What's Wrong With This Picture??

[CharlieO.]

I guess I don't follow your logic... why should the state provide free pump outs to all?
You are reqd to have life preservers, day/ night flares - govt doesn't provide them
You need working nav lights - govt doesn't provide them
You need yo carry adequate fire extinguishers - govt doesn't provide them

Even on land at S&B homes you need to have a connected sewer or septic system - your responsibility if you want a C of C... no govt anywhere going to provide it to you

Don, I understand your perspective, mine was just to make it low cost to free and easy access to encourage compliance. I’ve heard of other areas that strive for clean water subsidize the pump out stations. I could be mistaken, wouldn’t be the first time.

 

[Comodave]

There are plenty of pumpouts on the lake, it just seems to me marinas are free to charge whatever they want.

It depends on how the pumpout was financed. If it was done through the Clean Vessel Act of 1992 the pumpout fee is a maximum of $5. If the marina paid for the pumpout themselves then they can charge whatever.

 

[markpj23]

This thread has drifted further than magnetic north....

 

[Bacchus]

Don, I understand your perspective, mine was just to make it low cost to free and easy access to encourage compliance. I’ve heard of other areas that strive for clean water subsidize the pump out stations. I could be mistaken, wouldn’t be the first time.

Hey I get that it would be nice. Our home marina actually has free pump outs as it was subsidized with a grant. Previously the state park charged $2 per pump... no big deal. Even those funded with grant $ can charge a nominal fee. It takes something to maintain the system and marinas frequently are assessed fees to connect to sanitary sewers or they need to fund & maintain their own. It's just part of the cost of boating and I'd rather have clean waters to boat in.
We cruise in Canada often and it is not uncommon to see $20 - $30 pumpouts.
I know many that only do coastal cruising aren't in favor of NDZs and don't want to get into a debate. Inland it's just a given and we accept it and welcome the occasional free / low $ pump out but I don't think it's expected or our right to have.

 

[phillippeterson]

This thread has drifted further than magnetic north....

What about all the helium balloons released every day? That's littering, isn't it? The mylar ones can disable an aircraft.

 

[Bmarler]

In my opinion if the states require absolutely no discharge then free pump outs should be available to encourage compliance.

that's how it works in washington state. i don't think i've ever seen a pay pumpout anywhere.
i take that back, there are pumpout services that come to the boat. it's included in my liveaboard fee, but extra pumps cost extra money. i think the pumpout service boat pumps out at a free station too.
the state is really trying to keep puget sound clean, so providing pumpouts is state funded. i think part of the licensing fees we pay goes to fund that.

 

[NEtrawler58]

In CT, NY, and RI, I have never been charged for a pumpout whether at a marina or from a pumpout boat. The boats are funded by the state and town they service, not sure if the marinas get any funding. I never purposely discharge from my tank into the water, but I would not want to eliminate that functionality in case it was ever needed. The whole subject is hypocritical IMO, but I comply regardless.


On Lake Champlin there is some mention of prohibiting gray water discharge, but I don't believe it is actual law or enforceable.

 

[psneeld]

Under the CWA, discharges incidental to the normal operation of recreational vessels, including graywater, into federal waterways are exempt from NPDES permitting requirements. Therefore, recreational boaters may discharge graywater into Lake Champlain without a permit.

nsglc.olemiss.edu/Advisory/pdfs/graywater-research.pdf

What I heard is rec vessels were originally included in the legislation but a boat owning senator or two got the exemption. If I remember correctly, the exemption is not permanent but has to be renewed. The link above describes the exemption as an amendment to the act but again I am not sure whether that makes it permanent or not.

If it isn't, let's hope it is for a long time.

 

[NEtrawler58]

It's still all very silly really. I'm all for clean water and I obey the law, but coastal towns in my area have sewer systems that get overwhelmed from heavy rain water and pass millions of gallons of untreated waste into the water when that happens. And that is a single event. If all the boaters in the same area discharged all their waste, it wouldn't come close in an entire season.

 

[Comodave]

It's still all very silly really. I'm all for clean water and I obey the law, but coastal towns in my area have sewer systems that get overwhelmed from heavy rain water and pass millions of gallons of untreated waste into the water when that happens. And that is a single event. If all the boaters in the same area discharged all their waste, it wouldn't come close in an entire season.

