# EPA solicits comments on plan to regulate recreational boat discharges



## rmeador (Jan 16, 2010)

> The EPA is today announcing plans to hold "listening sessions'' on March 18 and April 29, 2011, to provide information about the Clean Boating Act (CBA), and to gather recommendations from the public for forthcoming regulation of recreational vessels under the Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 312(o).


Full text here. They seem hell-bent on regulating discharges of sinks and bilge pumps... wasn't the CBA passed (with the support of many forum members and boating groups) to prevent exactly these sorts of regulations from applying to recreational boaters? The EPA seems to think the CBA requires them to do this:



> The CBA, which was passed by Congress and signed into law in 2008, directs EPA to promulgate regulations to establish management practices and associated standards of performance for discharges incidental to the normal operation of recreational vessels (e.g., bilgewater, ballast water, and graywater).


During this period, anyone can submit comments electronically via the website I linked above, or via email to [email protected] with the subject "Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0119". Everyone should give them some comments saying we don't want to have to have permits or greywater tanks or any other new regulations! It's probably best to phrase this in ways that regulators might care about, such as its impact on the economy of areas that cater to boaters, but that's just my humble opinion.


----------



## carl762 (Jan 11, 2010)

The act was passed in 2008, which effectively exempted recreational boats from having to manage their wastewater like industrial use boats by having to buy expensive permits and be subject to the same regulations as commercial boats. One of the big issues was ballast water containing and spreading harmful critters to other waters. I'm glad the act is law. Somebody used some common sense for a change. Barbara Boxer actually did something I can appreciate.

I hope the EPA doesn't attempt to screw us over. I'm doing my part to not pollute. In Oregon we're even required to buy an evasive species permit for our kayaks. I'm tired of shelling out money, but things like this are for a good cause - Mother Nature.

Thanks for the thread.


----------



## rmeador (Jan 16, 2010)

I know a lot of people thought the CBA exempted recreational boats from regulation, but just as with nearly all regulation, it has a way of coming back to bite you. The EPA is using it as justification for this power grab. We need to send messages to the EPA and our representatives opposing these actions.


----------



## ccriders (Jul 8, 2006)

Before I send in a response I will look forward to the discussion here.

My initial thought is that requiring all recreational craft whereever they may be in US waters to implement "management practices" is overkill. There are places where control of discharges from recreational craft might be benefitial to the environment. There are other areas where such discharges will have no discernible effect. 

There are many more discharges by non-recreational craft with greater adverse effects.

For coastal and estuarian sailors (like the Chesapeake), most of the polution to our waters are created by land based activitiers. Right now there are warning signs in my marina cautioning against water contact because of high bacteria levels. This is not the result of contaminant releases by water craft, recreational or otherwise.

It seems reasonable to require bilge water generated by housekeeping activities to be captured, especially in an MSD no discharge zone. However, how will this affect bilge water generated by a leak? If it is required to be contained, then why bother with a bilge pump?

What about raw water cooling? Will that be prohibited? 

Fire away everyone. 
John


----------



## travlin-easy (Dec 24, 2010)

The first version of the CWA I recall took place sometime about 1972. IMHO it has, and always be, an abysmal failure. Think not? Name one, major body of water the CWA has actually returned to pristine condition. Yeah, I can't seem to name one either and I've been covering this beat for four decades. If you take the time to read the fine print, you'll find it's a lot like the Chesapeake Bay Cleanup Program--lots of suggestions, a few unenforcible regulations that resemble Band-Aids on a geyser and lots and lots of expensive, meaningless studies that are usually financially beneficial to the study group, but never seem to accomplish anything noteworthy. 

Keep in mind that EPA is an acronym for "Environmental Protection Agency," a bureau that can't seem to protect our environment regardless of how much money they spend. Same holds true for MDE (Maryland Department of Environment), MD DNR (Maryland Department of Natural Resources) and thousands upon thousands of other similar agencies in state and federal government. Their sole purpose for existing is the protection and enhancement of our natural resources, a task they've never been able to accomplish. Over the past 40 years it has been my experience that your input is not wanted or utilized--regardless of how sound it may be. The hearings are just another form of public appeasement so the agency can ram-rod another program up the public's a$$, and because a tiny number of people took the time to testify they can say we listened to your advice so it's OK for us to do this.

Sorry about the rant, but those agencies and the people that run them just really pi$$ me off! 

Gary


----------



## carl762 (Jan 11, 2010)

You and me too.


----------



## tomperanteau (Jun 4, 2009)

Welcome to Fascist America. Where regulators make law and politicians allow the three branches to be circumvented in order to be able to steal more of our hard-earned money.


----------



## SlowButSteady (Feb 17, 2010)

So, y'all would rather go back to "the good old days", when harbors were little better than open sewers? No thanks.


----------



## tomperanteau (Jun 4, 2009)

SlowButSteady said:


> So, y'all would rather go back to "the good old days", when harbors were little better than open sewers? No thanks.


Uh, yea. That is what we are all saying.

Seriously. Is that what you took away from the discussion so far?


----------



## degreeoff (Oct 25, 2009)

My opinion here is this.....I agree that the chessy needs cleaning BUT WTF?? The primary cause is the land based BS. I want to see them try to enforce my bilge water discharge............. I have a conventional leaking (slightly) stuffing box and a shower that I use that drains into the bilge as well. I use enviro friendly soaps.....BS all freakin BS....my marina just installed cameras to watch for people doing bad things like dumping nasty's into the water.... or so they say, truth is they are getting ready to protect their a$$es when the hammer falls.

BTW thanks for the email addy.....I have sent my response.


----------



## SlowButSteady (Feb 17, 2010)

tomperanteau said:


> Uh, yea. That is what we are all saying.
> 
> Seriously. Is that what you took away from the discussion so far?


Well, I see a lot of bitching and moaning about the EPA and regulations. However, they are exactly the reason why coastal and estuarine waters, particularly harbors, are so much cleaner today than they were a generation or two ago.


----------



## Capslock118 (Feb 15, 2011)

I'm with SlowButSteady,

If regulations don't exist then nobody is accountable, or could be held accountable, for their actions. I'm actually surprised a boater forum would have qualms with this proposal from the EPA.


----------



## jrd22 (Nov 14, 2000)

This is nonsense and just a way to make law abiding citizens into criminals because it will be impossible for most boaters to comply with. This isn't sewage that is being discussed, it's sink drains and bilge pumps. This is the proverbial solution looking for a problem and a way for government to exert ever more control over everything and everyone. There are already strict rules prohibiting discharge of oily waste of any kind, so adding to regulations about containing bilge water is redundant and unnecessary.


----------



## travlin-easy (Dec 24, 2010)

SlowButSteady said:


> However, they are exactly the reason why coastal and estuarine waters, particularly harbors, are so much cleaner today than they were a generation or two ago.


You are joking, of course. A generation ago I was scuba diving around the pilings of the old Chesapeake Bay Bridge during the oyster season. I could clearly see the oysters 12 to 15-feet below where they were firmly attached to the bridge pilings. Large, succulent oysters that were fantastic tasting. Today, there are no oysters among the pilings, but not because they were harvested by watermen--they're all dead from hypoxic water. The only thing remaining is empty shells. A generation ago the deep waters adjacent to the Susquehanna Flats were so clear you could see largemouth bass lurking beneath submerged logs resting on the bottom 10 feet beneath the surface. A generation ago there were slammer bluefish ripping through huge pods of Atlantic menhaden on the flats as far north as Rock Hall. As you drifted over the flats casting surface plugs to the bluefish you could clearly see millions of fingertip size holes on the sandy bottom, openings that clams used to filter the bay's water as they extracted nutrients. Baltimore's harbor was, and still is a chemical cocktail. Granted, a generation ago it also contained huge volumes of flotsam, but the City Of Baltimore spends a couple million taxpayer dollars each year to pick up the trash with skimmer vessels, trash that is then loaded on barges, then into dump trucks and taken to the land fills. The EPA didn't curtail chemical dumping in coastal and estuarine waters--the majority of the decrease can be attributed to failing and outsourced industries. Nearly all of the pulp and paper mills along the Patapsco River's shore shut down almost three decades ago, and they didn't shut down because the EPA told them to.

Most folks don't know this, but in Maryland and many, many other states, individual raw sewage spills under 10,000 gallons DO NOT have to be reported. Have you ever wondered just how many 9,999 gallon sewage spills there are each year? The number will boggle your mind. I seriously doubt that the illegal discharge from all the boats in Chesapeake and Delaware bays contribute as much raw sewage to our waterways as a single, untreated spill from any sewage treatment plant that's dumping into the waterways 24/7.

The proposals are nothing more than feel-good legislation that makes some folks think their tax dollars are really going to do some good. In reality, those tax dollars will get pi$$ed away in the blink of an eye on another useless study.

If you sincerely believe there will be some benefit to the waterways from the upcoming proposals, there's a really nice bridge in Brooklyn that's up for sale.

Good Luck,

Gary


----------



## SlowButSteady (Feb 17, 2010)

No. I'm not joking. A couple of generations ago, this sort of thing was not all that uncommon:










Yes, that's the river burning.

A generation or so ago it wasn't uncommon to see an oil sheen, toilet paper, or turds floating in just about every marina. Lakes, rivers, and estuaries had sever algal blooms due to unregulated sewage inputs. In fact, many coastal communities dumped raw (or very minimally treated) sewage into coastal waters, often right at the shoreline. The Los Angeles sewage outfall at Whites Point completely killed all of the kelp beds along much of the Palos Verdes Peninsula. And most of the southern part of San Francisco Bay was essentially a dead zone.

Recreational boats may not be a huge part of the problem, but they are part of the problem. Everyone wants to point their finger at everyone else, without taking responsibility for their own 5hit. Without the EPA and various other regulatory agencies we wouldn't need to worry about holding tanks, pump-out stations, and stiff fines; but, we would still have turds floating next to our boats too.


----------



## RainDog (Jun 9, 2009)

You have to have some pretty advanced historical revision skills to be able to claim the CWA is anything but an amazing success. Where I grew up you could not swim or eat fish from the lakes before the CWA. Many of the lakes had no fish anyway, and the rivers would periodically CATCH ON FIRE.

40 years later lots of swimming, lots of fish, and they are edible! As a special bonus, no burning rivers!


----------



## kd3pc (Oct 19, 2006)

Remember this EPA, is headed by Lisa Jackson that uttered the famous, " the oil simply disappeared" when asked about the BP spill. And you guys want to trust her to be fair to recreational boaters?

Her organization recently sold the chesapeake clean up down the road, in the compromise with the CBF....kick the can again...CBF is no better for allowing it to happen. Mr Baker should resign for neglecting his duties, and telling people he is for cleaning up the bay - when he isn't - he is for his organization and keeping it flush with money

Well over 40 years on the Chesapeake, with less clean water now than in the 70's and far more "sewage spills" than ever. No end in sight. MD pays pennys in fines for spills that would land a boater in jail - again no end in sight, they just say the system was down for repairs. VA still dumps tons of chicken manure directly in the water, I have seen the cribs of manure just pushed in to the water.

Those of you who think the EPA is your friend, will be sorely disappointed in the next few years when you have to BUY an expensive "permit" to (as I said last year when this topic arose) to dump AC water in your bilge and overboard, install gray water tanks that can not be pumped out with the black water tank, allow the rain water to run off your topsides, wash your boat in it's slip, run the engine, etc, etc, etc. Or you are required a new treatment system that puts cleaner poo in the holding tank, to then be pumped shoreside...as if that solves the problem. The MSDs treat better than the shoreside systems in the first place.

This same EPA has been sitting on the scientific test results of MSDs and their effluent for years, because that research supports an effort the EPA does not agree with...

This EPA needs to be shutdown for a lot of reasons, but especially for this. You guys that want them, can move to CA where they are always welcome.


----------



## tommays (Sep 9, 2008)

At least here on Long island there is some measure of common sense in that its realized that land based runoff is the big issue and what needs to be controlled be it the insecticides killing off there lobster relatives or today and Fridays two inches of rain flushing every piece of dirt and poop into the sound and bays


And there is always the south shore sewer plants literally pushing out a brown stream into the Great South Bay

"A group of environmentalists, residents and local politicians Tuesday demanded that Nassau County immediately take steps to stop a county-owned and operated sewage treatment plant from illegally discharging sludge into Reynolds Channel, a practice that has been ongoing since at least October.

The Bay Park Sewage Treatment Plant, which treats nearly half of Nassau's sewage, has been violating..."


