to be selective about the laws they enforce. The public would never stand for the criminal justice cost to have enough of everything to have them enforce everything. Also, because most police exist to serve the local community, they will take on the most complained about or relevant issues in that community and focus on those; some unfunded mandates and things they don't have the manpower for will go generally un-enforced. Virtually every city police chief is given priorities by his council, mayor, city manager on what it is important to the city for the police to focus on, and a budget that is commensurate with what those officials can afford/feel is needed to accomplish public safety. Its been a principal of law enforcement since its formal inception that the police only exist with the approval of the people... I would think that the marching orders for our local LE marine units are all focused on doing state boat checks, which does not include the MSD, but things like registration, life preservers, etc. Many marine patrol units in our state are funded in whole or in part by funding from the state, and that funding is allocated based on how many of those checks are accomplished by each agency each year. Outside of doing those checks, the local marine units will be directed to take care of what that agency perceives as the biggest issues they face. I would argue alcohol and reckless operation would likely be a couple things they would rather spend their time on, but I'm sure it varies from agency to agency.

- All the above said, the EPA decision and website is very clear that the Puget Sound NDZ (no DISCHARGE zone) is at the discretion of the state to enact, and therefor police. Its also quite funny to read the WA Dept. of Ecology blog Washington Department of Ecology: Protecting Puget Sound’s No Discharge Zone which seems to want to make you think the NDZ is a Federal thing, when in fact they just "okayed" WA to do it... Its also interesting to see that there is an active ongoing lawsuit over the NDZ, which could VERY likely be the reason the USCG does not want to touch it right now...

-The WA laws pertaining to this authorize enforcement by local, state or federal agencies. (See https://apps.leg.wa.gov/WAC/default.aspx?cite=173-228&full=true) The actual Washington RCW for penalties, in case no one has seen it is at http://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=90.48.140.

- Sheriffs refusing to enforce gun laws is side issue irrelevant to this thread. I don't believe any of those Sheriffs have any borders or jurisdiction on the Puget Sound NDZ. They could very well have marine units on lakes or rivers and would or could potentially have to enforce other existing no discharge laws. That said, there are actual legal remedies available to them to fix those laws they feel are unconstitutional, and it embarrasses the profession to see them talk like that. It would be more helpful if they were to actually work to change or have the laws overturned than give the appearance of being anarchists. Regardless of how you feel about guns and the constitution, its not very dignified. I give them props for having the guts to stand up and say it, but then have to shake my head wondering what they are accomplishing.

FWIW I use orange zip ties on my overboard discharges in the closed position.

:)
 
Again.... I am not sure about Puget Sound NOT being an NDZ.

Is it not defined as one on the EPA website?

If it is, which I think it is, then the CFRs provide that the USCG can enforce within the state guidelines.
 
Last edited:
So does that mean if I install a key operated switch for my macerator pump and remove the key in the off position , I am compliant without putting a disabling device or lock on the macerator seacock?

I do not know. What I do know is that the Raritan hold n treat is USCG certified as being NDZ compliant with the key on the “no discharge” position.
 
Again.... I am not sure about Puget Sound NOT being an NDZ.

Is it not defined as one on the EPA website?

If it is, which I think it is, then the CFRs provide that the USCG can enforce within the state guidelines.

It is according to the state of Washington. The documentation of how that came about shows that while EPA can authorize the state to do it, the state has to take the action. Which they did.

Here is a link to the EPA website discussing the Puget Sound NDZ. It seems to relate that their role is in authorizing the state to establish it. It doesn't talk about it becoming an EPA declaration or USCG enforcement.

https://www.epa.gov/puget-sound/epas-final-determination-no-discharge-zone-puget-sound

Is there another step that then enables the USCG to enforce? Or is that just what the state law does by allowing enforcement by federal authorities? (Which Washington law does do...)
 