Just because the municipality makes a discharge, it is ok for boaters to do the same? It makes all of us look bad. I keep hearing this argument, just because we can’t completely fix a problem we shouldn’t bother to try. No thanks.

 

[NEtrawler58]

Just because the municipality makes a discharge, it is ok for boaters to do the same? It makes all of us look bad. I keep hearing this argument, just because we can’t completely fix a problem we shouldn’t bother to try. No thanks.

That's not how I meant it. Just see it as a bit hypocritical. It could be fixed, but we don't deem the expense worthwhile. Yet boaters have to go to great lengths and expense not to do the same. Nobody seems to care about 10's of thousands of beach goers on any given day using the ocean as their toilet either.

 

[CaptTom]

Pretty sure the ability to qualify for a no discharge zone does require adequate pumpout facilities be available. Whether they stay functional is always a problem.

Correct. And when a state wants to declare a NDZ, there's always plenty of money available to install stations.

After the NDZ is established not everyone wants to spend money on maintaining or servicing them. If you look at some of those pumpout station lists or charts that many states publish, you'll find many which are long since out of service. It's not anybody's job to keep the list up to date once the NDZ is enacted.

 

[psneeld]

Using the argument about municipalities "accidently" discharging vast quantities, means that we all should be able too is just never a good one.

NDZs are a bit silly for smaller vessels.

Banning the use of Type 1 & 2 MSDs by smaller rec vessels in NDZs is overkill. Especially when so much other junk including gray water that often has more bacteria in it than treated sewage from Type 1 & 2 MSDs..... makes it's way into the waters.

This isn't so silly of an argument and I can get behind the foolishness there to protest NDZs for us whenever I can.

 

[NEtrawler58]

To be clear, I was not implying that it's ok to discharge in a NDZ, but as you said, the whole thing is a bit silly in the overall scheme of things, but I follow the rules even though I'm sure I could get away with never using a pumpout if I really wanted to. I can be many miles from shore and still be in a NDZ. BTW, municipalities do not accidentally discharge vast amounts, it's by design. If it was such a serious problem, we would fix it. The fact that we don't tells me it's not a real problem and something that lawmakers stuck a bandaid on and turned away and felt good about themselves. All the fertilizer we dump on our lawns is also a problem, but we still do it.

 

[CaptTom]

All good points. NDZs are "feel-good" laws which are politically safe.

Simply put, the majority of voters don't know or care much about municipal or boat sewage discharge. They see the occasional headline, and they have a sense it's bad. So passing a law against it must be good, right?

Boaters are a great target for laws like these. Getting a NDZ approved is so much cheaper than fixing the municipal sewer system, and there's no boating lobby protecting us. Farmers and fertilizer companies spend a fortune to make sure politicians don't restrict their products, which cause far more environmental damage to coastal waters than boaters ever could.

[Disclaimer: I obey all NDZ laws. I'm not saying they are never good. Just that they address a very, very small part of the problem.]

 

[Bacchus]

On Lake Champlin there is some mention of prohibiting gray water discharge, but I don't believe it is actual law or enforceable.

Under the CWA, discharges incidental to the normal operation of recreational vessels, including graywater, into federal waterways are exempt from NPDES permitting requirements. Therefore, recreational boaters may discharge graywater into Lake Champlain without a permit.

nsglc.olemiss.edu/Advisory/pdfs/graywater-research.pdf

What I heard is rec vessels were originally included in the legislation but a boat owning senator or two got the exemption. If I remember correctly, the exemption is not permanent but has to be renewed. The link above describes the exemption as an amendment to the act but again I am not sure whether that makes it permanent or not.

If it isn't, let's hope it is for a long time.

Some of the Lk Champlain associations publish brochures that claim even grey water discharge into Lk C is illegal. I havevwritten them twice requesting a reference to VT or NY regulations that support their position and they never respond. IMO it's a bluff to try to spread the word but it is false and I have never found any reg supporting it. Removal of a hose connection to overboard is real and I've found it. Never seen or heard of a citation for not disconnection.

 

[psneeld]

Without fingerpointing....