----------



## knothead (Apr 9, 2003)

tommays said:


> And there is always the south shore sewer plants literally pushing out a brown stream into the Great South Bay
> 
> "A group of environmentalists, residents and local politicians Tuesday demanded that Nassau County immediately take steps to stop a county-owned and operated sewage treatment plant from illegally discharging sludge into Reynolds Channel, a practice that has been ongoing since at least October.
> 
> The Bay Park Sewage Treatment Plant, which treats nearly half of Nassau's sewage, has been violating..."


Every time a thread like this pops up and boaters start talking about how unfair it is that land based pollution is mostly to blame and boaters have to submit to new rules and regulations, it makes me wonder how many of these boater actually live on land and boat recreationally. 
How about it? How many of you actually live aboard full time and don't contribute to the overburdened sewage systems ashore?

I constantly promote the idea of composting toilets only to be ridiculed and discounted, but if only half of the single family dwellings switched to a waterless toilet, the problems would be much reduced if not eliminated. 
Over thirty percent of a households water use is from flushing it down the toilet. Good clean water, suitable for drinking is being polluted and flushed down the toilet every time someone takes a leak. 
Now that's uncivilized.


----------



## TomandKarens34 (Dec 4, 2007)

I just get so frustrated with this stuff. I figure there is probably 80,000 gallons of gray water discharged into my local salt water bay every year by recreational boaters. One single rain storm overflows the local sewage treatment plant and dumps 1.5 million gallons of raw sewage into the bay. Every tide change probably washes 6 billion gallons of salt water into and out of the bay. So that's a good reason for another layer of paperwork, expensive boat modifications and government inspections? It just makes me sick that these feckless bureau-weenies have found a new group of citizens to torment into abandoning their recreation, in their wretched efforts to prove their significance, to expand the scope of their power, and to justify their organization. It's so pointless....


----------



## JKCatalina310 (Nov 18, 2010)

*Kinda shocked by this resistance*

A couple of comments have taken me by surprise:

"Name one, major body of water the CWA has actually returned to pristine condition. Yeah, I can't seem to name one either and I've been covering this beat for four decades."

I'll talk about my area, Boston, Massachusetts. As recently as the 1980s you could actually see raw sewage on the beaches in the Boston area. The water was so black with bacteria that you could not inspect below the water line of your boat when you were at the dock. The sport fish (striped bass, blue fish, etc.) were nowhere to be found in the harbor. The harbor islands were basically landfills. Basically, it was mess that you didn't want to be anywhere near.uke 

Under the Clean Water Act (CWA) the area started to be cleaned up. The CWA started regulating discharges from municipal systems (the same ones that most of you want to point your fingers at and say "I'm not the problem, they are"). However, they couldn't simply force these municipalities to change overnight. There was a lot of expense and time involved to fix the problem. The Dear Island facility didn't come on-line until 1998. But when it did, it immediately started making a big impact.

The updates to the municipal systems are still not complete. Dear Island can get overwhelmed when there is a lot of rain in the area. This is because older cities and towns have a combined sewer and rain water system that delivers billions of gallons of rain water to the sewer treatment plant. Another reason for the extra water in the system is what is known as infiltration. Infiltration of pipes occurs when old clay or concrete pipes, that may have been installed 100 years ago or more, begin to break down at the joints and groundwater infiltrates the pipes and adds to the volume. Individuals are responsible for this too, if they have a sump pump that is connected to sewer system instead of just being discharged outside the house.

The EPA created National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) to begin to correct these issues. Just like the before, this work was phased so that it could be accomplished without overwhelming the cities and towns. First the NPDES program, Phase 1, applied to industrial facilities. It required them to get permits for the discharges. During the permit process they could regulate what could be discharged and mandate treatment of the water before discharging. Then they began with the municipal discharges. Cities and towns closest to the oceans were first regulated on their discharges and then the various phases have moved further inland. I believe we are in entering Phase 4 and in Massachusetts cities and towns within the major water sheds, the Weir River Basin for me, have to separate their storm water from there sewage. Cities and towns that were already required to do this in previous phases now have to treat their storm water before they discharge it to rivers, ponds, the ocean, etc. This program will progress until all city and towns have separate discharges and that there is significant treatment prior to discharge.

All of this combines to begin the long process of cleaning up a water body like Boston Harbor. And now the area is very, very improved from where it was in the 1980's and before. Combine that with the efforts that were done as part of the Central Artery/Tunnel project (aka the Big Dig) and you have some of the best local cruising grounds on the East Coast. 

Now they are looking at the same process for boats. First they went after the commercial boats and got them into compliance. Now they want to improve how recreational boaters discharge pollutants.

While most of us probably keep a clean bilge, I know I have been on boats that have oil and other chemicals floating on bilge water. Wouldn't you prefer that those boat owners cleanup that oil and get ride of it in an appropriate fashion, rather then just turn on the bilge pump? I know I would. Same goes to the discharge of waste from the head.

One of the earlier posters, who was upset with this CBA, stated that their bilge water contained water from the shower. This individual stated that they use "enviro friendly soaps". Did they really? Does everyone? What is "enviro friendly soaps"? I work in the environmental cleanup industry and laugh at the products being sold as "green" alternatives. Usually they are the same product as before with a new label. Also, what is "green" on land, may not be "green" on the ocean (maybe we should coin a new phrase and start calling those products "blue"). I'll give one example, copper. For land based used, copper is great. If you have a septic system on your property, the copper in your water pipes will do nothing to the ground or environment where you are discharging it. However, if you run water through 100 feet of copper piping and then discharge it into the harbor, you will have significant negative effects. Copper is highly toxic to benthic organisms (i.e. mussels, clams, etc.) in extremely low concentrations (parts per trillion for most).

I'll give another quick example from my personal experience. One windless day last summer I was napping in my cockpit when I was awoken by a horrible smell. I sat up to see the guy who owns the power boat next to me working on his boat. He was flushing out his water tank. I say a gallon jug of bleach next to him and two empty gallons on the dock. I asked him what was going on. He said that he had some "brown stuff" coming out of his faucets and the "toilet" water smelled bad. I asked him if he put any treatment in his water tank when he filled it. It was as if I was speaking Greek to him. I went below and got the package of treatment tablets I use and showed it to him. He had never seen them before. I then also explained that the water in the head was likely saltwater pulled from below his boat, not fresh water from the tank. Again Greek. He continued to dump bleach into his holding tank and flush it out by running his sink and the bleach was so bad that it was bringing tears to my eyes. I offered him a couple of my water treatment tabs. "No thanks, I have another gallon of bleach I will dump in when I finish flushing and fill the tank." Man I hope no one drank that water.

If the CBA is going to address this issue by establishing best management practices for boaters, many of which most of us are probably already following, without requiring expensive permits then I am all for it.


----------



## kd3pc (Oct 19, 2006)

Knot

I just read earlier this week about San Francisco's mandating of low flow toilets causing massive "odor" issues within the sewage system through out the city....seems not ENOUGH water is flowing to keep the sewer lines "clean".....thus the sewage laying in the pipes....and it STINKS

I am with you.. and would rather see the gov't (NOT the EPA) mandate electrascan style treatment systems for EVERY toilet, land based/boat/outhouse - ALL Of them.

We have the technology, just not the desire to save our clean water for what it should be doing - drinking and keeping the humans alive.

Why doesn't the EPA go after the waste of fresh water as in "fracking" for oil. it consumes inordinate amounts of water, pollutes it in the process, and then just returns it to the "aquifer" where it does even more damage....but according to the EPA, that is just "business use"

To the others that point to how great the EPA is, I think you will find that a lot of the rivers of fire and such were cleaned up long before the EPA was established in 1970. The basis for the establishment, (SIlent Springs by Carlson) has since been proved to be hype, environmentalism, and spin...and the Cuyohoga is still polluted - now by human waste, surface runoff, etc.


----------



## kd3pc (Oct 19, 2006)

JK

I guess I don't see the harm in my use of small amounts of chlorine...

and I believe it is "deer island" (see How MWRA Treatment Plant Works)

And as much as you criticize your slip mate for using clorox(bleach) - the treatment system you hold up as exemplary (see above) uses sodium Hypochlorite (chlorine) and then a "dechlorinator" and some other industrial strenght chemicals as explained here...

"Disinfection:

After passing through primary and secondary treatment, wastewater is disinfected with sodium hypochlorite to kill bacteria. There are two disinfection basins, each approximately 500 feet long with a capacity of 4 million gallons, in which the effluent is mixed with sodium hypochlorite. Finally, sodium bisulfite is added to dechlorinate the water, so that chlorine levels in the ultimate discharge will not threaten marine organisms. After disinfection and dechlorination, the effluent is ready to be discharged."

Is this really any better than point source treatment of ....crap

and I am sure that when you get near the island it is just such a pleasant smell that meets you....just as Blue Plains is near Washington, DC


----------



## JKCatalina310 (Nov 18, 2010)

By the way. I don't want anyone to think that I am pro-EPA or regulation. I think the EPA is a bureaucratic waste land and ***** every time I have to deal with them. I am also a firm libertarian/capitalist and hate most regulations. But the problem is that I see no market force way of fixing these issues without the regulations. So I begrudgingly except them to address this problem.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Oct 7, 2008)

SlowButSteady said:


> Well, I see a lot of bitching and moaning about the EPA and regulations. However, they are exactly the reason why coastal and estuarine waters, particularly harbors, are so much cleaner today than they were a generation or two ago.


If what you are saying is that existing regulation was effective and there is no need for additional money-grabbing regulation, then I am confident many more of us would agree with you.


----------



## kd3pc (Oct 19, 2006)

The real question then becomes...

"when will this administration mandate recreational boat water treatment systems, and a $7,000 credit to cover the purchase and installation"

Methinks they did this for GM...

I would take that mandate, in exchange for the elimination of NDZs, holding tanks, pumpouts, honey pot boats, spills, etc and that they force shoreside treated effluent to be as clean as the current MSDs..

AND we could get clean water anywhere since according to the EPA, we are the biggest threat to the CWA.

Back to reality, IIRC, there is an NDZ in the new england area that is actually much more polluted 10 years after being declared an NDZ, than it was prior to the involvement of the EPA...and it NOT being an NDZ then.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Oct 7, 2008)

TomandKarens34 said:


> I just get so frustrated with this stuff. I figure there is probably 80,000 gallons of gray water discharged into my local salt water bay every year by recreational boaters. One single rain storm overflows the local sewage treatment plant and dumps 1.5 million gallons of raw sewage into the bay. Every tide change probably washes 6 billion gallons of salt water into and out of the bay. So that's a good reason for another layer of paperwork, expensive boat modifications and government inspections? It just makes me sick that these feckless bureau-weenies have found a new group of citizens to torment into abandoning their recreation, in their wretched efforts to prove their significance, to expand the scope of their power, and to justify their organization. It's so pointless....


I love you, man!!


----------



## JKCatalina310 (Nov 18, 2010)

kd3pc said:


> JK
> 
> I guess I don't see the harm in my use of small amounts of chlorine...
> 
> ...


Thanks for the correction on Deer Island, should have caught that myself.

To my slip mate, not sure what your point is. The quote you provided states that they dechlorinate the water prior to discharge. Fits my criticism perfectly.

There is no odor when you sail past Deer Island.

As to "I guess I don't see the harm in my use of small amounts of chlorine":

LC50 values range from 0.076 to 0.16 mg/L for Daphnia magna (water flea) and from 0.005 to 0.1 mg/L for Daphnia pulex (cladocern) (AQUIRE 1994); 48-hour LC50 values range from 5.3 to 12.8 mg/L for Nitocra spinipes (snail); and 96-hour LC50 values range from 0.13 to 0.29 mg/L for Oncorhynchus mykiss (rainbow trout), from 0.1 to 0.18 mg/L for Salvelinus fontinalis (brook trout), and from 0.71-0.82 mg/L for Lepomis cyanellus (green sunfish) (AQUIRE 1994). Papillomas of the oral cavity in fish have been associated with exposure to chlorinated water supplies (NTP 1992).

Low level chlorination (0.05 to 0.15 mg/L) results in significant shifts in the species composition of marine phytoplankton communities (HSDB 1994).

So basically, you are looking at 0.5 parts per billion to 12.8 parts per million that is toxic. (not exactly accurate but enough for this discussion). Bleach is typically 10% chlorine (with some other stuff that we will ignore for now) and the guy had emptied 3 gallons in this task. So roughly a third of a gallon. When he was doing this it was on a day with out a lot of tidal movement and during a slack tide. So most of the bleach remained in the immediate area until some time after the tide had changed (1-2 hours).

