Do the potty police have science on their side?

[Sojourner]

Originally Posted by Kenomac

I’m going to hand you the baton, now you’re the new official CF potty pariah. Carry it proudly, it was fun while it lasted. I’m in Croatia, where are you?

Cheers

Ken

RIGHT ON!! Pariah is something I can do standing on my head...I'll do ya proud

La Spezia Italy for the next two more weeks, then down and left and through and across in late December

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Exile

Except that you still haven't cited any harm -- actual or potential -- arising from your claimed majority of boaters who "do not have our experience, or the same level of concern."

Another poster had a good description of the porta-potty dumping by fishers.

The sort of sailing we do - trailer-sailing and micro-cruising- sort of spans the activities of cruisers, and that of the average weekender. We don't often get to spend weeks or months in a slow, self-contained cruise to remote and beautiful anchorages; like most boaters we have to pack whatever sailing we do into weekends and vacations of a 5-month boating season... which means we're one of many boats on the water, lining up at launch-ramps, congregating at popular spots, beaches or anchorages, filling the marinas, etc. And the harm that I am most interested in minimizing is the fouling of all these high-traffic waterways and spots, if there wasn't a no-exceptions ban on sewage dumping.

But no matter, nobody seems to be advocating for the abolishment of the general 3-mile no-discharge rule that's been around a long time. NDZs, however, are downright counterproductive since they create a disincentive to install onboard treatment systems.

The counter arguments I'm hearing in this thread seem to be implying just that - that dumping within the 3-mile limit should be allowed, especially if you're "treating" your sewage. That's mostly what I object to, as well as the impracticality of having different standards for enforcement.

For those claiming "where's the science?" - it's going to be different for each NDZ, isn't it, so to have that discussion... pick an NDZ.

[Kenomac]

Originally Posted by Sojourner

RIGHT ON!! Pariah is something I can do standing on my head...I'll do ya proud

La Spezia Italy for the next two more weeks, then down and left and through and across in late December

La Spezia and the Cinque Terra are nice. I guess we’ll have to pee together another time. If the potty pariah thing gets to be too much for ya, I’m here.

Cheers

Ken

[james247]

Originally Posted by hellosailor

You need to watch more Star Trek movies:

"Mister Spock, if you wanted logic, you've come to the wrong planet." [James T. Kirk, Captain.]

Hear hear

[john61ct]

Yes most such laws are just political "green" window dressing. City governments are often far worst offenders.

Composting toilets do not fully compost - lets call them separating or dessicating toilets if you prefer - but they do render the solid waste inoffensive without chemicals.

If the quantities are reasonable, there's nothing wrong with tossing it in a public trash can or dumpster.

If a location where you think many boaters are doing so, travel a bit farther afield.

If yours is a massive amount, call the municipal / county waste and ask where the septic pump trucks go.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Another poster had a good description of the porta-potty dumping by fishers.

And how that was presumably illegal & also offensive to that poster and others I'm sure, but not how it harmed the environment.

The sort of sailing we do - trailer-sailing and micro-cruising- sort of spans the activities of cruisers, and that of the average weekender. We don't often get to spend weeks or months in a slow, self-contained cruise to remote and beautiful anchorages; like most boaters we have to pack whatever sailing we do into weekends and vacations of a 5-month boating season... which means we're one of many boats on the water, lining up at launch-ramps, congregating at popular spots, beaches or anchorages, filling the marinas, etc.

Got it. Freshwater, lots of congestion, real or imagined concerns over potential dumping, no 3-mile limit as an option. Maybe it makes sense in such areas or the Great Lakes generally. But why do you want to apply this scenario to boaters with USCG (and EPA) approved Type I MSDs with onboard sewage treatment in huge bodies of saltwater coastal sounds & bays that are tidal?

And the harm that I am most interested in minimizing is the fouling of all these high-traffic waterways and spots, if there wasn't a no-exceptions ban on sewage dumping.

Except, of course, nobody has been able to substantiate any "fouling." I don't know, maybe it makes perfect sense that all of the Great Lakes are an NDZ. But that sounds far afield from what's being discussed here.

The counter arguments I'm hearing in this thread seem to be implying just that - that dumping within the 3-mile limit should be allowed, especially if you're "treating" your sewage. That's mostly what I object to, as well as the impracticality of having different standards for enforcement.

There is effectively no enforcement, so that argument is really a red herring. Enforcement is generally rare, and only then mainly in obviously sensitive areas. (Maybe it's different where you are?). I think most boaters comply because the 3-mile limit has been around a long time, most N. American boats have holding tanks, there are more & more dockside and even boat-mounted pump-out facilities (often free), and in coastal areas they often can easily go out past the 3-mile limit to dump. But having the CG sign off on a Type I MSD that explicitly authorizes an exception for treated sewage (echoed in the EPA regs), only to then have states turn around & prohibit discharge in huge areas of coastal inland waters? Doesn't make much sense.

For those claiming "where's the science?" - it's going to be different for each NDZ, isn't it, so to have that discussion... pick an NDZ.