It CONTINUES to amaze me that as much as has been written about it, so many BOATERS still post in threads and don't specify between treated/untreated discharge and how silly it is compared to municipal "accidents".

NDZ's USUALLY exist to prevent TREATED sewage from being discharged because UNTREATED is already illegal.

It DOES make sense to not allow HUGE amounts from cruise ships of ocean going vessels with LARGE treat and hold systems or even direct discharge of TREATED sewage when the quantities are significant and in a small area of poorly flushed waters.

But disallowing SMALL numbers or recreational vessels from discharging SMALL amounts of TREATED sewage anywhere in large areas that are designated NDZs IS silly.

The amount being posted not specifying exactly the difference is just amazing to me.

Even worse than the posts about 50A power without specifying the difference between the two...which is apples and oranges also.

BoatUS has a strong lobbying that has worked wonders on anchoring laws...when it comes to sewage.... so many have the "eeewwwww" reaction...nobody wants any kind in the water....treated or not.... so the safe side is emotional rather than scientific.

 

[Alaskan Sea-Duction]

Pretty sure the ability to qualify for a no discharge zone does require adequate pumpout facilities be available. Whether they stay functional is always a problem.

Google NDZs EPA and read up on the requirements and where they already are if you like.

Seattle (Puget Sound) just went through this. The State wanted a NDZ, but had to get approval from the EPA. At first they did not. Then a tug boat company filed a law suit, claiming there were no approved commercial pumpouts. Not sure where this is all at. The USCG and others have stated they will not enforce Puget Sound NDZ.

I think a NDZ is a federal designation. By "federally navigable" I mean the way the federal government defines it. Essentially, coastal waters, rivers which are navigable from coastal waters by commercial vessels, the Great Lakes and lakes or rivers which cross state borders. If I understand this correctly, there's no such thing as a NDZ in sole-state waters.

But, sole-state waters are subject to whatever rules the state chooses to impose. This almost always includes prohibiting discharge. I know in the case of NY and VT, no equipment allowing discharge can even be connected. So you can think of it as a state-regulated NDZ, but it can be confusing if you use that exact term.

You are correct, NDZ is a federal designation. However, I believe the States can impose stricter laws so long as they don't infringe on the federal law.

 

[psneeld]

Seattle (Puget Sound) just went through this. The State wanted a NDZ, but had to get approval from the EPA. At first they did not. Then a tug boat company filed a law suit, claiming there were no approved commercial pumpouts. Not sure where this is all at. The USCG and others have stated they will not enforce Puget Sound NDZ.



You are correct, NDZ is a federal designation. However, I believe the States can impose stricter laws so long as they don't infringe on the federal law.

Isn't stricter in some ways "infringing"?

If NDZs can only be imposed by the EPA, with the stricter but not imposing concept, then states could have them anyplace they wanted one and towns withing states could do the same nt infringing on state authority.

The way I see it, if the USCG certifies and approves Type 1 & 2 MSDs (their only reason for being is discharging treated sewage withing the 3 mile limit) then states should not be able to disallow those devices discharge unless the EPA grants a NDZ.

 

[NEtrawler58]

All good points. NDZs are "feel-good" laws which are politically safe.

Simply put, the majority of voters don't know or care much about municipal or boat sewage discharge. They see the occasional headline, and they have a sense it's bad. So passing a law against it must be good, right?

Boaters are a great target for laws like these. Getting a NDZ approved is so much cheaper than fixing the municipal sewer system, and there's no boating lobby protecting us. Farmers and fertilizer companies spend a fortune to make sure politicians don't restrict their products, which cause far more environmental damage to coastal waters than boaters ever could.

[Disclaimer: I obey all NDZ laws. I'm not saying they are never good. Just that they address a very, very small part of the problem.]

Thanks Tom. Nicely put. Pretty much same as I was trying to say. Boaters are also seen as wealthy, so we are an easy target. Nobody cares.


In my area a believe rain water from storm drains mixes with waste from homes. I get it that we don't want to dig up every single road and sewer line. But I don't see why the overflow can't be dealt with at the sewage treatment plants. Instead of discharge into the waterways, why cant there be large storage tanks to catch the overflow. Tanks like you see at a fuel depot. If we are willing to try and control the earth's temperature, we can't figure this out?

