One More Harbor Dropping Dye Markers in Holding Tanks

[Scott730]

Foggy
I hate to disagree with you but I have no problem with a city or the State of Florida, as an example, putting a dye tab in my holding tank. We all need to be good stewards of our water ways. Far to many do dump and look at our rivers. I don't dump unless I'm 3 miles off shore or I pump out period. Bring on the dye tabs, you won't see any streaking of purple behind my boat.

[UnderwaterA]

If it's brown flush it down. If it's yellow, pee over the side. Avoid the fines and do the right thing. If I see one of yall dumping poo in the bay I grew up in, you should expect a big turd on your tiller in the morning.

[Blue Crab]

Originally Posted by Scott730

I don't dump unless I'm 3 miles off shore or I pump out period. Bring on the dye tabs, you won't see any streaking of purpleout behind my boat.

Ditto. Going 3 miles offshore ain't that risky. Last time I was in Avalon we had to sail across bluish water to get there. Can't dump on the way home? WTF? Sure the cities do a lot of goofy stuff; what's that got to do with us doing the right thing? And yes I have heard that whales poop as well. But my experience strongly suggests whales rarely poop in a crowded anchorage where people are swimming, unlike folks "higher" on the evolutionary scale.

[Pelagic]

As this classic scene illustrates… “it’s no big deal!”

YouTube - Caddyshack - Jaws !

Just kidding!

[foggysail]

There are two sides to the waste management topic. One side IMHO believes nothing should be dumped into the water. The argument that every little bit counts has merit. So why just not end it there??? But there is another side that challenges the simple “every little bit counts” position.

I have discussed my thoughts on this topic in earlier posts. I believe it is necessary to consider what has been done to alleviate harmful waste discharges starting with holding tanks. I did read an earlier post in this thread where a discharge was made in a congested harbor and that was used as an example of the harm discharging does. Well, there should not be discharges in harbors period!!! I have a large holding tank on my boat and it is properly used.

But I want to get back on topic. The three authorized methods for waste include Type 1,2 and 3 MSDs. Types 1&2 allow discharge of TREATED waste (not in no discharge zones) where as the Type 3 limits one to a holding tank with fewer and fewer areas where they can be legally emptied other than via pump out. There are those of us who are willing to install on board treatment systems such as one that complies with Type 2.

From the Coast Guard:
TYPE II This MSD is also a treatment device, but it is certified to provide a higher level of sewage treatment. Because it is larger in size than a Type 1, and generally has higher power requirements, it Is usually installed only in larger recreational boats.


I for one and many others I know would purchase a Type 2 system such as a Raritan Managerm Type 2 (about $3000) which will treat onboard sewage for up to 12 persons/day!! Further, I believe all new recreational boats should be required to have at least a Type 1 system and boats over say 30’ should be required to have a Type 2 system. Mass usage will help lower costs. A Type II MSD is commonly a biological (aerobic digestion) plant.

There is a problem, a major problem!!! TYPE 2 MSDs CANNOT BE USED IN ANY NO DISCHARGE ZONE. I personally believe they should be allowed. I remember years ago as a young electrical design engineer being told to be careful how I specified custom components. The advice was “DON’T TRY TO BUILD A BRICK **** HOUSE.” I believe the environmental groups have pressured legislators to build brick **** houses by imposing unrealistic no discharge areas.

Not only have lawmakers imposed tight restrictions, they have failed to provide adequate pumping stations and many are not free. So you say, heck they should charge but we as boaters at least where I boat pay a lot of tax (about $320/year) for the privilege of putting my boat into the water. We are told that tax is to pay for pump outs and for the harbor master. What harbor master???? No policing of speeders entering the harbor but that is getting off topic.

Free pump outs are available where I dock. They are available on Saturday and Sunday mornings only!!! Now isn’t that just great. A total of 8 pump out hours a week. This folks is part of my issue with government. And because I do not live in the town where my boat is dock I cannot vote against this policy/regulation/law.

Yes, we need clean water but please, lets be realistic. Don’t let environmentalist try to spec a brick **** house with our MSD laws!

Foggy

[Butler]

Foggy...
Environmentalists are not a monolithic group (unless you want an easy target to distract people from any number of other culprits or systemic problems)
and environmentalists are not the only ones weighing in on this issue; there are also property holders and seaside communities dependent on tourism.
I believe allowable discharge here in the U.S. does include chemically treated waste. That allowance seems problematic to me and as an environmentalist I have no interest in discharging poisonous chemicals overboard.
I appreciate the use of tablets when I swim at Avalon but am wary of over-regulating all boaters because of some bad actors. I want to look back over this thread again as I am curious how other countries are approaching this issue.
Cheers!

[fstbttms]

I've said it here before and I'll say it again; I don't come into your office and take a dump on your desk. So please extend to me the same courtesy and do not empty your head or holding tank into my workplace. If you cannot manage your waste legally while aboard, then don't stay aboard. I ratted one of the geniuses here, who admitted to, and defended, pumping overboard, out to his marina and I hope they take some action against him. I would do the same to anybody, even a client (although in that case I would probably speak to the client first.) Too bad if it's inconvenient for you to find a working pumpout station or you would rather not pay a pumpout service. Illegal blackwater discharges are simply inexcusable and beyond that, are a dick move.

[Dame.n.Jess]

What type of chemicals are involved with treated sewage? I think we need more sustainable green political will and to my un-educated mind a non treated pump out is more environmentally friendly than the same thing floating in a big whack of chemicals.

I would love to know more about this as I would like to know what is [U]actually[U] the most eco solution. Also if anyone has any facts on both sides of this argument I would love to see them

[fstbttms]

Originally Posted by Dame.n.Jess

What type of chemicals are involved with treated sewage? I think we need more sustainable green political will and to my un-educated mind a non treated pump out is more environmentally friendly than the same thing floating in a big whack of chemicals.