How about Puget Sound since that keeps coming up and we have some local insight here? RI Sound? Pick any large bodies of inland coastal waters that are already often subjected to treated & untreated municipal waste that dwarfs what could possibly be produced even if every recreational boater on a busy summer weekend illegally discharged. You do realize that much of the sewage from pump-out facilities wind up back in that same body of water -- mostly treated (hopefully) but at times not? For all those who comply and the many who I'm sure don't, it seems more environmentally friendly to encourage the installation of onboard treatment systems in as many boats as possible. Regrettably, it seems pretty self-evident that NDZs have not been throughout through by policymakers and only serve to discourage that goal.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Exile

And how that [porta-potty dumping] was presumably illegal & also offensive to that poster and others I'm sure, but not how it harmed the environment.

That's a pretty narrow reading of "environment". Aren't we part of the environment? Would you want to have a swim or own a cottage downstream of that?

Got it. Freshwater, lots of congestion, real or imagined concerns over potential dumping, no 3-mile limit as an option. Maybe it makes sense in such areas or the Great Lakes generally. But why do you want to apply this scenario to boaters with USCG (and EPA) approved Type I MSDs with onboard sewage treatment in huge bodies of saltwater coastal sounds & bays that are tidal?

Popular coastal areas are often like this as well.

Why would I want to apply this scenario to boaters with approved Type I systems in thise areas? Because I don't want'em dumping everywhere. Type I discharge is still sewage, hopefully minus some microbes. I also am not certain that everyone who says they have a type I or II system actually do, or are running it properly. And because of the added complexity of enforcement.

Except, of course, nobody has been able to substantiate any "fouling." [of popular, high-traffic areas]

... which maybe confirms the suitability of current laws, boaters' willingness to comply, and/or effective enforcement? Apparently you agree...

I think most boaters comply because the 3-mile limit has been around a long time, most N. American boats have holding tanks, there are more & more dockside and even boat-mounted pump-out facilities (often free), and in coastal areas they often can easily go out past the 3-mile limit to dump.

But having the CG sign off on a Type I MSD that explicitly authorizes an exception for treated sewage (echoed in the EPA regs), only to then have states turn around & prohibit discharge in huge areas of coastal inland waters? Doesn't make much sense.

Just because you own a device with a sticker doesn't mean you have a compliant system, it could be misused or neglected... and again, MSD "treated" sewage is still sewage.

Again, I'm mainly concerned about how this NDZ argument has been tending to slip into railing against any prohibitions against cruisers dumping wherever they choose.

[hellosailor]

Occam's Razor. Also known as "Keep it simple, stupid." Or "Don't confuse me with facts."

Often enforcement rules are set, quite unfairly, to "one size fits all" because the folks making the laws know that the folks who will be enforcing them are, well, not the brightest candles.

So it becomes easier to enforce a law that says "No dumping, no nothing." than to enforce a law that says "Yeah well, you've got four kinds of toilets and three kinds of treatments and it someone flushes it without putting in the salt..."

Really, do you want to guy in the uniform to spend how many months in training every year in order to figure out what they are looking at? Besides "a head" and "a valve" ?

Just agree with the laws, and wholeheartedly push the fact tht if boaters represent 1/2 of 1% of the sewage problem, it is more urgent than ever to stick the residents with the bill for cleaning up the other 99.5% by installing a proper sewage treatment system. WHo could disagree with that? Get on the bandwagon, help pass around the karma.

[Kenomac]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

That's a pretty narrow reading of "environment". Aren't we part of the environment? Would you want to have a swim or own a cottage downstream of that?
Popular coastal areas are often like this as well.

Why would I want to apply this scenario to boaters with approved Type I systems in thise areas? Because I don't want'em dumping everywhere. Type I discharge is still sewage, hopefully minus some microbes. I also am not certain that everyone who says they have a type I or II system actually do, or are running it properly. And because of the added complexity of enforcement.


... which maybe confirms the suitability of current laws, boaters' willingness to comply, and/or effective enforcement? Apparently you agree...


Just because you own a device with a sticker doesn't mean you have a compliant system, it could be misused or neglected... and again, MSD "treated" sewage is still sewage.

Again, I'm mainly concerned about how this NDZ argument has been tending to slip into railing against any prohibitions against cruisers dumping wherever they choose.

You seem rather poo phobic IMO

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Kenomac

You seem rather poo phobic IMO

Anything produced by humanity is a dangerous pollutant, and so we can't be trusted to regulate ourselves without some level of govt regulation, whether it's for the common good or not. That's why it's better offshore, where such two-dimensional thinking rarely ventures.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

That's a pretty narrow reading of "environment". Aren't we part of the environment? Would you want to have a swim or own a cottage downstream of that?
Popular coastal areas are often like this as well.

I'm sure I have and worse, when I'm at anchor mainly. I'm much more reticent to swim at my marina where the CG issues warnings about eating fish with PCBs. You don't seem to understand the effects of diluted poo, especially in saltwater. Or maybe just don't like the "idea" of it and are responding accordingly.

