Cruisers Forum
 


Join CruisersForum Today

Reply
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
Old 17-02-2010, 16:35   #31
Registered User

Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Tampa Bay
Boat: Nor Sea 27'
Posts: 202
Quote:
Originally Posted by jkleins View Post
Or you could ask "why carry a big bucket of doo-doo around in a rickety dock cart when you can put it in a nice enclosed smell-free holding tank that you just need to empty every once in a while with a nice suction device." Seems like a no-brainer to me

Jim
I reiterate; No holding tank. No stinky hoses. No through-hulls. No sloshing cesspool that could leak into your bilges. No pump-outs.

If poop must be stored aboard, and it must. It should be stored in small amounts and not in a liquid form. If you don't believe me, fine. You must have never read the threads about holding tanks splitting, hoses coming loose, heads malfunctioning etc.

btw, a five gallon bucket of poop is more than fifty percent cover material and is therefore pretty light. Five gallon buckets also have very tight fitting lids that won't spill even if they fall out of the dock cart.
About that. I would be more concerned about using the rickety carts for a load of expensive groceries than a bucket of poop. You should really talk the the marina management about those.
__________________

__________________
WIKIJAR
knothead is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-02-2010, 17:37   #32
Registered User

Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Out cruising
Boat: Bruckmann 50
Posts: 521
Quote:
Originally Posted by knothead View Post
I reiterate; No holding tank. No stinky hoses. No through-hulls. No sloshing cesspool that could leak into your bilges. No pump-outs.

If poop must be stored aboard, and it must. It should be stored in small amounts and not in a liquid form. If you don't believe me, fine. You must have never read the threads about holding tanks splitting, hoses coming loose, heads malfunctioning etc.

btw, a five gallon bucket of poop is more than fifty percent cover material and is therefore pretty light. Five gallon buckets also have very tight fitting lids that won't spill even if they fall out of the dock cart.
About that. I would be more concerned about using the rickety carts for a load of expensive groceries than a bucket of poop. You should really talk the the marina management about those.
I am sorry. I thought you were being facetious as I was. If you really believe that it is a no brainer that we all should be using compost toilets when probably less then 1% of the population of boat owners actually is then I will leave you with that belief intact.

I will say though that I can make my holding tank as tight as the lid on your 5 gallon bucket. I'm sorry, I couldn't resist.

Jim
__________________

__________________
jkleins is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-02-2010, 18:21   #33
Registered User

Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Tampa Bay
Boat: Nor Sea 27'
Posts: 202
Quote:
Originally Posted by jkleins View Post
I am sorry. I thought you were being facetious as I was. If you really believe that it is a no brainer that we all should be using compost toilets when probably less then 1% of the population of boat owners actually is then I will leave you with that belief intact.

I will say though that I can make my holding tank as tight as the lid on your 5 gallon bucket. I'm sorry, I couldn't resist.

Jim
No problem Jim. I run into the mindset all the time. After all the majority is always right. Right?
__________________
WIKIJAR
knothead is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-02-2010, 19:08   #34
Moderator
 
Dockhead's Avatar

Cruisers Forum Supporter

Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Cowes (Winter), Baltic (Summer) (the boat!); somewhere in the air (me!)
Boat: Cutter-Rigged Moody 54
Posts: 19,750
Quote:
Originally Posted by S/V Illusion View Post
I think your analogy with the UK falls apart pretty quickly when one considers the flushing rate of most of their estuaries vs. that of places like the Chesapeake Bay. Regardless,I know of no one who would like to swim in an area which allows holding tank waste to be direct-discharged.

When you consider the myriad sources of pollution from urban runoff, not easily controllable, rural non-point source runoff which is impracticable to control, combined sewer overflows not economically feasible to control and politicians reluctant to advocate huge tax increases to pay for pollution control, that leave boats which are both an easy and a legitimate target.

This is the real world we live in and economic realities do matter except to those who always want to blame the government blindly for everything they can't fully understand.
That leaves boats as an easy and illegitimate target, if the proportion of pollution caused by boats is so small that this considerable burden produces no measurable improvement in water quality. That was the point. Our burden does zippo for water quality; the point is purely to benefit legislators with propaganda.