The term LC50 means the concentration that is toxic to 50 % of the organisms in a 24 hour time weighted average. So basically, to get to a non-toxic level, you would need to dilute that bleach he dumped in a billion gallons of water. (I wish I had more time to go into this more)


----------



## tommays (Sep 9, 2008)

In my real world we trailer to Lake George NY every summer for boat camping the whole lake is NDZ drinking water reservoir with no gray water discharge or boat washing with soap of any kind BUT your normal minor bilge water and motor use is fine and its been this way at least 20 years with nothing but local government and a few simple rules 


Its really simple your boat gets checked before you get a low cost permit to use the lake and IT WORKS as the lake is a nice fishbowl to see how things affect water quality and its pristine


----------



## fryewe (Dec 4, 2004)

*Back to the basics...*

You can avoid the MSD police by de-plumbing your head and using Doggie-do bags and a bucket, and throwing the bags in the dumpster when in port.

You will likely be able to avoid the gray water police by de-plumbing your galley and shower and using a basin as a sink and wash basin, and tossing the water over the side, and using a pump sprayer.

You will likely be able to avoid the oily bilge water and sea water engine cooling permitting police by throwing away the little diesel engine or outboard and installing a sculling oar.

Seriously, a few decades of experience with the EPA rules and regs have modified both our boats and our habits. And we will modify or adapt under these new rules.

However, the arguments in these threads that point out the hypocrisy of regulating recreational boaters while allowing activities that are far more destructive, or allowing exemptions, are spot on. The regulators and their supporters need to feel like they are making a difference, and they know we will comply with their new regs. But no matter how much they regulate us who operate boats big enough to have systems to regulate, a far greater quantity of the effluent they are trying to regulate will be discharged by water skiers and campers and weekend beer drinkers and bass fishermen on the sandbars and rivers and lakes of the country. And they likely will not be covered by the new regulations because they can haul their canoes, ski-doos, bass boats, and runabouts out of the water at the end of the day.

No better example of how ineffective it is to have rules that only the rule-abiding will adhere to is the litter laws around the country. It doesn't matter where you live in the old USA, there are strict litter laws...and massive litter along the country's highways.


----------



## kd3pc (Oct 19, 2006)

JK and the Group,

thanks JK for the details of your thoughts...mine were more along the line...

is the use of either amounts of chlorine (my boat, your slipmates boat, the MWRA) any worse or better than the use of and subsequent overboard discharge of the local water or containing that water for later pump out and transfer to the shore side system?

And is the overboard discharge of even non treated sewage any worse than the pumpout to an oft leaky/broken/poorly designed shoreside system, where the poo is treated/untreated numerous times, bacteria'd, silted, sludged and so on and THEN released back in to the local water system as EPA designated "OK"?

I understand the toxic affect of the chlorine, but really don't see how it is a whole lot worse than surface runoff after a heavy rain, the dumping of plowed snow in to the water, and so on.

Is pumping a sheen of oil from the bilge, or dawn or "green soap" (and I DO agree that most of that is hype and labels) again any worse than the smog, exhaust, etc that is already depositing itself on the water.

Don't get me wrong, I am all for clean air, clean water and effective sewage treatment...I am just not ready for the EPA to regulate how and why....they simply don't have a good track record based on the facts that are agreed upon. Ethanol, period...comes to mind.

thoughts?


----------



## Ulladh (Jul 12, 2007)

kd3pc

"Why doesn't the EPA go after the waste of fresh water as in "fracking" for oil. it consumes inordinate amounts of water, pollutes it in the process, and then just returns it to the "aquifer" where it does even more damage....but according to the EPA, that is just "business use""

The fracking process is exempt from the Clean Water Act and thus not regulated by the EPA. The exemption commonly known as the Halliburton Exemption was negotiated by the G. W. Bush administration.

Fracking in the Pennsylvania part of the Chesapeake watershed may be an additional threat to the bay. Fracking waste water is being sent to local waste water treatment plants that do not have the facility for treating the chemical and radiative waste product before introduction to local creeks.

Fracking in the Delaware watershed, NY, NJ and PA is regulated by the watershed authority, but wait and see if that will protect the Delaware River and Bay.

Public funding is needed to bring waste water treatment plants up to a standard that will protect watersheds, but in the current economic and political climate that funding is becoming increasing difficult.


----------



## JKCatalina310 (Nov 18, 2010)

kd3pc said:


> is the use of either amounts of chlorine (my boat, your slipmates boat, the MWRA) any worse or better than the use of and subsequent overboard discharge of the local water or containing that water for later pump out and transfer to the shore side system?
> 
> And is the overboard discharge of even non treated sewage any worse than the pumpout to an oft leaky/broken/poorly designed shoreside system, where the poo is treated/untreated numerous times, bacteria'd, silted, sludged and so on and THEN released back in to the local water system as EPA designated "OK"?


KD,

When I read the above, IMHO, it comes down to the same argument we hear on so many things....What can I do I am just one person (or boat in this case)? We hear it about voting, about littering, about almost anything. I guess there are some people that are fine to just go with the status quo and others who are willing to do those things that are within there power.

Most of us can't, or at least think we can't, do any thing about the amount of crap that is "OK" to discharge out of places like Deer Island. Some of us do try to make those changes.

To me, a set of best management practices (which is what this EPA request for comments is about) is a good thing to force those who either willfully won't do the little things that have a big impact or don't know about them, to take the actions within there power to cleanup the harbors we all enjoy.


----------



## kd3pc (Oct 19, 2006)

Ulladh

We could not agree more!! 

And this process (or very similar) is the one being called for to be used in VA and KY as "clean coal" and oil extraction processes are enhanced. Clean Coal = spin and hype

It KILLS the water for almost any other purpose, once "fracked"...and in the tests and computer models I have seen, only complex osmotic and barrier filtering will remove the chemicals

How the EPA allowed this to go forward, just further proves my point that it is nothing more than a ruse for the politicians to get around the regulations that may actually help us.

Thanks for expounding our understanding of this.


----------



## JKCatalina310 (Nov 18, 2010)

Ulladh said:


> The fracking process is exempt from the Clean Water Act and thus not regulated by the EPA. The exemption commonly known as the Halliburton Exemption was negotiated by the G. W. Bush administration.


Don't get me [email protected]#king going on the BS EPA exemptions. This has been a corrupt process from the beginning of the EPA.


----------



## Ulladh (Jul 12, 2007)

The EPA created by the Nixon adminstration has improved our air and water quality, but it is subject to political and funding forces.

Write to your congressman or senator and ask them to support fully funding the EPA.

Work locally with your state and municipality to support bond issues for waste water treatment plant upgrades.

All this will need more tax revenue.

The boating community has a responsibility to do whatever is feasible to reduce its own negative impact on our environment.


----------



## Ulladh (Jul 12, 2007)

From the EPA request for input document posted by the OP;

"To be successful, the management practices and performance 
standards to be developed under the Act will need to be technically 
effective in reducing or controlling discharges, but also will need to 
be readily implemented by the recreational boat owner."

So what is the problem, send the EPA your well reasoned comments or go to the public hearing in Annapolis.


----------



## kd3pc (Oct 19, 2006)

"need to be technically effective in reducing or controlling discharges, but also will need to be readily implemented by the recreational boat owner."


Are these not diametrically opposing tasks?

How can one control or reduce engine cooling water intake/exhaust and still run the engine any better than the designers?

Same with bilge water, when the AC condensate line (basically distilled water) dumps in to the bilge...what harm in directly discharging that overboard? Water that passes the packing gland is in fact already sea water, what harm in simply returning it from whence it came?

Shower sump or sink discharges perhaps could be separately tanked and treated, but at what cost to the boat owner....and what would it gain?

Common Sense seems to be missing from their request?

thoughts? And yes I have posted to their website as well as asking my congress person to ask that it be thrown out, along with E15...


----------



## Ulladh (Jul 12, 2007)

The proposed EPA regulation is to provide best management practices for controlling discharges from recreational boats. I read nothing about prohibiting discharges.

For the bilge; use an oil sock to absorb contaminants in the bilge or if you have a more powerful bilge pump use a filter canister on the discharge.

If your engine is maintained and operated as designed then it will have minimal contaminant discharge. Newer engines already must comply with EPA regulations.

For sink and shower they type of soap/detergent used will be the potential contaminant source.

My marina already prohibits cleaning the hull or deck in water and hopefully will soon be part of the NOAA Clean Marina program. The same logic for marina waters should apply to bay and near-shore waters.


----------



## JKCatalina310 (Nov 18, 2010)

*Still Amazed at some of the resistance*



kd3pc said:


> "need to be technically effective in reducing or controlling discharges, but also will need to be readily implemented by the recreational boat owner."
> 
> Are these not diametrically opposing tasks?


A practice that says, "do not drain your engine oil into the bilge, instead drain it into containers for proper on-shore disposal" meets both of these goals.



kd3pc said:


> How can one control or reduce engine cooling water intake/exhaust and still run the engine any better than the designers?


Maybe the answer here is to set a date, say 2 years in the future, and all engines must be freshwater (aka antifreeze) cooled rather then raw water cooled. To be honest, I am not even sure that there is a reason for this, just answering your questions.

As to the exhaust, maybe mandate some minimum efficiencies on the engines like we do with cars. This probably wouldn't impact most sailors but may impact most power boaters.

And with any of these, you would have to allow for grandfathering of the existing equipment.



kd3pc said:


> Same with bilge water, when the AC condensate line (basically distilled water) dumps in to the bilge...what harm in directly discharging that overboard? Water that passes the packing gland is in fact already sea water, what harm in simply returning it from whence it came?


OK, who is saying that you can't discharge clean water over board? Not the EPA. Only people like yourself who are trying to make an argument that these changes are draconian.

The EPA is interested in discharges that can be harmful to the environment. From the Clean Boating Act:



> Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Recreational Vessels- No permit shall be required under this Act by the Administrator (or a State, in the case of a permit program approved under subsection (b)) for the discharge of any graywater, bilge water, cooling water, weather deck runoff, oil water separator effluent, or effluent from properly functioning marine engines, or any other discharge that is incidental to the normal operation of a vessel, if the discharge is from a recreational vessel.


Most of the things you are complaining about are specifically exempt from being regulated. But instead of reading the act or the request for comments, you complain to your senator to kill the act.



kd3pc said:


> Shower sump or sink discharges perhaps could be separately tanked and treated, but at what cost to the boat owner....and what would it gain?


Again, we spoke of this earlier, but the issue isn't the shower water but what you add to it from the soaps and detergents you use. A management practice that requires any soaps or detergents to be biodegradable and free from things like nitrogen and phosphorus would be reasonable. Also, see quote above from CBA.



kd3pc said:


> Common Sense seems to be missing from their request?


I think you need a little of your own medicine here.

I think part of the issue comes from a fundamental lack of knowledge about how our government works. Briefly. A bill or act is passed by congress (both houses voting separately), then signed into law by the President. That bill, now a law, empowers a government branch, the EPA in this case, to promulgate regulations to regulate what ever the subject of the act was, the discharge from recreational vessels in this case. (Note: the discharge from commercial vessels is more strict in most cases and is still controlled by the original clean water act.) The EPA is now going about creating the regulations that they were ordered to do by Congress. They want our (the recreational boating community's) input on what the regulations should say. Why is this a bad thing?


----------



## travlin-easy (Dec 24, 2010)

kd3pc said:


> Common Sense seems to be missing from their request?


Unfortunately, common sense does not exist with most governmental agencies. Kinda' like the statement "For every dollar of unemployment we pay out, we get $1.50 back." Yeah, I believe that--don't you? 

As for our esteemed senators and congressmen, well you can ask them to do lots of things, but in order to get those things done you need to come up with something they always seems to want and need--cold, hard cash and political power.

I've been to the hearings and got to see what actually takes place. First and foremost, usually less than half the committee members even bother to show up, and those that do show usually leave early. The few that stay sit at their desks reading newspapers, stock market reports, watch You Tube, play video games, etc... They could care less about the testimony you are providing, and if you do begin hitting them with facts, figures and valid statistics, they'll cut you off at the knees by saying "Thank you for your time Mr. Jones, your time is up. Next!" If after your 2 minute testimony they didn't want to hear in the first place you decide to continue on, they'll have you removed from the hearing room by either a plain clothes Federal Marshal or a state trooper assigned to the hearing. If the room is jam-packed with dissenters the committee chairman usually announces "Ladies and gentlemen I must apologize but due to other matters that must be immediately addressed by some of the committee members we must postpone this hearing. We will reschedule the hearing for another date." The new hearing date is then published in the Federal Register, which I'm positive that everyone on this forum subscribes to.

Bottom line: They're gonna' do what they're gonna' do. It doesn't make a damned bit of difference if it's right or wrong, they're just going to do it. If you think for one minute that your testimony, either via email or in person, is going to make a difference, then you still believe in the Tooth Fairy. If your opinion on this matter really made a difference, they wouldn't allow you to express it.

I need a drink!