Why would I want to apply this scenario to boaters with approved Type I systems in thise areas? Because I don't want'em dumping everywhere. Type I discharge is still sewage, hopefully minus some microbes. I also am not certain that everyone who says they have a type I or II system actually do, or are running it properly. And because of the added complexity of enforcement.

And municipal treatment facility effluent is still sewage, whether treated or not. Most of us have been exposed to it, like it or not.

... which maybe confirms the suitability of current laws, boaters' willingness to comply, and/or effective enforcement? Apparently you agree...

You lost me. Sounds like you'd like more potty enforcement. I'm happy for you but hope we don't ever have to sail in the same waters.

Just because you own a device with a sticker doesn't mean you have a compliant system, it could be misused or neglected... and again, MSD "treated" sewage is still sewage.

No sticker, and I don't have a Type I MSD so nothing is treated. I also don't have a y-valve. Everything goes into holding tanks no matter what. I pump out where lawful to do so. No possibility of accidental discharge.

Again, I'm mainly concerned about how this NDZ argument has been tending to slip into railing against any prohibitions against cruisers dumping wherever they choose.

"You" are entitled to be concerned about anything you'd like, but if you have no science -- at least for the types of NDZs being discussed here -- then you really don't have much standing to speak for others. I'd certainly be reticent to comment on what may or may not be appropriate for the Great Lakes.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by hellosailor

Occam's Razor. Also known as "Keep it simple, stupid." Or "Don't confuse me with facts."

Often enforcement rules are set, quite unfairly, to "one size fits all" because the folks making the laws know that the folks who will be enforcing them are, well, not the brightest candles.

So it becomes easier to enforce a law that says "No dumping, no nothing." than to enforce a law that says "Yeah well, you've got four kinds of toilets and three kinds of treatments and it someone flushes it without putting in the salt..."

Really, do you want to guy in the uniform to spend how many months in training every year in order to figure out what they are looking at? Besides "a head" and "a valve" ?

Just agree with the laws, and wholeheartedly push the fact tht if boaters represent 1/2 of 1% of the sewage problem, it is more urgent than ever to stick the residents with the bill for cleaning up the other 99.5% by installing a proper sewage treatment system. WHo could disagree with that? Get on the bandwagon, help pass around the karma.

It doesn't work like that. Creating regs against boaters is good politics. Us "yachties" can afford it after all. And it gives politicians a pass on dealing with the more difficult and often unseen problems which don't make for such good politics. Like raising taxes and selling bonds to update or replace an aging sewer plant. Much easier to pass a law against recreational boaters and then say you're "cleaning up the waterways."

This is not just a question of too broad of a brush. Many boaters were encouraged to purchase & install Type I's with the express determination & approval of the CG and EPA that they were environmentally suitable, only to have state laws passed which renders them useless in the eyes of the law. This doesn't encourage the needed voluntary compliance with the regs.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Kenomac

You seem rather poo phobic IMO

As opposed to what? Are you a coprophile? You should have warned us.



Poo has a time and a place. The time is after the 2nd coffee; the place is hopefully not somewhere anyone else has to encounter it.

[Jammer]

Originally Posted by Exile

It doesn't work like that. Creating regs against boaters is good politics. Us "yachties" can afford it after all. And it gives politicians a pass on dealing with the more difficult and often unseen problems which don't make for such good politics. Like raising taxes and selling bonds to update or replace an aging sewer plant. Much easier to pass a law against recreational boaters and then say you're "cleaning up the waterways."

This is not just a question of too broad of a brush. Many boaters were encouraged to purchase & install Type I's with the express determination & approval of the CG and EPA that they were environmentally suitable, only to have state laws passed which renders them useless in the eyes of the law. This doesn't encourage the needed voluntary compliance with the regs.

While there is much truth in your post, I think it's a mistake to hold up the municipal treatment plants as being a major source of water pollution. To be sure, plants vary, and it's useful as a point of comparison to boats.


Several recreationally significant lakes and streams near me have been studied extensively. While they are all individual and differ in details, there are a number of patterns that emerge:

1. Runoff from single-family sewage treatment systems is a significant cumulative factor in areas where there are larger numbers of houses not served by a municipal system. In Minnesota, these systems have been highly regulated since the early 1980s and it's mostly the remaining older systems that pose a problem.
2. Residential lawn runoff is a major factor, especially in urban areas with storm drains, because people fertilize their lawns. Lawn fertilizer is now more highly regulated here but that doesn't seem to have helped much, yet.
3. Agricultural runoff is a problem in ag areas, mainly due to soil erosion. With the soil come nutrients. This happens even with good management practices. Overapplication of fertilizer or manure makes it worse.

These are generally nonpoint sources making control difficult and costly.

[john61ct]

But, along with irresponsible municipalities, tgese **are** the sources that need control, if there are problems "they" are serious about actually solving.

Individual cruisers on boats are very rarely an actually significant source.

But those measures uselessly targeting us help as a PR distraction.