In the U.S., the types of MSDs that can legally be pumped overboard typically treat the waste to within federally-acceptable standards (a maximum of parts per million and no visible solids) and do not simply discharge a bunch of waste in a cloud of chemicals, as you inferred.

[rebel heart]

I was cleaning a boat the other day and saw the telltale little drift of brown effluent snaking out of a thruhull. It wasn't being discharged on me, but the y valve was open and a wake probably pushed a little bit out that was in the hose.

Just like a lot of land people don't care about taxing boat owners, a lot of boat owners don't care about f'ing up the waters that they don't step foot in.

Soooooo close to getting that composting head, taking out my thruhull in my head, and glassing it in. Maybe I'll install an underwater light. :-)

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by Dame.n.Jess

What type of chemicals are involved with treated sewage? ...

Originally Posted by fstbttms

In the U.S., the types of MSDs that can legally be pumped overboard ...
... do not simply discharge a bunch of waste in a cloud of chemicals, as you inferred.

Chemicals do not play a very important part in most sewage treatment systems, including marine MSDs.

Chlorine is sometimes used as a disinfectant in municipal tertiary treatment plants.

There are three levels of municipal sewage treatment, primary, secondary and tertiary, which provide progressively more effective treatment.

In Canada, only 33% of the population is served by tertiary treatment, the best available treatment, while 19% still have access to only crude primary treatment, the least effective form of sewage treatment. In contrast, in countries like Germany, Denmark, Finland, Sweden and Switzerland, over 70% of the population is served by tertiary treatment.

Primary treatment consists of temporarily holding the sewage in a quiescent basin where heavy solids can settle to the bottom while oil, grease and lighter solids float to the surface. The settled and floating materials are removed and the remaining liquid may be discharged or subjected to secondary treatment.

Secondary treatment removes dissolved and suspended biological matter. Secondary treatment is typically performed by indigenous, water-borne micro-organisms in a managed habitat. Secondary treatment may require a separation process to remove the micro-organisms from the treated water prior to discharge or tertiary treatment.

Tertiary treatment is sometimes defined as anything more than primary and secondary treatment. Treated water is sometimes disinfected chemically (chlorine) or physically (for example, by lagoons and microfiltration) prior to discharge into a stream, river, bay, lagoon or wetland, or it can be used for the irrigation of a golf course, green way or park. If it is sufficiently clean, it can also be used for groundwater recharge or agricultural purposes.

See ➥ http://www.safewater.org/PDFS/resour...rTreatment.pdf

[foggysail]

Originally Posted by Butler

Foggy...
I believe allowable discharge here in the U.S. does include chemically treated waste. That allowance seems problematic to me and as an environmentalist I have no interest in discharging poisonous chemicals overboard.

Cheers!

Butler--

Not trying to "dump" on you but as I read the law here in Massachusetts, you are not allowed to dump anything and that includes treated waste in a no discharge area. That is the problem. It is time to get serious but we need realistic laws that permit proper on board waste treatment systems. Just standing on the hill screaming "hey, nothing goes into my water" won't work. Government NEEDS the support of the people or people will not comply. Remember the 55 mile/hour speed limits??? And cheers to you also!!!

Foggy

[Jerry Woodward]

The boat I chartered in St Martin had no holding tank. So our only choice was to pump directly into the water. I hate discharging into an anchorage, and I suppose I could bag our waste, but I have a feeling I would be the only one. I'm assuming there is no holding tank, because there are no laws to prohibit dumping in a harbor. Do any of the islands have no dumping laws?

I'm wondering if other charter boats in the Virgins have holding tanks, or can we assume that everyone is dumping directly into the harbor?

[Bash]

Originally Posted by foggysail

I believe the environmental groups have pressured legislators to build brick **** houses by imposing unrealistic no discharge areas.

Can you document a single instance where an environmental group has pressured legislatures to deal with MSD regulations? Honestly?

I sit on the board of directors of a national environmental group. I have to tell you that our agenda is far more concerned with global issues than with whether a handful of yachties elect to swim in their own effluent. You guys are so far off our radar screen, as far as pressing environmental issues are concerned, that you haven't even made it to the list of issues we've chosen to ignore.

Most probably, the regulations governing no-discharge zones are being authored by civil engineers doing their jobs to protect water quality. When public hearings are held regarding regulatory change, it's possible that a local environmental group may make a statement either in support of or disapproving the regulation. Indeed, any concerned citizen is entitled to comment on proposed regulations. Beyond that, this rhetoric of environmentalists pressuring legislators to clamp down on yacht sanitation systems is delusional, at best.

In the USA we have something called The Clean Water Act. It mandates reductions in water pollution that have led to many navigable waters that were formerly dead zones becoming places where you can once again swim and fish. If you want to give environmentalists credit for that, I'm certain we'll accept your accolades, but in reality it's been civil engineers that have done the bulk of the heavy lifting regarding water pollution.

If there's something the boating community should be embarrassed about, it's the fact that civil authorities have had to resort to dye tablets to enforce no-discharge rules in crowded mooring fields. Perhaps the time has come for cruisers to look each other in the eye and tell each other that we need to class up our own act. This thread is certainly evidence of that area of need.

[w1651]

I don't understand the problem here. If you bought a sailboat I assume you know how to sail and want to sail.So sail three miles out and dump your tank. A larger holding tank seems to be the fix for a lot of these problems also.
As for the Government being in this I live in the Tampa Bay area. And it is amazing to me how one of our beaches across the bay from a treatment plant always has to be closed after a large rain storm. Not discharging into the Bay are they?