Gary


----------



## JKCatalina310 (Nov 18, 2010)

travlineasy said:


> Bottom line: They're gonna' do what they're gonna' do. It doesn't make a damned bit of difference if it's right or wrong, they're just going to do it. If you think for one minute that your testimony, either via email or in person, is going to make a difference, then you still believe in the Tooth Fairy. If your opinion on this matter really made a difference, they wouldn't allow you to express it.


Might as well just bury our heads in the sand then.

This is not my experience from working on a lot of changes to the regulations. If your reply is simply "it's too hard, you can't make us do that", then yes, you will be ignored. However, if you actually offer some valid issues and suggest an alternative, you usually get listened too. This is usually for one good reason, the laziness of government employees. If you show them a flaw that is going to make more work for them and then offer a change that will make it easier (for them and you), they will usually take it.


----------



## kd3pc (Oct 19, 2006)

I guess I go with Gary's POV, having attended several federal, State of MD, COV and CBF hearings the last time the EPA got on it's high horse about the "incidental discharge" of water....

and yes JK - they were talking about ALL discharges from the boat. Was asked and answered as the attorneys present told us. 

As to clean water, you are mistaken - Specifically asked "was condensate lines from air handlers, air conditioning systems, ice makers and water makers that drain directly in to a sump"....we were told that would have been prohibited from direct discharge overboard by the EPA, had they had their way a few years back. Their requirement would be that ALL waters to be discharged would have to be contained, filtered and stored for later disposal.

It took quite a while for the EPA reps to understand that recreational boats, nor commercial shipping could function with what they were asking.

JK, I respectfully disagree with your opinions as stated in your last post and I do fully understand how the law making/gov't process works. It is the EPA and other agencies that go and have gone way beyond their delegated authority, with no representation or oversight, to the point of onerous, expensive and often un-implementable plans no matter what the facts are before them.

Perhaps you should do some research on why the MSD report is still sitting on the EPA desks.


----------



## jrd22 (Nov 14, 2000)

There seems to be quite a bit of confusion here. It is already illegal to discharge any untreated sewage from any boat in US waters, and you can and will be fined for doing so. It is already illegal to discharge any oily waste (regardless of the source:sink, shower, bilge) into US waters. If you pump your bilge and there is oil in it you will be held responsible for the cost of cleanup and also fined. That is not the issue being considered by the EPA at this time, that is already the law. They are considering, and from past experience it is more than likely, that they are going to require all recreational boats to capture gray water; sinks, showers, bilge into a separate holding tank and then dispose of at a pump out facility. If it's already illegal to discharge sewage and oil then what are we talking about here, some dish soap from the galley sink(most is bio-degradable now) and shampoo from the shower (would we need to have the cockpit scuppers plumbed to the tank if we use a solar shower?) and clean bilge water. At some point the volume being discussed has to become relevant, and in my opinion (15 years owning a business that prevented contaminated water and hazardous spills from entering the waterways) the volume of gray water from recreational boating is so insignificant that even if 100% (unrealistic) of the gray water was captured it wouldn't make any measurable improvement in water quality (just my opinion, no fact to back that up). Most people don't realize that all storm drains dump directly into waterways, it is not treated at all. Until the billions of gallons of very oily runoff (that the EPA has turned a blind eye on) from freeways, streets, parking lots, etc are addressed I'm afraid I just can't get very serious about an insignificant amount of relatively clean water from some little boats.


----------



## erps (Aug 2, 2006)

I see a future market in easily installed and removed thru hull locks for gray water discharge lines.


----------



## tommays (Sep 9, 2008)

On Long Island only two things shut down the beaches and shell fishing 

1. RAIN

2. SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT FAILS 


The water has never become unsafe for any other reason


----------



## JKCatalina310 (Nov 18, 2010)

kd3pc said:


> and yes JK - they were talking about ALL discharges from the boat. Was asked and answered as the attorneys present told us.
> 
> As to clean water, you are mistaken - Specifically asked "was condensate lines from air handlers, air conditioning systems, ice makers and water makers that drain directly in to a sump"....we were told that would have been prohibited from direct discharge overboard by the EPA, had they had their way a few years back. Their requirement would be that ALL waters to be discharged would have to be contained, filtered and stored for later disposal.


Could you please provide a link so I could look at this answer in context? I think this answer was given during the debate on the CWA that resulted in the CBA.



> It took quite a while for the EPA reps to understand that recreational boats, nor commercial shipping could function with what they were asking.


Absolutely. Thank god we had organizations like Boat U.S. fighting for us. By the way, that fight resulted in the CBA which, as previously stated, exempts many of the discharges you seem concerned about.



> It is the EPA and other agencies that go and have gone way beyond their delegated authority, with no representation or oversight, to the point of onerous, expensive and often un-implementable plans no matter what the facts are before them.


Agreed. But I don't think they are doing that here. I have not seen any indication of that in the request for comments.



> Perhaps you should do some research on why the MSD report is still sitting on the EPA desks.


I have to admit my ignorance but I am unsure what MSD report you are referring to.


----------



## rmeador (Jan 16, 2010)

The CBA _does not_ exempt those discharges from regulation! It only exempts them from the commercial ship regulations. The CBA actually contains language requiring the EPA to come up with a separate set of regulations for those discharges from recreational boats, which is the process that is going on now.

We need to make the EPA aware that greywater holding tanks and permits for engine cooling water are not acceptable ideas. Wasting all the resources needed to refit recreational boats (both the owner's resources and the government resources) for something that will have no noticeable effect on the environment is ludicrous. If we get the ocean cleaned up to such a point that recreational discharges become a significant portion of the remaining pollution (with impartial studies that say as much), then I'll consider regulation proposals.


----------



## kd3pc (Oct 19, 2006)

JK and the group,

the comments about fresh water were made at an EPA hearing in DC about 3 years ago...I have not made an attempt to find a record, if there is one, I nor the attendees were privaleged(sp) to receive one, we did ask and provided email addresses.
.

As to the MSD report it was conducted in April 2007, reported and printed in Jan 2010, it was discussed here and at

NDZ or MSD: keeping waters clean.

The EPA report is linked here, and the Australian report noted as well, although no link was provided.

When approached last summer, the EPA knew nothing about it...yet the document exists on their letterhead...

So much for action, honesty and transparency...


----------



## JKCatalina310 (Nov 18, 2010)

*Convoluted Issues*

OK, I think we have convoluted a couple of issues here.

First, the "ALL discharges" portion. Yes, the EPA initially wanted to regulate all discharges. The statements you quoted from the EPA allude to that. In fact, the CWA actually gave them authority to do that but they didn't pay attention to this until a 2006 law suite. (The law suite was focused on commercial vessel ballast water and the spread of invasive species.) The ruling on that law suite lead to a court mandate to enforce the CWA with respect to boats. The hearing you are referring to is when the EPA began looking at recreational boaters.

We all were upset by this and did not want the EPA looking at all discharges but just the ones with potential environmental impacts. This include sewage, oil, chemicals from cleaning, etc. but did not include clean water (what sneaks through the stuffing box, discharge from ice boxes, etc.). This protest lead to the Clean Boating Act. The CBA is a good thing for boaters. Boat U.S. and other boating advocates were extremely happy when this passed. Without it, we would have to get NPDES permits. I do them for work often and they are complicated and time consuming. They would also require sampling and analysis of the effluent. So instead of costly permits, we will have some best management practices to follow. We are now being asked our input on these best management practices. Please tell me, why is this a bad thing?

To the second issue, the no discharge zones. That is separate from the CBA. Mainly it seems to have to do with the use of type 1 and 2 MSD on boats vs. type 3 (holding tanks). I don't know enough about this subject to really comment. I just went from a port-a-poty to a holding tank/mercerator pump system. I can tell you that I like the idea of the electo san (did before this topic came up) and intend to look into it as an upgrade on my new boat.


----------



## TomandKarens34 (Dec 4, 2007)

Some of you guys are missing the point... Let me make it again, so you parsers of phraseology get the insult these regulations are. Perhaps the forum members also in the NRA can help you out. As with Gun Control, it's not about the guns, its about Control. Lets review some of the current similar sorties into regulation that our Government has implemented for the "greater good". You are prevented from sowing unauthorized seeds in your garden. They must be seeds from "proven government safe" stocks. ( Monsanto ) It is illegal to trade, sell or gift vegetables from your private garden to neighbors and friends. Same thing with eggs from your chickens. Don't get me going on bake sales for community causes. It goes on and on. The BATF and E walked assault rifles into Mexico deliberately, to "prove" that more laws are needed to control this deadly trade. ( Like the 23,000 gun laws on the books already, aren't enough. ) Meanwhile the Government is ignoring the border, allowing millions of pounds of drugs and tens of thousands of illegal immigrants through. When push comes to shove, these discharge regulations are window dressing for an incompetent government. Enforcement will be the same. Insane. As with the "heath care" reforms, the big guys who find the regulations inconvenient will get wavers and the little guy can stand in line and pay the price. Enforcement will be asymmetrical, catastrophic, and with the full glare of publicity for the unfortunate victim singled out for prosecution to the fullest extent of the law... Because that's how the sheep are kept in line. Honest hard working people who want to be good citizens will bear the brunt of these rules, which will have no measurable impact, but will cost us dearly, and personally, to implement. I am reminded of the Nazi postal service, which mandated fines and threatened to stop mail deliveries in Berlin in 1945, if the numbers on your house were not as specified in the postal regulations. Of course, they couldn't deliver the mail, even if they wanted to, but if you were still in possession of a house that had walls, you were fined for the lack of correct numbers, even as your family starved and couldn't get paint for the numbers if your life depended on it. So now I have to install a gray water system ? To prevent a tablespoon of spagetti-o's from ruining the bay, when 1.5 million gallons of raw sewage is OK, every time there is a heavy rain ? To prevent 1/2 tablespoon of diesel fuel from going into the bay when an untold number of gallons of oil drain from every parking lot in the city around the bay in that same rain? Nah. Out come the sinks, out comes the shower, the dishes can be rinsed and dried without a problem. Boating will become even more expensive than it already is, and we will go on. Its just like the National Park Service, which has put a wall around the national parks and charges a fee to enter, thus selling us our own forests, that we paid for, by the day. These regulations are costly, abusive, pointless, and unnecessary. They reflect a bureaucracy beyond redemption and beyond sanity. I will write and resist as long as the real environmental abusers continue to pollute with impunity. As long as 50 acre parking lots have no oil separators for their rain water. As long as cities dump 100's of thousands of gallons of raw sewage without so much as a fine, I will resist. I will lean over the side and wash the spagetti-o sauce off my spoon and EVEN WASH MY HANDS WITH SOAP in full criminal non-compliance with another batch of nit-wit wacko enviro-ninny regulations anyone with a drop intellectual common sense would recognize as so much poop. All of us have a stake in clean water. I use oil absorbent pads in my bilge and dispose of them properly. I would be glad to give anyone in my mooring field my extra pads for free, should he need them. I draw the line at salt water passing through my stuffing box being labeled hazardous waste. I resent the implication that a gram of peanut butter will throw a 20 square mile bay into toxic shock. I challenge anyone who claims that boaters like us pose an ongoing threat to the environment in any measurable way. Prove it. Gosh I love a good rant. No offense intended guys. Thank goodness for Boat US too.


----------



## erps (Aug 2, 2006)

> As long as cities dump 100's of thousands of gallons of raw sewage without so much as a fine, I will resist. I will lean over the side and wash the spagetti-o sauce off my spoon and EVEN WASH MY HANDS WITH SOAP in full criminal non-compliance with another batch of nit-wit wacko enviro-ninny regulations anyone with a drop intellectual common sense would recognize as so much poop.


Government treads on thin ice when they pass laws that the public does not/will not respect.


----------



## aaronwindward (Aug 8, 2010)

A lot of the comments in this thread are very confusing to me. As someone relatively new to boating, I was pretty disturbed to find that dumping untreated sink water into the water is pretty much how everyone rolls. I don't understand why anyone thinks the existence of larger or more egregious polluters somehow makes their smaller pollution OK. It seems decidedly unjust to ask major polluters to suffer enormous cleanup expense when one isn't even willing to clean up one's own minor discharges. Honestly, these kinds of excuses "someone else is doing it more" just sound childish to me.

From an environmental perspective, dumping random untreated stuff into the water is just something that needs to stop. Our descendents will one day look back on this sort of thing as a dispicable practice, and wonder why anyone would have continued to dump untreated wastewater when the technology for water treatment was available. I understand that there are a lot of people who don't see how phosphate soap or vegetable oil could cause a environmental problem, but they're going to have to learn, in the same way people learned that it was harmful to take a crap out in the middle of the lake.