 

[RT Firefly]

Greetings,
The bottom line, IMO, is those municipalities that experience "accidents" do NOT have funding from their town/city tax base to fix aging treatment plants OR sewage mains.

While the townsfolk may be fully behind the legislators when they impose NDZ's, erroneously thinking this will "fix" things, they will be the first to grab the tar and feathers IF the municipality raised taxes to actually remedy the dangers of ANY spills. Doesn't cost anything to ban dumping of any sort.

Some people don't like taxes no matter WHAT benefits they will receive.



Couple that with, as mentioned, pressure and lobbying from the agricultural community you've got exactly what we're discussing now.


I'm not familiar enough with any government programs (state or federal) that grant $$ to upgrade infrastructure so it may not be an option for the town/city. Mr. CT raises the point (Post #42) of ongoing maintenance of municipal pump out stations which, yet again, might mean tax increases for the citizens. No bueno.

 

[psneeld]

NDZs are about TREATED sewage....not about UNTREATED sewage or RUNOFF...... except in limited areas.

Comparing an ACCIDENTAL discharge no matter the quantity is not the same as INTENTIONAL.

Those posting general versus specific designation of sewage only hurts the whole discussion about overzealous use of NDZs.

 

[NEtrawler58]

RT, you are spot on. However, as a nation we are signing up for trillions in infrastructure, you'd think a small percentage of that could help local coastal towns deal with the issue. But apparently, nobody cares enough about clean water compared to everything else they need to "fix".

 

[psneeld]

Found this....

"Alongside major investments in transportation, electric vehicles, internet, and roads, the legislation earmarks $55 billion for clean water and water infrastructure projects. Much of the funding will come through the Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF) and the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (DWSRF)......

......The IIJA also reauthorizes the EPA Sewer Overflow and Stormwater Reuse Municipal Grants at $1.4 billion, with a quarter of that money earmarked for rural and financially distressed communities."

https://www.waterworld.com/drinking...icle/14222756/a-year-for-water-infrastructure

 

[Bacchus]

RT, you are spot on. However, as a nation we are signing up for trillions in infrastructure, you'd think a small percentage of that could help local coastal towns deal with the issue. But apparently, nobody cares enough about clean water compared to everything else they need to "fix".

I dont think it's just coastal towns... its the same in any town or city across the country as they all discharge overflow events into rivers & streams and we know that it all flows downhill / downstream to contribute to the coastal areas.

 

[rslifkin]

I dont think it's just coastal towns... its the same in any town or city across the country as they all discharge overflow events into rivers & streams and we know that it all flows downhill / downstream to contribute to the coastal areas.

Not everywhere. Mostly older cities with combined sewer and storm drain systems. Separate systems don't typically have the overflow problem.

Rochester reduced the overflow problem by building huge underground storage tunnels to add capacity for large rain events (treatment plant can catch up processing the excess after). Even with that extra storage, it's occasionally filled up and led to an overflow.

 

[RT Firefly]

Greetings,
Mr. ps. Thanks for that. I suppose it's the old story of limited funds spread much too thinly AND the success stories are seldom reported on. The catastrophes make front page.

 

[Alaskan Sea-Duction]

Found this....

"Alongside major investments in transportation, electric vehicles, internet, and roads, the legislation earmarks $55 billion for clean water and water infrastructure projects. Much of the funding will come through the Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF) and the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (DWSRF)......

......The IIJA also reauthorizes the EPA Sewer Overflow and Stormwater Reuse Municipal Grants at $1.4 billion, with a quarter of that money earmarked for rural and financially distressed communities."

https://www.waterworld.com/drinking...icle/14222756/a-year-for-water-infrastructure

So it's cheaper for the city sanitation departments to pay the fines than it is to fix the problem.

 

[CharlieO.]

So it's cheaper for the city sanitation departments to pay the fines than it is to fix the problem.

It is also a lot less work to write a check to cover the fine than to actually solve the problem.

 

[psneeld]

My point was to suggest that the infrastructure bill does have money earmarked for clean water projects.

Exactly where, even if it gets spent, or whether it solves the problem I can't say.... just pointing out that it is in the government's agenda in some degree.