Proof of that is the particular measure taken. If they really cared about water quality as the main issue, they would be happy with LectraSans and other treatment systems which eliminate the e coli bacteria to the same standards as an ideal municipal system. That's not really fair, when they discharge millions of gallons and I discharge a couple of gallons, but ok -- I would comply with such a rule as it does at least have some effect. If I am supposed to make even a symbolic contribution to clean water, by cleaning my waste to the same standards as municipalities, and it costs only a couple thousand dollars -- I would do it.

But zero discharge, of even well-treated sewage? That rule is not applied to municipalities. They are not required to store their treated sewage, and have it trucked off someplace else. To impose this on us, which is not imposed even on municipalities discharging millions of gallons -- this is just ridiculous, and over the top -- huge burden, no public benefit --pure manipulation and propaganda.
__________________
Dockhead is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-02-2010, 21:19   #35
cat herder, extreme blacksheep
 
zeehag's Avatar

Cruisers Forum Supporter

Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: furycame alley , tropics, mexico for now
Boat: 1976 FORMOSA yankee clipper 41
Posts: 17,770
Images: 56
Send a message via Yahoo to zeehag Send a message via Skype™ to zeehag
speaking of propaganda---the city of coronado, kali----has a class for the kids in the park near the moored boats under the bridge, the teacher has been heard to be teaching these kids that the ENTIRE reason that sd bay is the number 2 most toxic (not polluted but TOXIC) body of water in the usa is the 78 boats moored off the beach there---lol---despite the 3 navy bases and NASSCO shipbuilding and the airplane mfgrs that used to be there dumping, and the 240,000 gallons of RAW sewage that is dumped out into the bay from CORONADO lol every month.....LOL...seems many of the homes and businesses built before a certain yr have still the open sewer problem that was allegedly repaired many yrs ago lol.....so---how does one go about teaching kids properly and reality oriented facts?? especially when this bs is being passed off as truth??? seems a lot of the pollution is coming from the schools LOL--we even have a pump out service that comes to boats in our bay..
zeehag is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-02-2010, 21:52   #36
Registered User

Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Southern Chesapeake Bay
Boat: Norseman 430, Jabberwock
Posts: 691
Quote:
Originally Posted by jkleins View Post
I am not buying it guys. I live in a little town in the Chesapeake Bay watershed in Shenandoah Valley. Each of the several thousand of us in this little town are paying an extra couple hundred dollars a year to build a new water treatment plant to protect a Bay that few of us use to any extent because of environmental laws passed to protect the Bay. It is not fair to say that no one else is doing anything.

Yea some municipalities are not as good as others at keeping up with the population increases and get overflow of the water treatment plants. Our focus should be on holding them accountable too not using the "but he is doing it too" excuse that never worked in grade school and will probably not work much better now as adults.

Jim
Your "little town" is not the issue. It's the big cities that are more likely to have combined systems that make the discharge from boats truly a drop in the bucket. Why be draconian with the drop, and be lenient with the rest of the bucket? You could triple the discharge from boats (outside of marinas) and you probably couldn't detect it. T

The laws are sufficient as they are. Enforcing what we have on all parties would accomplish more than squeezing boats more than others.
__________________
ggray is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-02-2010, 23:15   #37
Registered User
 
GeoPowers's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Gulfport, MS
Boat: Beneteau 393
Posts: 947
Images: 27
Those saying that Type I MSD's treat to the same level as a WWTP are wrong. The only standard for a Type I is that the effluent fecal coliform count must not be greater than 1000 per 100 ml, and have no visible floating solids.

There are no WWTP's out there I know of that don't meet a bare minimum 200 fecal coliform count per 100 ml. Most WWTP's use more stringent standards that aren't easily comparible, involving oxygen demands, nutrient levels, suspended solids, etc.

Type 1 MSD's effluent can have up to 5 times the count of bacteria. Type II MSD's do treat to a coliform bacteria count of 200 per 100 ml and a TSS of 150 mg/L. Not many of us have these.

The only "fair" way to compare apples to apples is to consider the level of contamination per person per day. Saying that boaters are unfairly singled out is IMO inaccurate when you look at the allowable contamination per person per day.

Is it right that big cities dump raw sewage due to limitations in their systems? Of course not. I remember a while back that Maryland sued Baltimore for environmental damages because of this, didn't they?