Last edited:
Really. Way off thread my friend. Please lets leep politics out of this discussion.
Some clarification here is in order. It is untrue that local (state, county, city) police in Washington state are banned or ordered not to cooperate with Federal law enforcement. A few points about that:

- Regarding "cooperation" with ICE. There are two issues that arise here, one is a matter of case law, and has been distorted by the media to the point that everyone has lost sight of it. The other is that there are very real "sanctuary" areas that are exactly what localboy is talking about. The first issue is regarding immigration detainers. There is case law from the 9th Circuit that an ICE detainer does not constitute a legal basis for arrest or detention in a jail. This is problematic for jail operators concerned about holding someone on that basis alone. Most jurisdictions are declining to honor ICE detainers (and were before the national controversy arose and we heard the term "sanctuary cities") because of that. The second issue is very real, but is not a statewide one as only certain jurisdictions (mainly King County/Seattle) are actively working against ICE or refusing to work with them. The ICE detainer issue could be solved by a legislation and/or a change in the ICE legal process which apparently no one in government has been willing or able to do. (If ICE were to come up with warrants for arrest signed by a judge, they would be in a different position than a civil order signed by an ICE agent, which is what an ICE detainer currently is....)

- Regarding working with the Feds outside of ICE, our local law enforcement works together with most of the three letter LE agencies daily, and many departments have co mingled teams of local and Federal law enforcement working together. This is especially true of our larger agencies in Western Washington. There is no legal basis and has been no attempt for a statewide coordinated refusal to cooperate with the Feds, outside of the above ICE issue. Virutally every time you see or hear of a drug task force or Violent offender task force you can almost be certain there is a mix of local and Federal LE participating.

- Twistedtree commented on the thought that states don't have an obligation to enforce Federal law. This is and is not correct. State(local) police/deputies usually have no jurisdiction to enforce Federal law, but as noted above many times work in a cooperative task force and will have a cross commission. Those cross commissions are usually a special commission for the focus of the task force. Local police also do have an obligation to investigate crimes, and when they determine the crime is Federal can legally hold everything and call a Federal agency to take over. There is also a moral obligation to keep order and peace, and call the Feds when warranted. In Washington, it gets muddied by some of the laws the state has passed, such as the legalization of marijuana but for most everything else there is a lot of cooperative work.

- It goes the same way in reverse; Federal LE can be cross commissioned to do work with local enforcement. Again, it is usually part of task force or specialized teams, and not just a cross commission to go out and commit general state law enforcement. The mechanism exist for the USCG to work in partnership with the local marine units to conduct enforcement, but of all the Federal law enforcement they are the least likely to ever do that. You generally don't see them stepping out of their role.

- As for some of the comments here about enforcement; I wouldn't think the individual opinions of a few marine patrol or USCG constitute a consensus on enforcement direction or policy for all of our marine law enforcement here in WA. Just because one local police or sheriff marine unit won't or don't do anything with NDZ doesn't mean others won't. And just because a couple USCG at the boat show today said that, doesn't mean there isn't a new commander telling them something different tomorrow. Remember too, the NDZ is a modification to rules, basically barring discharge from Type 1 and 2 MSDs. Those of us who didn't/don't have those still have to follow the existing rules for type 3 MSDs, which have been no discharge forever and basically require the same type of lockouts. The question would be, has anyone ever done enforcement in the past at all based on the previously existing rules? I don't know. No one has ever inspected my sanitation systems, I haven't even been boarded at sea, only ever been stopped by fish and wildlife checking on fishing licenses.