What we need are regulations that stand a chance for actually working without causing unfairness or trodding down upon the powerless. I think a good place to start is by making sure boaters have available the facilities to do the right thing. If protecting the environment is anything other than 'easy,' it's just not going to work.

As an example of something simple that makes a massive difference, a marina around here (and I imagine there are tons elsewhere) has a pumpout at every slip. Without something like this, it's just not realistic to be able to capture all of the gray water a normal person would generate just doing simple tasks, like preparing meals, doing the dishes, etc.

I think the key is for go slowly, bit by bit, making sure they have the means to be better before they are actually forced to do so. There's really no call for draconian measures that suddenly ruin everyone's day.

But even moreso, I think some people just need to man up and take responsibility for their share. Admitting pollution is bad, but whining up all of these rationalizations about why they should still be allowed to do it, is just disgraceful. Honestly, if the boating community can't get it together and shape up, there are going to be much worse things coming for it than this little bit of regulation.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

Fantaticism in either direction always causes a debate for the sake of debate and no results. 

Every dog, deer, fish, crab and human has a toxic impact on the environment. The question isn't how to stop it, because you can't bring it to zero, unless you practice ends/means inversion and eliminate all the animals. 

The question is how to contain it to a level that the environment is able to handle itself. I am not opposed to doing our part and follow all our laws, as best I can. No one is perfect.

To get this problem to the correct manageable level, which can't be zero, the focus must be on the big issues that have overwhelmed the environment. Smacking down the small ones only make people feel better (fiddling while Rome burns) and its supposed to be about actually making a difference.

I knew a company in the 80s that was losing millions of dollars per year and one of the things the CEO did to address it was to eliminate free coffee in the lunch room. While directionally and morally correct, it caused outrageous debates, just like this one. It distracted people from doing what was really necessary and the company still went down. If they fixed the real problem, the coffee made no difference.


----------



## tommays (Sep 9, 2008)

Just what do think happens to dishwater at home when it goes down the drain 

It goes right through the sewer plant and out the pipe


----------



## JKCatalina310 (Nov 18, 2010)

tommays said:


> Just what do think happens to dishwater at home when it goes down the drain
> 
> It goes right through the sewer plant and out the pipe


Wow. In accurate and uniformed. I think I am done with this thread if it is degenerating into statements like this.


----------



## tommays (Sep 9, 2008)

Please don't confuse sewer plant theory with sewer plant reality or better yet the lack of a sewer plant altogether because i have enough money to avoid installing one or even put in a modern septic field

In my world the water quality report is BS and i spend a fortune removing the iron that is not there 


















My boat oh wait i dont have a water tank to make gray water

Rich guys house by my mooring with 1950s septic system 


















Which ones doing the dammage


----------



## rmeador (Jan 16, 2010)

aaronwindward, the small amount of pollution is OK because the environment can handle some amount of pollution, as Minnewaska already said. Common sense and the available scientific evidence (which, granted, is sorely lacking, which is why we have common sense) suggests that water discharged in accordance with existing regulations from recreational boats poses a virtually nonexistent threat -- just like the natural waste from all living things.

Allow me to try my hand at an analogy. You're sailing along in your boat and you get hit by lightning. It blows some holes in your hull. There are a few of large holes, through which water is pouring at many hundreds of gallons per minute. There are many, many pinholes through which water is cumulatively pouring in at about 1 gallon per minute. Which hole(s) do you prioritize your damage control efforts on? If you're like most people, you will realize that if you don't patch the big holes, you will lose the ship, and thus you will put your efforts there. If you patch the small holes first, it will make some immeasurably small difference, but it won't save your ship. If you successfully patch the big holes, your bilge pump can easily keep up with the small remaining leak, so while it might be nice to patch the pinholes too, it's not a priority. Add to that the amount of time, effort, and expense it would take to find and patch all the pinholes and you might start to question whether it's worth fixing them at all.


----------



## jrd22 (Nov 14, 2000)

erps said:


> Government treads on thin ice when they pass laws that the public does not/will not respect.


Good point Ray. Also, when unpopular laws are passed without an effective way to enforce them (prohibition?) it creates a mindset where people decide for themselves which laws they will and will not obey and, over time, becomes their attitude toward all/most laws.


----------



## aaronwindward (Aug 8, 2010)

Minnewaska said:


> To get this problem to the correct manageable level, which can't be zero, the focus must be on the big issues that have overwhelmed the environment. Smacking down the small ones only make people feel better (fiddling while Rome burns) and its supposed to be about actually making a difference.





rmeador said:


> aaronwindward, the small amount of pollution is OK because the environment can handle some amount of pollution, as Minnewaska already said. Common sense and the available scientific evidence (which, granted, is sorely lacking, which is why we have common sense) suggests that water discharged in accordance with existing regulations from recreational boats poses a virtually nonexistent threat -- just like the natural waste from all living things.


It is my understanding that that last statement is not true. There are/were a lot of people who think that small black water discharges, small amounts of plastic waste, and small oily discharges are not harmful; with respect, they are wrong. But today, people understand this a lot better than they did 40 years ago.

Part of the issue here is people just need to learn. A sinkful of soapy water will cause measurable harm to the ecosystem around where it is discharged. Any nutrient in the soap (eg phosphates) will cause overgrowth of some organisms, and any antibacterial agent will hurt others. And any general nastiness is just going to contribute to the general nastiness of the area. I'm sure I'm not the only one whose boat is in a marina with a film of grossness that builds up inside the slips.

It is completely true that the environment can "handle" a small amount of pollution. It can also handle a large amount of pollution, or pretty much any level of pollution, as long as people are willing to accept the consequences. My point is that even small amounts of pollution still have consequences; again, just look into the water around your marina. Or ask an environmental engineer or scientist who has studied this sort of thing.

Contaminated water pretty much just needs to be treated. That's the only sustainable way for society to control the levels of pollutants being released in a way that makes sense. Most of the general nastiness that's in graywater will be removed by the treatment process. Why should we sit around and pollute the environment, when by simply getting pumpouts at the slip, and graywater tanks, we can avoid it?

If you aren't interested in protecting the environment for altruistic purposes, then perhaps you'll consider it for your own self-interest. If boaters don't clean up their act, they will continue to experience more and more exclusion from ecologically-sensitive zones-as they should. It's particularly tragic for sailboats, because their low-impact propulsion well-positions them for alliances with environmental interests. But if sailboats are going to show up and dump graywater, they'll be no more welcome than motorboats. And the time may soon come when even marinas are hard to find, as new construction is blocked due to environmental concerns.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

Once you've pumped out the gray water, what do you expect to do with it? I suspect it will go into an environment somewhere. Just not the one you care about most? This makes little sense.

The requirement for biodegradable low impact soaps makes sense.

All animals cause some amount of pollution, which has an impact on the environment. I will have to track down a marine biologist to estimate the amount of fecal matter and urine that is currently being placed directly into our Bay by the marine life. Have you ever had a fish tank and seen how these accumulate? The fish would die if you didn't filter it.

The extension of fanaticism on this issue if for all animals to discontinue using the environment altogether. The fact is that animals and the environment must remain in balance, which is different from zero impact. It is certainly not today and the big issues should get our creative energy. These debates over the infinitesimal issues are getting in the way of the real solution.


----------



## kd3pc (Oct 19, 2006)

"is blocked due to environmental concerns."

I guess this is the part that bothers me most...about the EPA, small uses of water to wash dishes, and the like. 

Even the science of dumping Poo over shows that it's main product quickly breaks down (see NE NDZs that are more polluted now with Poo, than when not) but it is not a nice, refreshing, process. It provides food for the bottom dwellers, etc. It is the CHEMICALs from run off and other non-boat sources that do the real damage.

It is NOT out of environmental concern that these things take off....It is some organization/person that KNOWS more about boating (NOT), that wants to paint the lot of us with some broad brush of organization, control, knowledge (theirs), falling in line, doing the right thing and a host of other politically motivated goals.

It is the same with whale wars, manatees, polar bears - all the savior organizations. They do nothing to HELP, just support the organization. Even the CBF, with their multi million dollar headquarter jutting out over the water....Just YOU try and a build a residence over the water or get a permit for a pier or bulkhead.


Environment, it is NOT about...or they would be picketing sewage treatment plants. It is about imposing a small majorities WILL, upon some one else for the "perceived" greater good......NOT!


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

I'm also imagining all the fossil fuels that are burned to cart the gray water away and to run the pump out vessel, not to mention the plastic holding tanks that are created. Despite their negative impact on the environment, the funding for all of this could have been directed toward a seriously greater outcome.


----------



## tomperanteau (Jun 4, 2009)

You are all missing the greatest threat to the oceanic environment - the fish. We need to start regulating the fish and how much waste they produce. It's those nasty fish that are to blame. They produce an untold amount of waste and discharge it directly into the oceans.


----------



## erps (Aug 2, 2006)

> Contaminated water pretty much just needs to be treated. That's the only sustainable way for society to control the levels of pollutants being released in a way that makes sense. *Most of the general nastiness* that's in graywater will be removed by the treatment process.


so not all of the general nastiness is removed then?


----------



## jrd22 (Nov 14, 2000)

I have to admit that I am truly shocked, amazed, dismayed(?) that any boaters that have first hand experience with the minuscule amount of gray water that is generated on the average size sailboat would be for a regulation requiring tanks to be retrofitted to all boats. I still stand by my earlier statement that even if all gray water from all recreational boats was contained and transported to a treatment facility there would be NO measurable difference in water quality anywhere.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

erps said:


> so not all of the general nastiness is removed then?


If we use fully biodegradable soap to shower (which I do), I'm still waiting to hear what nastiness is in the gray water that isn't introduced when I dive off the transom to swim. That will probably be banned too.


----------



## JKCatalina310 (Nov 18, 2010)

*Phosphates, nitrates and sulfates to name a few*

Check the bottles of your soaps to see if they have any of these. They can cause algae and bacteria increases locally. Those increases can result in a oxygen deprive environments that result in fish kills and marine dead zones.

Also, the term "biodegradable" is extremely misleading. All that it means is that it is capable of degrading through natural bacteria processes. But this does not take into account the half life (how long it will take those natural processes to reduce the concentration by half) of the chemicals. Many of the chemicals sold as "biodegradable" have half lives of thousands of years.

None of this even includes the aspect of the toxic nature of some of these contaminants. Copper for instance needs to be in huge quantities to be toxic to humans but is toxic to benthic organisms (clams, mussels, copapods, etc.) in the parts per trillion range.


----------



## travlin-easy (Dec 24, 2010)

jrd22 said:


> I have to admit that I am truly shocked, amazed, dismayed(?) that any boaters that have first hand experience with the minuscule amount of gray water that is generated on the average size sailboat would be for a regulation requiring tanks to be retrofitted to all boats. I still stand by my earlier statement that even if all gray water from all recreational boats was contained and transported to a treatment facility there would be NO measurable difference in water quality anywhere.


John,

I agree 100-percent. I'm equally amazed that anyone with a grain of common sense would not consider why these bodies of water are so polluted. Look at the Chesapeake and Delaware bay watersheds. It's a growing, quivering, mass of humanity that continues to grow at a far greater rate than our resources can possibly support. And, every time there is a newborn baby created, which is several each minutes, that child poops and pees into Chesapeake and Delaware bays. And, it will continue to do so for the next 70 to 90 years on average. During that 3/4-century period that baby will be directly and indirectly responsible for producing another batch of babies, possibly as many as 20, that will do the exact, same thing--poop and pee in the waterways.

I suspect if you took all of the gray-water generated by all of the boats, both sail and power, that utilize Chesapeake and Delaware bays, and it's major tributaries, the volume of untreated wastewater entering the waterway would not equal 1/1000 of 1-percent during an entire year of what the city of Baltimore or Philadelphia dumps in a single minute. In fact, having watched what comes down the discharge canal at Blue Plains on the Potomac near D.C., I seriously doubt that all of the boats in both bays could come close to what is discharged there every minute of the day.

I wrote an article many years ago in the Washington Post about the ribbon cutting ceremony at Blue Plains Wastewater Treatment Plant when the first, major update was completed. The water volume flowing from the discharge canal was a fraction of what it is today, and at the time the multi-million dollar upgrade was heralded as a role model for the world to follow. The water from the plant was relatively clear with just a slight, green tinge. Within a few months the Potomac's aquatic grasses began to emerge and the river's water quality dramatically improved.

Today, the water flowing from the canal is dark gray most of the time, the grass beds are gone, there are health warnings about touching the water and while there are still fair numbers of fish swimming in the waters near the nation's capitol, they are heavily contaminated with a chemical cocktail that causes tumors, infections, and a host of other maladies that eventually kill the fish. Imagine what would happen if you were dumb enough to consume one of those fish for dinner.

I guess the best way to look at the EPA's proposal is it's like removing a speck of fly-poop from a mountain of pepper--it won't make a bit of difference. But, you can bet your a$$ that it's going to eventually cost the taxpayers a bundle. Better get out the KY Jelly--here comes the EPA.

It's 5-O'Clock Somewhere,

Gary


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

JKCatalina310 said:


> Check the bottles of your soaps to see if they have any of these.


None in mine. Am I good now?

I suspect not.


----------



## wkinsey (Jul 7, 2000)

*The ultimate irony*

Sometimes the efforts of our government to micromanage every citizen leave me so stunned that it is hard to come up with a comment. I have always remembered a trip from the Bahamas to Miami, during which we were boarded and our head/holding tank system thoroughly inspected by some Coasties driving a very expensive ship. Two hours later we entered Government Cut to observe the entire northern half of Biscayne bay brown and foamy with untreated sewage which had escaped the 6ft diameter underwater pipe carrying it to the 2ndary treatment station on Key Biscayne(result of a poorly aimed piling driver). The papers said millions of gallons of untreated sewage entered the bay over a 1--2 day period.
If our govt could bring themselves to focus their efforts on the largest environmental threats (maybe by protecting large diameter sewage pipes) instead of driving a multimillion dollar boat to inspect two old people on a sailboat), the environment would be much better off.
BK (Rejoice)


----------



## jrd22 (Nov 14, 2000)

Minnewaska said:


> None in mine. Am I good now?
> 
> I suspect not.


I hear the gov. is handing out waivers left and right these days, oh wait, wrong thread.


----------



## CapnBilll (Sep 9, 2006)

Once apon a time there where three types of MSD's on recreational vessels. Type 1 type 2, type 3. Type 1 & 2 treat waste before discharge. Now there is only type three, which is a holding tank that does NO treatment, or a Y valves which also does NO treatment. WHY? Because the regulations of type 1 & 2 are SO complex and expensive, most of us would not even consider it.
This is the eventual result of ALL Government regulations to date. The big guys, (I.E. the cruise ships & freighters), can either 1. just pay the fines as a business expense, and deduct from taxes, 2. Install the big expensive machines, also as a tax deductible expense, or 3. Just buy a congressman, or EPA official and get a waiver. 

Back to MSD's, I think it would be better if the laws encouraged boaters to get the best MSD they could afford, and reward those who make the effort to comply by relaxing and extending the areas the more advanced MSD's are allowed to discharge, and making a proportunal fine for having the least effective system. Instead we have the system we have today which is ALL OR NOTHING. 
Worried about the chemicals in shampoo? Regulate the manufacturer not me. I can't control what is in my shampoo, and frankly some of it worries me.
The end result of these regulations is, ...You want to take a boat to a tropical destination??? Book a cruise liner, or take a plane.


----------



## chrisncate (Jan 29, 2010)

I recorded the entire event, here it is:


----------



## travlin-easy (Dec 24, 2010)

Chris,

Thanks for taping the hearing. Like I said earlier, it's quite similar to the many, many hearings I covered as a reporter. The EPA has already made up their mind and the hearings are nothing more than an appeasement process.

Thanks again,

Gary


----------



## SlowButSteady (Feb 17, 2010)

travlineasy said:


> Chris,
> 
> Thanks for taping the hearing. Like I said earlier, it's quite similar to the many, many hearings I covered as a reporter. The EPA has already made up their mind and the hearings are nothing more than an appeasement process.


It sounds like _someone_ has made up his mind.


----------



## TomandKarens34 (Dec 4, 2007)

The EPA control system is a sure thing. It is the true face of those who want to rule us. It is a vicious, arrogant and voraciously greedy face, full of disdain and contempt for our freedom and the rights of citizens. It is in its bones anti-Democratic and anti-American. It will do whatever it takes to take and keep power; it will break any law and crush any opponent if it can. In the long run it will end in ruin for us all. Even for the bureaucrats and their mission. The Government makes nothing. It generates no value. It can give nothing that it hasn't taken from someone else. This is nothing but the same old formula, where the bureaucrats stand between us and Liberty, with a gate, where they will charge us a fee, to solve another "problem" that they haven't had to prove even exists! Its not the principle of the thing, its the money. Perhaps the saddest thing, is the debate here on the EPA's legitimacy. The passive acceptance of the necessity of the bureaucracy. I just don't buy it. I predict in future, that in order to sail, you will have to have government certification of sailing skills, perhaps 40 hours of state sponsored instruction, a state inspected and licensed boat, and a personal sailing license. Learning to sail in a beat up dingy with some friends will be as quaint a concept as a log cabin. The sailors will suffer, the sport will suffer, the marinas will suffer, and sailors will be reassured, the ones who do jump through the hoops, that their skills, hard won and hard paid for, have some form of extra legitimacy.


----------



## kd3pc (Oct 19, 2006)

Yep,

EPA mandated "fee" for gray water/sink discharge
same for shower sump,
then a "usage fee" for number of engine hours run X gallons of water moved from spot A to spot B...mildly warmer water MAY hurt some obscure drug pollution in the water.
"invasive species" fee
bottom paint fee, old paint disposal fee, cleaning fee, sloughing off fee
rain water "runoff" fee (Kind of like CBF impervious surface fee) for that water that runs through the scuppers, just in case some bird poo or duck footprint was on the boat, before the rain
boat washing fee, added chlorinated water to the creek fee

Cost of "recreational boating yearly permit" - Priceless

and on and on....meanwhile the city of Baltimore pumps 1,000's of gallons of RAW sewage a day in to the river and the Bay....the Purdue's and Tyson's continue to dump TONS of nitrogen full manure in to the creeks, wetlands and the BAY...the citizens of the 5 state watershed of the BAY dump tons of medicinal chemicals and treat their yards with chemicals that NONE of the sewage treatment plants even look at, let alone remove or treat...

EPA needs to go NOW!


----------



## travlin-easy (Dec 24, 2010)

Anyone that sincerely believes the EPA has your best interest at heart should read Steve Milloy's "Green Hell." In fact, I think it should be mandatory reading for grade school children as well. If you have not read this book, you can find it at Amazon. I purchased it when it first came out and have read it twice.










Gary


----------



## Fstbttms (Feb 25, 2003)

Jeezus. The right-wing wackos have really run away with this thread. Shame, 'cause it started off as a pretty coherent discussion of the issue.


----------



## kd3pc (Oct 19, 2006)

Fast...

just what are you going to do when your business is legislated - toxic/hazardous or simply gone? Can you afford to "change with the times"?

All that stuff you scrape, and the paint that goes with it, will soon not be allowed to be done without haulout, diaper, containment, etc...

Seen it happen in drag racing..as a "little guy" try buying nitro - from the one supplier who plays well with the Feds...the market went from many suppliers to ONE in less than 6 months and the price quadrupled when DHS got involved, yet how many drag racers have built the alleged bombs that DHS says they have found..


whacko - sure, right wing - don't think so...just an independent, common sense point of view


----------



## jrd22 (Nov 14, 2000)

Sorry to have to break it to you Fst, but those who you are trying to label (lame attempt to discredit someone you don't know) right wing wackos are just mainstream Americans that love our country. In case you missed it, last November's election clearly demonstrated that we "wackos" (majority of voters) have had enough of big government, fiscal mismanagement and overregulation. Myself, and many others, want our country to return to what made it great in the first place; innovation, hard work/reward, etc. If that makes all of us wackos so be it.


----------



## Fstbttms (Feb 25, 2003)

kd3pc said:


> Fast... just what are you going to do when your business is legislated - toxic/hazardous or simply gone? Can you afford to "change with the times"?


It's a possibility that in-water hull cleaning could be regulated out of existence, sure, and it's a scary thought for someone in my business. But that's why I joined the California Professional Divers Association- to learn about the issues, follow Best Management Practices and get involved with the regulatory process in my state. We're here to help guide the government and industry towards solutions that satisfy the EPA, CWA, boat owners and hull cleaners.

In California, it seems as if the Department of Pesticide Regulation is going to reduce the allowable copper content and release rates for copper-based anti fouling paints, in an attemp to meet federally mandated water quality criteria for copper. That's if the state legislature doesn't ban copper first with SB 623. Either of which would be fine with me.

SB 623 (Kehoe): Copper in marine paint.


----------



## Fstbttms (Feb 25, 2003)

jrd22 said:


> ...right wing wackos are just mainstream Americans that love our country.


Queue the National Anthem...:laugher

I'm sorry, jrd22, but *this* is pretty wacko-



TomandKarens34 said:


> The EPA control system is a sure thing. It is the true face of those who want to rule us. It is a vicious, arrogant and voraciously greedy face, full of disdain and contempt for our freedom and the rights of citizens. It is in its bones anti-Democratic and anti-American. It will do whatever it takes to take and keep power; it will break any law and crush any opponent if it can. In the long run it will end in ruin for us all.


Like the EPA or not- it is certainly not the going to destroy the sport as depicted above. That's just ludicrous.


----------



## travlin-easy (Dec 24, 2010)

Nope, they won't destroy the sport--they'll just make it nearly impossible for you and most other folks in this nation to participate. Right wing, wacko? Surely you jest. How many hearings have you testified at? How many have you attended at all? Personally, I've been to hundreds during the past 4 decades, and I can assure you that no one is better at double-talk than the feds. Of course, most got their double-speak training at the state level as senators, delegates, mayors, councilmen, governors, etc... If you think you've never heard a straight answer to a question from your of your state or federal representatives, try attending one or more of the upcoming hearings and ask some hard, tough questions. It puts an entirely new meaning to sidestepping, a dance they all know very well--especially in Maryland and California.

It's 5 O'Clock Somewhere! 

Gary


----------



## kd3pc (Oct 19, 2006)

"especially in MD"....

since they "own" the water right up to the VA shore....it really irritates those of us in VA, when our rights to the pursuit of happiness are sold down the river by the likes of the MD politicians who have proven over the years they have NO clue about boating....

before you jump, I am not saying VA politicians are any better, but at least I can make a comment about VA, in VA...and I have some degree of representation. The EPA is not representative of any one, state or fed...yes, chartered by Congress, but running amok for decades, and has the damage and ignorance of science to prove it.

As a VA citizen, I can not even comment or speak at a MD/EPA hearing, been there, done that, even escorted out and off. Maybe it changed in the last year or so..?


----------



## Fstbttms (Feb 25, 2003)

travlineasy said:


> If you think you've never heard a straight answer to a question from your of your state or federal representatives, try attending one or more of the upcoming hearings and ask some hard, tough questions. It puts an entirely new meaning to sidestepping, a dance they all know very well--especially in Maryland and California.


I have never personally testified at, or attended, an EPA hearing (although the CPDA, of which I am a board member, did vote as a member of a Senate committe on the Clean Boating Act in 2008.) But I have participated in plenty at a more local level, from the Regional Water Quality Control Board on down. Yes, it's frustrating to deal with beaurocrats whose only raison d'etre seems to be to have more meetings and hearings. But that's the way the system works. And I'd hate to see the state of our water and air quality if industry and individuals were left to their own devices. The EPA serves an important purpose and overall, is a good thing, IMHO.


----------



## kd3pc (Oct 19, 2006)

"The EPA serves an important purpose and overall, is a good thing, IMHO."

then why are they still sitting on the MSD report from 1997...it has been printed and we have been told that it was on the way...

Yet it has still not been released.

Similar stories on many of their pet projects, where the science and their own contractor's results differ greatly from the political agenda they harbor.

Need I even say the ethanol debacle....EPA and good should never be used in the same sentence, let alone adding recreational boating to it.

Name one thing the EPA has done good for recreational boating....


----------



## Fstbttms (Feb 25, 2003)

kd3pc said:


> Name one thing the EPA has done good for recreational boating....


Well, clean water to recreate in is important to recreational boaters, yes? I know it's important to me, especially since I earn my living in it. I'd say the EPA has had some part in improving the water quality in our waterways over the years. I'm not saying this government agency is perfect, but I think we'd be in worse shape if it didn't exist.


----------



## TomandKarens34 (Dec 4, 2007)

"But that's the way the system works." Fstbttms, Please, try to walk in to the DMV and just request a motorcycle license. I did in 1972 and got it. Just for asking. Bike ownership declined by around 20% when the laws got tighter.


----------



## chrisncate (Jan 29, 2010)

kd3pc said:


> "especially in MD"....
> 
> since they "own" the water right up to the VA shore....it really irritates those of us in VA, when our rights to the pursuit of happiness are sold down the river by the likes of the MD politicians who have proven over the years they have NO clue about boating....
> 
> ...


You could have spoken at this event, as this was one of two listening events regarding this issue, and it was open to all citizens regardless of which state they live in.


----------



## tomperanteau (Jun 4, 2009)

TomandKarens34 said:


> The EPA control system is a sure thing. It is the true face of those who want to rule us. It is a vicious, arrogant and voraciously greedy face, full of disdain and contempt for our freedom and the rights of citizens. It is in its bones anti-Democratic and anti-American. It will do whatever it takes to take and keep power; it will break any law and crush any opponent if it can. In the long run it will end in ruin for us all. Even for the bureaucrats and their mission. The Government makes nothing. It generates no value. It can give nothing that it hasn't taken from someone else. This is nothing but the same old formula, where the bureaucrats stand between us and Liberty, with a gate, where they will charge us a fee, to solve another "problem" that they haven't had to prove even exists! Its not the principle of the thing, its the money. Perhaps the saddest thing, is the debate here on the EPA's legitimacy. The passive acceptance of the necessity of the bureaucracy. I just don't buy it. I predict in future, that in order to sail, you will have to have government certification of sailing skills, perhaps 40 hours of state sponsored instruction, a state inspected and licensed boat, and a personal sailing license. Learning to sail in a beat up dingy with some friends will be as quaint a concept as a log cabin. The sailors will suffer, the sport will suffer, the marinas will suffer, and sailors will be reassured, the ones who do jump through the hoops, that their skills, hard won and hard paid for, have some form of extra legitimacy.


Well-stated.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

I simply can't understand how anyone could begin to defend shower or sink water with properly bio-degradable soap being held aboard. Particularly, when you could bring the tank home, dump it down the drain and it would head *directly* back to the Bay, LEGALLY. For goodness sake, the municipalities *add chlorine* to their discharges!


----------



## JKCatalina310 (Nov 18, 2010)

*Getting far afield*



Minnewaska said:


> I simply can't understand how anyone could begin to defend shower or sink water with properly bio-degradable soap being held aboard. Particularly, when you could bring the tank home, dump it down the drain and it would head *directly* back to the Bay, LEGALLY. For goodness sake, the municipalities *add chlorine* to their discharges!


No one, not a single post on this thread that I can find, has advocated *NO* discharges from boats. The "pro" side of this debate has been for not discharging black water and taking reasonable steps to make gray water better (i.e. less impacts from items like chlorine, nitrates, nitrite, phosphates, copper, etc.).

Also, most municipalities (at least in Mass and RI) *dechlorinate *the water prior to discharge into the bays. This is a standard part of a treatment works. Go back and read some of the postings on this thread. There is a link to the Deer Island facility that explains the treatment process.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

JKCatalina310 said:


> No one, not a single post on this thread that I can find, has advocated *NO* discharges from boats. The "pro" side of this debate has been for not discharging black water and taking reasonable steps to make gray water better (i.e. less impacts from items like chlorine, nitrates, nitrite, phosphates, copper, etc.).
> 
> Also, most municipalities (at least in Mass and RI) *dechlorinate *the water prior to discharge into the bays. This is a standard part of a treatment works. Go back and read some of the postings on this thread. There is a link to the Deer Island facility that explains the treatment process.


The original post talks about the EPA being "hell bent" on regulating discharges from sinks and bilges. Not black water.

No one is arguing with holding black water aboard, most places are already regulated to that effect. To be clear, the issue that started this thread is exactly about holding gray water, not simply reducing its impact.

I will check into the municipal treatment on Narragansett Bay again. I recall their being two different types, primary and secondary. I have a suspicion that you refer to secondary and most is discharged as primary. I could be wrong.


----------



## JKCatalina310 (Nov 18, 2010)

Minnewaska said:


> The original post talks about the EPA being "hell bent" on regulating discharges from sinks and bilges. Not black water.
> 
> No one is arguing with holding black water aboard, most places are already regulated to that effect. To be clear, the issue that started this thread is exactly about holding gray water, not simply reducing its impact.


OK, there is a distinct difference between _regulating _and _prohibiting_. As I have pointed out before, the CWA gave the EPA the authority to *regulate all discharges* to water bodies within the US. This included discharges from *all *boats, as well as industrial processes, sewer treatment plants, municipal stormwater systems, etc.

However, there were much more important discharges to look at first (see list above) and the EPA did not get to the discharges from recreational boats until around 2006. That is when Boat U.S. and other boating advocates did a great thing and passed the Clean Boating Act. Again, the Clean Boating Act exempted recreational boats from permits for discharges and required that the EPA set up best management practices for discharges from recreational boats. That is what we have been asked for our opinion on, the BMPs.

You stated that you "simply can't understand how anyone could begin to defend shower or sink water with properly bio-degradable soap being held aboard."  So I ask you again, where has anyone even said that gray water has to be held aboard?

Let me ask another questions, do you think that the EPA should care at all about what is discharged from recreational boats?

Personally, I do. I have seen too many stupid things on the water that prove to me that most boaters (and I usually mean to really say "most power boaters") don't use enough common sense to allow them to act without oversight. I have witnessed people pumping their tanks out in a popular swimming area while their own kids were still swimming, oil being poured over the side after an oil change, gas being over pumped into dingy tanks to make sure they were completely full, and on and on. So setting up some BMPs to try and curb this stupid behavior is a good thing to me.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

Minnewaska said:


> ....I will check into the municipal treatment on Narragansett Bay again. I recall their being two different types, primary and secondary. I have a suspicion that you refer to secondary and most is discharged as primary. I could be wrong.


That was fun. Of the two largest treatment plants that dump into the Bay, one chlorinates then dechlorinates, the other uses UV disinfection. However, both still dump millions of gallons of solids into the Bay *every day*. Treatment in each of these plants reportedly removes 60 to 85 percent of solids, which leaves the equivilent of millions of gallons of untreated solids.

Of the 33 other treatment plants, its a mix. Ironically, one of the closest to me, Quonset, chorinates about a half million gallons of discharge per day, no dechlorination listed.

Can you imagine a half million gallons per day? From one plant and a small one at that?

I read that there are an estimate 13,000 recreational boats berthed at 109 marinas in the bay. Each one would have to discharge 30 gallons every single day just to equal the discharge from one of the smallest of the 35 municipal plants.

The context for my point is that I would like to see scientific research that recreational boat gray water discharge is even measurable in the context of this pollution, particularly when black water is already eliminated.

Here are some of the links I used:

Save The Bay

RI DEM - List of Certified WWTF Facilities and Officials


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

JKCatalina310 said:


> You stated that you "simply can't understand how anyone could begin to defend shower or sink water with properly bio-degradable soap being held aboard." So I ask you again, where has anyone even said that gray water has to be held aboard?


This is from post number 4 above. I'm sure I would find plenty more. Did you read them?

"It seems reasonable to require bilge water generated by housekeeping activities to be captured"



> Let me ask another questions, do you think that the EPA should care at all about what is discharged from recreational boats?


I've already advocated for the retention of black water and the use of properly bio-degradable soaps. I only object to retaining gray water. You continue to say that no one is suggest as much, which is not true.



> I have seen too many stupid things on the water that prove to me that most boaters (and I usually mean to really say "most power boaters") don't use enough common sense to allow them to act without oversight. I have witnessed people pumping their tanks out in a popular swimming area while their own kids were still swimming, oil being poured over the side after an oil change, gas being over pumped into dingy tanks to make sure they were completely full, and on and on. So setting up some BMPs to try and curb this stupid behavior is a good thing to me.


I've been on the water for 36 years and could count on one hand the number of stupid environmentally dangerous things I've seen. Strangling 17 million recreational boaters for these few sins is ridiculous.


----------



## Goblinfog (Jan 14, 2011)

EPA can plug my sink when they pry it from my cold dead hands.


----------



## JKCatalina310 (Nov 18, 2010)

OK, so looking at the list from RIDEM, of the 20 municipal systems, 18 have either chlorination and dechlorination or UV treatment. The only two that don't are Quonset, as you pointed out, and Jamestown. Those two plants account for 0.9 million gallons of the total 128.2 million gallons discharge. That means less then 1% of discharge in the bay has chlorine, from municipal plants. So, as I stated before, most of the municipal plants dechlorinate prior to discharge.



> The context for my point is that I would like to see scientific research that recreational boat gray water discharge is even measurable in the context of this pollution, particularly when black water is already eliminated.


OK, you are clearly good at Googling stuff, so the fact that you are asking this question surprises me. You have used the save the bay site a couple of times in your arguments, how about reading the water quality section. Here is a section from the Nantucket Boat Basin page that talks about some of the effects. Then you can search on the toxicity of things like copper, phosphorous, nitrogen, etc. and see that in a bay, river or anywhere else but the open ocean, these chemicals can create big problems over the long run.

Personally, the fact that you sail in Narraganset Bay and are opposed to measures that are being taken to avoid a fish kill like what happened in 2003 is astonishing to me. That fish kill was caused by nutrient pollution, just like comes from gray water if the improper chemicals and cleaners are used. In this case it was rain water, but it shows how in bay areas, small amounts of nutrients can have a huge effect on the local ecosystem.

I was going to continue this reply, then I read the one you recently made. I am done discussing this subject with you.

You so badly took this quote out of context:



> This is from post number 4 above. I'm sure I would find plenty more. Did you read them?
> 
> "It seems reasonable to require bilge water generated by housekeeping activities to be captured"


From this well thought out and reasonable question:



> It seems reasonable to require bilge water generated by housekeeping activities to be captured, especially in an MSD no discharge zone. However, how will this affect bilge water generated by a leak? If it is required to be contained, then why bother with a bilge pump?
> 
> What about raw water cooling? Will that be prohibited?


that I no longer feel like you are discussing this in a honest manner.

Also, you wrote this:



> I've been on the water for 36 years and could count on one hand the number of stupid environmentally dangerous things I've seen. Strangling 17 million recreational boaters for these few sins is ridiculous.


to which I call bullsh#t. If you have been on the water for as long as you claim and have not seen more then 5 people discharge their holding tanks or leave the Y-valve open, then you are just not paying attention.

So I am done discussing this subject. I am sure we will converse on other things on this forum, just on on this.

JK


----------



## TomandKarens34 (Dec 4, 2007)

All of us here, treasure our marine environment. There is not one person here who would dump their black water in their mooring field, or slip, anymore than we'd walk into our neighbor's house uninvited and pee on his couch. It is already agreed that the impact of recreational gray water is negligible. The real, and for the EPA, unmanageable, sources of pollution are beyond their reach. The act of explaining to a big coastal city, that they will have to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to duplicate their sewer system and tear up every street in the city for 3 or 4 years, will get them negative press. ( to say the least ) Attacking farmers for their fertilizer use is equally unproductive. ( for the EPA ) We are an easy target. Unorganized, a peripheral group, crazy rich ( Yeah, right ) who are indefensible. They create a problem out of thin air, march in with their fees and regulation template, claim to solve the problem, go home with a new revenue source, and cocktails will be served at 5:00. What's not to like about the system ? This is the same system which assists criminals running guns to Mexico to prove that we need more gun laws in the US. It is a system which rewards endless dickering, in the courts, in the EPA, and on and on, " 'Tis a tale, told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, meaning nothing. I am reminded of the "temporary Tax" on phones, to help pay for the Spanish-American war. Phone owners were a small group at the time. Only about a thousand rich folks, equally indefensible. So it passed. We are STILL paying it. No-one minds the EPA, as long as they actually DO their job. But this seems like arresting Girl Scouts without a retail sales license, when the Mafia operates unhindered three blocks away. Cowardice ? Incompetence ? Laziness ? Greed ? Window dressing ? Show boating ? Probably all of these things. There will be no benefit for anyone, boat owner or non boat owner, from this.
Now, to address the legitimate and real concerns of	
JKCatalina310, who appropriately commented,"I have witnessed people pumping their tanks out in a popular swimming area while their own kids were still swimming, oil being poured over the side after an oil change, gas being over pumped into dingy tanks to make sure they were completely full, and on and on. " 
While I agree, stupid people do stupid things, is the best solution to involve the government ? The people who've run the Post Office ? Involve us in war after war that they can't find a way out of ? Gave us the ultimate pozi scheme. Social Security ? That couldn't balance a budget if it came with outriggers ? Respectfully, I suggest not. Self policing is our most effective and responsible solution. One similar to the ARRL, the Ham Radio organization. It's self policing, the FAA comes in and spanks folks not playing by the rules. There is minimal supervision and the license is $10 for 10 years. This is a "game " I'd be willing to deal with, but that's not how this will roll out. Wrong template, wrong bureaucracy. Mercifully, I will shut up now. I assume the authorities will be publishing their new environmental controls and I'll have to figure out how to implement them. Which means overtime, of course. At least I still have a job, for now.....


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

JK,

That's fine if we discontinue the discussion. I will add a bit for anyone that cares.