I agree with others that non-point runoff and nutrient contamination issues need to be in the forefront. I also think that NDZ's are a another (smaller) step in the right direction.

One thing is for sure, the only way to avoid criticism is to do nothing. And doing nothing doesn't help for the Bay's problems. Maybe I feel strongly about environmental issues because I'm younger than most of you guys, but it irks me when everybody complains about problems, but then everybody complains about the solutions, too!
__________________
GeoPowers is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18-02-2010, 06:38   #38
Registered User

Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: nyc/chesapeake
Boat: gozzard 44
Posts: 273
An interesting paper from the Marine Trade Association of Maryland (MTAM).

A remarkable statistic is the estimated amount of treated waste from marine sanitation devices into the Chesapeake Bay's waters:
"...the amount contributed to the total annual Bay nutrient load would be about .00034 or three thousands of 1% of the annual nutrient load to the Bay.
"


From Marine Trades Association of Maryland

"Maryland Senator Joan Carter Conway has introduced a bill titled Vessels - No Discharge Designation for Maryland Waters. The Marine Trades Association of Maryland fully supports efforts to reduce nutrient loads to the Chesapeake Bay. However, we have cautioned the sponsors of the bill and the press that the measure will not have significant impact on water quality but may have negative impact on some of our members.

Here are some salient points on the topic:

MTAM agrees that anything that contributes to the total nutrient load in the Chesapeake Bay is not good for the health of the Bay. Under current law, it is illegal to discharge raw sewage from a vessel in Maryland. The change to a bay wide no discharge zone would strive to stop treated sewage from boats from being discharged in the Bay. MTAM estimates that of the more than 200,000 registered vessels in Maryland there are about 4,500 that currently have sanitation devices that treat to current EPA standards then discharge waste. We further estimate that about half of those boats have a combination system that includes a holding tank. From that estimate, the amount contributed to the total annual Bay nutrient load would be about .00034 or three thousands of 1% of the annual nutrient load to the Bay.

Implementing a Statewide No Discharge Zone will not come without costs to an already struggling boating industry. The cost to refit boats with Type I or Type II sanitation that do not have holding tanks in combination with them will be anywhere from $500 to $5,000 depending on the size of the holding tank and the difficulty fitting them into the boat. The cost to refit commercial charter vessels, the types used for sightseeing or weddings is estimated to be $15,000-$20,000. The EPA requires that adequate facilities are in place for a State to establish a No Discharge Zone. However, currently there may not be adequate facilities to accommodate large commercial vessels. In addition, for year round liveaboards, there are few if any pump-out facilities open year round. It is our view that the State would have to fund additional portable pump-out facilities for marinas with year-round liveaboards and address the need for upgraded facilities for commercial vessels.

With the absence of any measured success of previously enacted No Discharge Zones, and in consideration of other points cited, MTAM believes that the proposed legislation is unnecessary and will accomplish little. Further it is burdensome and costly to Marylanders. Instead of passing new legislation, we suggest that enforcement begin of existing laws which require zero discharge of untreated sewage and that require boats with toilets to be equipped with approved Type I, Type II, or Type III marine sanitation systems.

In addition, the increase in the violation fee signals that this is an established 'problem' in Maryland. Note that in Maryland the current penalty for manslaughter by vessel is only $5,000 and a fisheries violation is just $1,000. A fine of $10,000 for a violation is excessive and inconsistent with current law.

Finally, as the boater continues to do their part for a clean bay we challenge lawmakers to work to prevent or reduce the nutrients discharged after biological nutrient removal (BNR) processes at all Maryland's wastewater treatment plants, or to take measures to reduce the 1,599 reported incidents of sewer overflow resulting in an estimated 393,006,778 gallons of wastewater reported in the MDE, Sewage Overflows database in 2009. Maryland Reported Sewer Overflow Database

We would encourage instead the State to pass a law that all treatment systems, boats or otherwise, be required to meet the same standard for purity of effluent being put into the bay. If all wastewater treatment systems don't currently meet that standard, then essentially, the boat will be carrying the raw sewage around only to have it pass through a public system with the same result.
How to Contact Your Legislator:

Bill Sponsors can be found at the top of the Bill (link above). We encourage you to contact your either the sponsors or your elected official to let them know of your position regarding a Statewide No Discharge Zone. To find your elected officials use this link:Maryland Elected Officials"
__________________
ronbo1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18-02-2010, 07:28   #39
Registered User
 
speciald@ocens.'s Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: On the boat - Carib, Chesapeake
Boat: 58 Taswell AS
Posts: 1,139
Last Memorial Day in Baltimore Inner Harbor was a smelly mess. A fish kill (algae bloom was accompanied by an over flow of raw sewage into the harbor after a heavy rain. Great "Chamber of Commerce" weekend. All the boats in the Bay that weekend couldn't have produced so much polution. I rememberan article many years ago in Motor Boating and Sailing magazine that suggested that boaters should follow AmTrack's policy and dump their heads on the railroad tracks.
__________________
speciald@ocens. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18-02-2010, 08:06   #40
Registered User

Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Out cruising
Boat: Bruckmann 50
Posts: 521
Quote:
Originally Posted by ggray View Post
Your "little town" is not the issue. It's the big cities that are more likely to have combined systems that make the discharge from boats truly a drop in the bucket.
Exactly my point. Can't the folks in my town who are paying triple the amount they used to for water bills make the same argument as boaters. They are contributing so little to the overall pollution why charge then anything or make them do anything.

So then we get the question of "how much is really an amount that matters." Do you have to contribute 1% or 10% or .001% of the total amount before we make you stop. Maybe if we just make everybody stop we can finally make some progress.

The State is doing what each of us do when faced with a difficult multifaceted problem, pick off the low hanging fruit. With this ruling they can get about 4000 boats to stop polluting. With the runoff rules in place in our watershed area they picked off another 5000 people or so. With lawsuits and other incentives they may get some changes in the larger cities. Over time maybe they can make a difference. Maybe not, but if they don't even try they guarantee they won't.

Jim
__________________
jkleins is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18-02-2010, 22:01   #41
Registered User

Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Southern Chesapeake Bay
Boat: Norseman 430, Jabberwock
Posts: 691
Quote:
Originally Posted by jkleins View Post
Exactly my point. Can't the folks in my town who are paying triple the amount they used to for water bills make the same argument as boaters. They are contributing so little to the overall pollution why charge then anything or make them do anything.

So then we get the question of "how much is really an amount that matters." Do you have to contribute 1% or 10% or .001% of the total amount before we make you stop. Maybe if we just make everybody stop we can finally make some progress.

The State is doing what each of us do when faced with a difficult multifaceted problem, pick off the low hanging fruit. With this ruling they can get about 4000 boats to stop polluting. With the runoff rules in place in our watershed area they picked off another 5000 people or so. With lawsuits and other incentives they may get some changes in the larger cities. Over time maybe they can make a difference. Maybe not, but if they don't even try they guarantee they won't.

Jim
Then I don't understand what your point is. I thought you were disagreeing with the OP's argument, which I happen to agree with.

"Low hanging fruit" implies grabbing an equal sized fruit with less effort. If we want to maintain the fruit analogy, this law is making a statement by grabbing the empty skin of a dried up raisin from a weak tree rather than grabbing a dozen juicy watermelons higher (in terms of political muscle) in a larger tree. Yeah, I know neither grows in trees, but that's the idea.

The point is, it would seem that this is just a feel good law that doesn't do much, but is easier to pass than one that would really accomplish something.

The next step is outlawing grey water discharge from boats. Do you think they will tell people to capture the soapy water from washing their cars?

Will they give citations to homeowners fertilizing their yards?
__________________
ggray is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19-02-2010, 00:23   #42
Registered User
 
SouthernComfort's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Kemah, TX
Boat: O'day 322 "Southern Comfort"
Posts: 85
We probably should also kill all that marine life that pisses and craps in the bay also. My GOD, think of the impact they have to the environment. Don't even get me started with the bird poo and pee.

The law is rediculous. Ill-informed individuals in elected office thinking they are making a difference.
__________________
SouthernComfort is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19-02-2010, 04:58   #43
Don't ask if you can't handle it
 
sailorboy1's Avatar

Cruisers Forum Supporter

Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: On the boat somewhere
Boat: Hunter 410
Posts: 12,312
My little habour in Salem MA IS A NDZ, so It's hard tio be believe that the Cheaspeke Bay isn't given the history of problems (got to protyect those crabs).