- Every police agency has to be selective about the laws they enforce. The public would never stand for the criminal justice cost to have enough of everything to have them enforce everything. Also, because most police exist to serve the local community, they will take on the most complained about or relevant issues in that community and focus on those; some unfunded mandates and things they don't have the manpower for will go generally un-enforced. Virtually every city police chief is given priorities by his council, mayor, city manager on what it is important to the city for the police to focus on, and a budget that is commensurate with what those officials can afford/feel is needed to accomplish public safety. Its been a principal of law enforcement since its formal inception that the police only exist with the approval of the people... I would think that the marching orders for our local LE marine units are all focused on doing state boat checks, which does not include the MSD, but things like registration, life preservers, etc. Many marine patrol units in our state are funded in whole or in part by funding from the state, and that funding is allocated based on how many of those checks are accomplished by each agency each year. Outside of doing those checks, the local marine units will be directed to take care of what that agency perceives as the biggest issues they face. I would argue alcohol and reckless operation would likely be a couple things they would rather spend their time on, but I'm sure it varies from agency to agency.

- All the above said, the EPA decision and website is very clear that the Puget Sound NDZ (no DISCHARGE zone) is at the discretion of the state to enact, and therefor police. Its also quite funny to read the WA Dept. of Ecology blog Washington Department of Ecology: Protecting Puget Sound’s No Discharge Zone which seems to want to make you think the NDZ is a Federal thing, when in fact they just "okayed" WA to do it... Its also interesting to see that there is an active ongoing lawsuit over the NDZ, which could VERY likely be the reason the USCG does not want to touch it right now...

-The WA laws pertaining to this authorize enforcement by local, state or federal agencies. (See https://apps.leg.wa.gov/WAC/default.aspx?cite=173-228&full=true) The actual Washington RCW for penalties, in case no one has seen it is at http://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=90.48.140.

- Sheriffs refusing to enforce gun laws is side issue irrelevant to this thread. I don't believe any of those Sheriffs have any borders or jurisdiction on the Puget Sound NDZ. They could very well have marine units on lakes or rivers and would or could potentially have to enforce other existing no discharge laws. That said, there are actual legal remedies available to them to fix those laws they feel are unconstitutional, and it embarrasses the profession to see them talk like that. It would be more helpful if they were to actually work to change or have the laws overturned than give the appearance of being anarchists. Regardless of how you feel about guns and the constitution, its not very dignified. I give them props for having the guts to stand up and say it, but then have to shake my head wondering what they are accomplishing.

FWIW I use orange zip ties on my overboard discharges in the closed position.

:)
 
Alaska SD - what politics? I’m a PAC NW cruiser and this is the most comprehensive and non-political writing I’ve seen published in any forum. Now I’m assuming certain bona fides etc. on the part of the poster, but what politics?

I think the best that can be said is that enforcement authority is not clear and that any citations might result in legal action if the so called guilty party has the will and the resources to fight the infraction.

On a truly political note I will comment that one “flood day discharge” from the West Point treatment plant is apparently worse than years of overboard discharge from boaters - even type 1 and 2 devices. Not that decreasing pollution isn’t a just goal and legitimately justified thru law, but then who bears responsibility for those West Point treatment plant discharges and why isn’t anyone held accountable thru penalties. Okay, political rant over. My respects to all the other posters who didn’t “go there”. Hope this politicizing stops here.
 
Last edited:
It is according to the state of Washington. The documentation of how that came about shows that while EPA can authorize the state to do it, the state has to take the action. Which they did.

Here is a link to the EPA website discussing the Puget Sound NDZ. It seems to relate that their role is in authorizing the state to establish it. It doesn't talk about it becoming an EPA declaration or USCG enforcement.

https://www.epa.gov/puget-sound/epas-final-determination-no-discharge-zone-puget-sound

Is there another step that then enables the USCG to enforce? Or is that just what the state law does by allowing enforcement by federal authorities? (Which Washington law does do...)
No there is not another step.

Once the ruling is made and entered into the FR, it references the CFRs that say the state and USCG can enforce...I had it back in post #8......

"Under section 312 of the CWA, the U.S. Coast Guard and the state in which the NDZ has been designated may enforce the NDZ requirements. (33 U.S.C. 1322(k) (PDF)(10 pp, 170 K))."
 