The 128 million gallons of chlorinated discharge makes my point sufficiently. I was wrong about the others, but the point of this issue being overwhelmingly a municipal discharge issue remains valid.

I do not see how I took the quoted post out of context. The poster is acknowledging the retention of gray water as a requirement, and therefore questioning other related matters. You continually tried to deny there was any discussion of retaining gray water. There absolutely is.

In 36 years, I've never seen through someone's hull to watch them discharge or open their y-valve. I'm sure it's done, but I haven't seen it. I am as sure that the vast majority of boaters do not do this.


----------



## KeelHaulin (Mar 7, 2006)

Every winter here on SF Bay there is raw sewage discharged into the bay from nearly all of the municipal sewage treatment facilities. Millions of gallons during each large storm system go into both SF Bay and into the ocean off of Ocean Beach. Last week a river of sewage went right down the street in San Rafael into Richardson Bay. A year or two ago, several million gallons of un-treated sewage went into Richardson Bay due to a system malfunction. Last summer a main raw sewage pipe broke on a treatment plant at the mouth of Richardson Bay and it spewed raw sewage for at least one day until they got it patched up. Guess what? Richardson Bay is THE ONLY designated NO DISCHARGE ZONE in the SF Bay Basin. After each event of millions of gallons of untreated sewage input, the water was tested for several days after each event, and declared safe/clean within one week of the discharge. Yet if anyone dumped their gray water into that body of water they would be fined $1000. Makes no sense. Our government is FUBAR and the double standard (the gov can do whatever it wants, while imposing itself on the citizens) is quite visible here. It's tyranny and it's happening right in front of our eyes in so many ways we are all becoming comfortable with and accepting of it.


----------



## tommays (Sep 9, 2008)

For example on Long Island the latest NYS DEC gone wild is going to try and force the few remaining farmers and larger owners to hire a FULL TIME person to keep and eye on the endangered species that might be living on there land FOREVER


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

tommays said:


> For example on Long Island the latest NYS DEC gone wild is going to try and force the few remaining farmers and larger owners to hire a FULL TIME person to keep and eye on the endangered species that might be living on there land FOREVER


I find two reasons to protect species to make sense. First, there is really no need for the impact, as an alternative action would gain the same result and have less impact. For example, we are taught to hike on the path, not trample everything. I still get there, all good. Second, the destruction of the species will materially alter the eco-system, such as fishing out a region and people no longer having a food supply.

The answer too often is, no path at all, no fishing at all. The vast majority of protected species fit neither of these purposes. For some reason, in the billions of years of evolution on our planet, environmentalists all want to freeze it in time and everything must stay exactly as it is right now. That's intellectually limited. I dare say that the human species would not be here if others hadn't gone extinct along the way. What future are we limiting if we try to keep it only like we know it?


----------



## erps (Aug 2, 2006)

> I find two reasons to protect species to make sense. First, there is really no need for the impact, as an alternative action would gain the same result and have less impact.


I used to be firmly in the "save the whale/spotted owl" camp. I'm not so sure anymore. Where I live, we've expended a great deal of resources to protect a particular species of salmon. This particular species is doing better as a result, but I don't think they'll ever come back in their historic numbers, because the environment has changed from what it was 500 years ago. Meanwhile, other species of salmon are doing well. I started wondering why we are spending so much effort on a species that can't adapt well. We're fighting against evolution. The solution isn't so clear for me anymore.


----------



## tommays (Sep 9, 2008)

I was a spring sailing seminal last night and the BOATERS are making the effort to address the water quality issues in Northport harbor (super bad unsafe to swim)

Issue one apparently the Northport Village Sewage Treatment Plant is profoundly inadequate and exceed state requirements every time it rains 

Issue two is the storm drains from the village dump directly into the Harbor without so much as even rudimentary solids screening


----------



## travlin-easy (Dec 24, 2010)

Tom,

I don't believe that any of that will change in our lifetimes. First and foremost, some idiot sat down a couple hundred years ago and decided the best way to get rid of anything was to toss it into a creek, stream, river, bay or ocean and let the currents carry it away. Now, in order for this to happen, someone had to study the situation, make a determination, then obtain the funds from the general population to put the practice in place. 

Now, lets put things in perspective. We bury trash in landfills, which cost a large--not small, fortune, when instead we should be using clean burn techniques to create energy with the same trash.

We use perfectly good drinking water to flush waste down toilets, then the now contaminated water and waste is piped to a wastewater treatment facility that grinds the solids, blasts everything into the air in a large dome filled with UV lights to kill the bugs, then after the big chunks are removed, the now, somewhat cleansed nasties are discharged through a canal and into a slow-moving river.

Eventually, the treatment facility is overwhelmed because more and more people are being created, and every single one of them poops and pees. They also need more and more water to flush that pee down the pipeline to the treatment facility, which removes more and more drinking water from the world's scant resources of clean, fresh water.

Now, a prudent individual would say to themselves, why would I take this perfectly good drinking water and use it for flushing the toilet, when I could be using treated wastewater to do the same thing? Hmmmmm! Same holds true for fire hydrants. I wonder just how many unsupervised teens would be turning on fire hydrants in the inner cities and playing in the water if the hydrants were using treated wastewater from Back River Sewage Treatment Plant?

The supreme idiocy must have taken place when a group of lawmakers, which I frequently place at the very top of the idiot list, decided they could save money by connecting a city's storm drains to the sewage system, thus completely overwhelming the sewage treatment plant every time it rains. Now that was a real brainchild that thought that one up.

Someone posted that he or she thought MOST sailors opened their "Y" valves and let everything flow into the waterways. I seriously doubt that this is the case. Now, I'm confident that some folks do it, but in the scheme of things, the percentage of sailors that do this is probably minuscule at best. The vast majority of us use marina pump-outs, which in many instances is free of charge if we keep our boats at the same marina. Now, the tanks at the marinas are serviced by large, tank trucks, the same guys that also pump out septic tanks. They charge a fee to pump out the marina's holding tank, then haul the raw sewage to an overloaded, wastewater, treatment facility that adds the marina's sewage to the municipal waste, put it through the same process, then pumps it out into the waterway.

So, what does the wastewater treatment facility do with all the big chunks of stuff. Well, I hope you've had your breakfast before reading this. Have you ever watched Mike Rowe's Dirty Jobs on the Discovery Channel? Mike revealed exactly what happens. Someone, who obviously has no, functional olfactory senses, takes the time to separate out the plastic bags, water bottles, and other things that should have never been flushed down the toilet to begin with. They even find diapers, tampons, condoms, you get the idea. All that stuff is removed and taken to a landfill. The chunky turds are then heaped up and allowed to compost, which reduces the mass by a considerable margin. When the turd pile cools down it's loaded on trucks and taken to various agriculture operations where it's spread on fields and used as fertilizer. Now, you would think the wastewater treatment plant would give this stuff away, but no, the farmers must pay for those turds. After it has sat on the fields for a couple weeks, the composted turds are then plowed into the soil and crops are then planted. Of course, if we happen to get a lot of heavy rain between the time the stuff is spread and when the crops emerge, a significant amount will end up washing off the fields, into the creeks, then to the rivers and out into the bays and oceans. WHOOPS!

Now, here's something that will really boggle your mind. Those of us that have resided in the Baltimore/Washington metropolitan area for some time know where our drinking water comes from--a series of reservoirs situated relatively close to those metro areas. When I was 18 years old, the waters of Loch Raven Reservoir were so clear you could see bottom 20 feet beneath the surface. The same was true at Prettyboy, and later on at Liberty reservoirs. The surrounding watershed was completely undeveloped, the tributary streams were pristine and many were so clean you could drink directly from them without fear of dying from a nasty disease. This is no longer the case.

Two factors influenced the water quality at all of the metro reservoirs, the first being unabated development of the lands surrounding the watersheds. Hey, this is prime real estate, land that developers could bulldoze the Hell out of, pave over with blacktop, cut down all the trees, then plant seedlings to offset the destruction of the forested lands. The resulting siltation was, and still is, beyond your wildest dreams. And, the cities utilizing those reservoirs claim the water is just as pristine as it ever was. WHAT?

To add insult to injury, thousands upon thousands of non-migratory geese have taken up residence on the same impoundments. Loch Raven alone has an estimated population of nearly 5,000 resident, Canada geese. You can see massive rafts of them in every cove and on the lawns of the adjacent municipal golf course. These geese are eating machines, constantly munching on anything they can readily digest. And, after that food is digested it's quickly converted to poop. Golf courses spend huge sums of money every year to repair damage to their greens caused by the highly acidic goose poop. But, the greens are the least of the damage. Especially when you consider that each and every one of those geese poops an average of 3 pounds of poop daily--poop that is often deposited directly into the reservoir. Do the math. 5,000 geese = 15,000-pounds of raw, untreated sewage being deposited directly into the city of Baltimore's municipal water supply every day of the week. Consequently, the water at Loch Raven is no longer clear--it's bright green. Then, when heavy rains hit the area, they're transformed to dingy brown.

Here's the poetic justice part of my rant. Some idiot at the EPA is drinking water from a fountain within the hallways of the EPA headquarters building. That water is being extracted from the Potomac River, which is now considered among the filthiest waterways in the nation. Its waters are so contaminated that health advisories have been posted for years against eating any species of fish that comes from the waters of Washington, DC. Upriver, dozens of sewage treatment plants are running at 300-percent over their rated capacity, and all of that is flowing downriver to the Nation's Capitol where it is being withdrawn, treated, and flows through the city's water pipes to buildings such as the EPA Headquarters Building. If the good folks in Frederick, Hagerstown, Cumberland, Point Of Rocks, etc.. don't flush their toilets, there will be no water running though the drinking fountains of EPA Headquarters--think about it!

Now, think seriously about the lunacy of capturing shower water from a sailboat that is used at most 30 times a year. Are you kidding me!

Gary


----------



## kd3pc (Oct 19, 2006)

Just for grins...

there are 877,000 boats owned in the 5 state watershed to the Chesapeake, according to the latest verified numbers by the USCG (2004). DC did not show so I used 20,000 boats owned for them.
PA 350K
VA 245K
MD 210K
DC 20K
DE 52K

lets assume absolute worse case is that EVERY ONE of those boats is on the bay (Note they are not, this is ALL boats, trailerable, conoe, kayak, PWC, etc) AND that every one has a 30 gallon holding tank.....full

that turns out to be 26,310,000 gallons of poo....likely more than a few days worth for most boats, a season for some....but let's just say

26 MILLION gallons...

Now let's look at ONE city on the bay...certainly not picking on Baltimore, but they are consistently in the news, and seem to not be able to make headway on fixing things. DC is no better, Anne Arundel County is as bad, YMMV. VA neither.

Anyway...last week in Baltimore: Tuesday, March 15, 2011
Massive Sewage Spill in Baltimore
When it rains, it pours.

...Nearly 4.7 million gallons of untreated but diluted wastewater overflowed from city sewer lines during Thursday's downpour, spilling down city streets and flooding the lower level of the Penn Station parking garage, a city public works spokesman said Monday.

Six different major sewage overflows occurred in the city, according to spokesman Kurt Kocher, with the largest dumping 4.4 million gallons into the Jones Falls in the 400 block of E. Eager St. near the Baltimore Detention Center...

The total for the day...almost 5MILLION gallons of untreated sewage, it was diluted, though....

Now back to our numbers...if you google Sewage, (Balt, Annapolis, DC, VA, etc) you will find that this is "normal". Now add a small factor for the "upstream plants" that simply settle the solids out ((not filter mind you)...see Gary's description of high tech systems) and dump the rest in to the nearest stream....see Cumberland MD.

Our worst case scenario of ALL registered boats dumping their FULL tanks is but a day's waste by a very few of the land based systems. And when you add the fact that we stupidly spend time and money to pump, truck and dump marina waste back in to the shore side systems for it then to be released back in to the water.

THE RECREATIONAL BOATER IS NOT TO BLAME, just an easy target.

AND before you all jump, I have NEVER pumped or dumped my tanks overboard. Nor would I. I have however pumped out, only to see the septic tank 100yards up the shore, overflow and gurgle effluent out, down the marina parking lot and right back in to the river I just came in....

All the best, and to the EPA and CBF....get your targets in sight and leave us alone.


----------



## tomperanteau (Jun 4, 2009)

kd3pc said:


> Just for grins...


I love these forums. Lots of great information. Thanks for the research and the post!


----------



## travlin-easy (Dec 24, 2010)

what you must also keep in mind is that according to EPA regulations, individual, raw sewage spills of less than 10,000 gallons do not have to be reported. I sure you would be amazed at how many 9,999 gallon spills take place every month.

Gary


----------