But even though I think boats are a small portion overall of the problem, you never are going to win a battle like this one. We all put up with things we don't like for the greater good. If the Bay can meet the requirements of pumpout stations etc I agree it should be a NDZ.
__________________
sailorboy1 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 19-02-2010, 06:15   #44
Moderator Emeritus
 
GordMay's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Thunder Bay, Ontario - 48-29N x 89-20W
Boat: (Cruiser Living On Dirt)
Posts: 31,583
Images: 240
Quote:
Originally Posted by ronbo1 View Post
... This law may give the public the feeling politicians are doing something worthwhile for the environment but it accomplishes little if anything. Instead of discouraging marine sanitation devices politicians should encourage the private sector to make them better. Already MSDs discharge fewer pathogens than modern sewage plants. And when it rains heavily sewage plants often discharge raw, untreated sewage ...
The EPA Marine Sanitation Device (MSD) requirements only address fecal coliform bacteria counts & solids (visible floating or suspended), not nutrient pollution (phosphorus and nitrogen).

According the the Maryland DNR, the most significant threat to the health of the Chesapeake Bay is nutrient overenrichment (eutrophication).

When present in excessive amounts, nutrients such as phosphorus and nitrogen, trigger algal blooms. The algae prevents sunlight from passing through the water column. Aquatic plants suffer as a result. Furthermore, when this algae dies and is decomposed, dissolved oxygen levels can be reduced to the point where aquatic life is threatened.

Boat sewage, whether treated by a marine sanitation device (MSD) or not, contains these nutrients.

While I wouldn’t think that boaters would be a significant source of nutrient pollution overall; boat sewage could present a particular problem in areas of water that do not flush well, and where boats tend to congregate.

Despite the sometimes clumsy & humorous translation (from Swedish), this paper from Zsofia Ganrot (of Melica Environmental Consulting) is well worth reading:

Goto ➥
http://www.innovationsexpo.se/fmmari...FM%20Marin.pdf
__________________
Gord May
"If you didn't have the time or money to do it right in the first place, when will you get the time/$ to fix it?"



GordMay is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 19-02-2010, 06:36   #45
Registered User

Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Out cruising
Boat: Bruckmann 50
Posts: 521
Quote:
Originally Posted by ggray View Post
Then I don't understand what your point is. I thought you were disagreeing with the OP's argument, which I happen to agree with.

"Low hanging fruit" implies grabbing an equal sized fruit with less effort. If we want to maintain the fruit analogy, this law is making a statement by grabbing the empty skin of a dried up raisin from a weak tree rather than grabbing a dozen juicy watermelons higher (in terms of political muscle) in a larger tree. Yeah, I know neither grows in trees, but that's the idea.

The point is, it would seem that this is just a feel good law that doesn't do much, but is easier to pass than one that would really accomplish something.

The next step is outlawing grey water discharge from boats. Do you think they will tell people to capture the soapy water from washing their cars?

Will they give citations to homeowners fertilizing their yards?
Then let me rephrase it. At what point should the pollution be too little to mess with? Should I as a single individual be able to put an outhouse over the creek beside my house just because it wouldn't cause any more harm to the environment then the boaters affected by this law. Why pass a law not allowing me to do that? Can I have it if I just use it once a week since that will even have less effect?

At some point we have to just say that pollution is pollution and we need to stop it at every point it occurs.

I completely agree that this law will not do much but then the law keeping me from putting an outhouse over the creek probably hasn't done much either but I still think it is a good law. There are lots of things we need to do better. This will just be a very small step but if we keep taking steps we may actually move somewhere. Passing this law does not prevent the state from doing other things that may have a greater effect.

Jim
__________________

__________________
jkleins is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
Maryland

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Hello from 'Beyond My Comfort Zone!' m1ke Meets & Greets 17 01-10-2009 10:26
Proposed New Bahamas Fishing Regulations ? GordMay Atlantic & the Caribbean 16 19-01-2007 03:22
Charter sailboat firm proposed for Milwaukee CaptainK Great Lakes 0 11-04-2006 20:08
Proposed World Rally NOvember 2007 swagman Other 0 09-02-2006 10:52



Copyright 2002- Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:09.


Google+
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Social Knowledge Networks
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

ShowCase vBulletin Plugins by Drive Thru Online, Inc.