Last edited:
Puget Sound is salt water. There is brackish water only where the myriad rivers meet The Sound, but The Sound is huge and the volume of sea water that ebbs/flows from The Pacific is unfathomable. I know of only one entity that takes drinking water from The Sound; Gedney aka Hat Island. They have their own, private desalinization plant. It's possible that others exist that I am unaware of, but the large metro areas get their water from the mountain snow melt.


*nod*

There are also several desalination systems running up in the San Juans as well.
 
Alaska SD - what politics? I’m a PAC NW cruiser and this is the most comprehensive and non-political writing I’ve seen published in any forum. Now I’m assuming certain bona fides etc. on the part of the poster, but what politics?

I think the best that can be said is that enforcement authority is not clear and that any citations might result in legal action if the so called guilty party has the will and the resources to fight the infraction.

On a truly political note I will comment that one “flood day discharge” from the West Point treatment plant is apparently worse than years of overboard discharge from boaters - even type 1 and 2 devices. Not that decreasing pollution isn’t a just goal and legitimately justified thru law, but then who bears responsibility for those West Point treatment plant discharges and why isn’t anyone held accountable thru penalties. Okay, political rant over. My respects to all the other posters who didn’t “go there”. Hope this politicizing stops here.

Agree completely. I'm growing so tired of threads immediately getting dragged off of the implications on boating, to general commentary on government. If I want that garbage I'll go to Facebook or lesser forums. I stick with TF because we haven't gone down that rat hole.

What's worse is that a simple review of the threads shows a handful of members that can't resist taking us there. And I'm not talking conservative vs liberal. I'm taking boating vs political rant. So tired of it.
 
Are federal officers responsible for enforcing local and state laws?
20-years ago in San Francisco, USCG changed their policy on drunk boat driving. Prior, if they detected a drunk operator, they would write a ticket and you would go to Coast Guard Station Alameda to argue your case. After the policy change, instead of USCG enforcement, they turn the suspect over to local PD for a possible DUI arrest (infraction goes against your drivers license).

Not sure if this is still the case or if it exists outside of California, but that's a good example of how USCG deals with enforcement of local laws.
 
Last edited:
So does that mean if I install a key operated switch for my macerator pump and remove the key in the off position , I am compliant without putting a disabling device or lock on the macerator seacock?


This is what I relied on in our Nordhavn. Key switch off and key removed and stowed. But I was also never test on compliance......
 
No there is not another step.

Once the ruling is made and entered into the FR, it references the CFRs that say the state and USCG can enforce...I had it back in post #8......

"Under section 312 of the CWA, the U.S. Coast Guard and the state in which the NDZ has been designated may enforce the NDZ requirements. (33 U.S.C. 1322(k) (PDF)(10 pp, 170 K))."


Right, I think there are some assumptions being made. Yes, it's the responsibility of the states to propose NDZs, and champion that cause through the process to get it approved by the EPA. But once approved, it becomes an NDZ which is a federal thing.
 
An NDZ is a "no discharge zone". NDZs only apply to boats with treatment systems. This is a hard concept for some people, in particular waterfront home owners, to understand. The term No Discharge Zone would seem to apply to all boats! Anyplace outside of the NDZ must then be a discharge zone? NO! The Clean Water Act of 1972 prohibits the dumping of raw sewage anywhere within 3 miles of the coast (9 miles in the gulf of Mexico). Full Stop! The only exception is that boats with a treatment system certified and approved by the USCG may discharge inside the 3 mile limit. An NDZ prohibits boats with a certified and approved treatment system from discharging sewage into the water. The NDZ in Puget Sound only affects those very few boats with Lectra Sans, Lectra Scans, and Purisan treatment systems.

When you are stopped by the USCG (we've had 3 visits with USCG) after they check your papers and safety gear, they then check to see that your sewage system is locked/blocked/unable to discharge sewage overboard.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom