Maryland Proposed 'No Discharge' Zone

[jkleins]

Originally Posted by Talbot

If it is a no discharge zone, will this mean that not only black water is prohibited (sewage), but also grey water (sinks,washing machines, showers etc)

Taken to its logical extremes, the cooling water outflow when mixed with exhaust gases is also a discharge. Thus you would not be able to use a boat engine either.

Actually the NDZ's are for sewage only not gray water from kitchen or bath sinks. See here.

Jim

[AnchorageGuy]

Originally Posted by jkleins

Actually the NDZ's are for sewage only not gray water from kitchen or bath sinks. See here.

Jim

That is highly dependent on the regulations and how they are set up. In some NDZs it will also include gray water such as sinks, showers, etc. The Chesapeake proposal does not include this as noted. WG

[ronbo1]

From BoatUS Government affairs:

March 1, 2010
Member Alert on Maryland No Discharge Zone
Click here for information on the proposed no discharge zone in Maryland.

[schoonerdog]

Here's something related as a real contamination source. Typical bills that I've seen regarding this also have a stipend to allow people to convert their heads to non discharge type heads (like an airhead). Speaking of airheads, the biggest contributer is agricultural runoff. As I understand it, every 20 chickens produces enough poop to equal 1 person. There are 300 million chickens on the eastern shore. That's the equivalent of 15 million people. The human population for the entire state of maryland is only 5.5 million.

---------------article begins here-----------------------------

http://www.environmentamerica.org/action/clean-water/chesapeake-call?id4=ES
Why Perdue?
Perdue owns many of the 300 million chickens packed into the Bay's watershed. As you may remember, those 300 million birds generate about 1 billion pounds of waste each year. [1],[2] When rainfall washes wastes into the Bay, algae goes wild, oxygen levels sink, and wildlife suffer.
And we all know the end result: A biological dead zone that extends across one-third of the Bay most summers.
In public, Perdue claims that it is "committed to environmental stewardship and shares that commitment with our contract producers." [3]
Yet just last month, a farm under contract to Perdue refused to let state environment officials test for pollutants on the land -- even though the law demands it. Meanwhile, pollution levels in a ditch that runs from the farm are at health-threatening levels. That ditch drains, ultimately, into the Bay. [4]

[BubbleHeadMd]

The whole thing is just damned disappointing. I just finished reading two books on the history of the bay, and Kent Island. It all sounds so idyllic. I wish I was around to see those times and I wonder if the bay can ever be brought back to even 1/2 of what it was.

[bella]

Originally Posted by ronbo1

The state of Maryland has proposed a NDZ for the Chesapeake Bay.

While we all want to see clean waters, all this law will do is prevent boats equipped with USCG approved MSDs Type I, such as Electro Scans, from operating in the Bay. Important point: the dumping of raw sewage from holding tanks has been illegal for 30 years.

Ronbo

This is a good bill and will give even better enforcement to the water cops... It apparently hasn't hurt the Fla keys. I understand your sentiments. However, It's a start.

[bella]

Originally Posted by BubbleHeadMd

The whole thing is just damned disappointing. I just finished reading two books on the history of the bay, and Kent Island. It all sounds so idyllic. I wish I was around to see those times and I wonder if the bay can ever be brought back to even 1/2 of what it was.

I lived up there for the past 5 yrs. I heard endless whining about such things as the declining crab populations and pollutions but not one concrete step to stopping either. How about banning the taking of female crabs? How about stop running ALL the sewers into the bay?

I would suspect that economics plays into the foot dragging on fixing some of the problems.
AM

[schoonerdog]

The way the bill is written, the type II or III units would only be required for boats larger than 65 ft. Further, if you look at the lectrasan MC literature, they say their product is only for boats 65 ft or smaller. So I'm not really sure of the big impact this would have. A type I or II or III would be necessary or a holding tank for any boat smaller than 65 ft. So that's pretty much the same as it is now too.

[FrankZ]

The bill is stating USCG regulations as I understand them Basically type I and II are differentiated on capacity and out tolerance. Type III is a holding tank. Type I is not allowed on a boat over 65ft.

The bill does say later on, after the descriptions, that discharge from type I, II or III would not be allowed.

[knothead]

Originally Posted by schoonerdog

Here's something related as a real contamination source. Typical bills that I've seen regarding this also have a stipend to allow people to convert their heads to non discharge type heads (like an airhead). Speaking of airheads, the biggest contributer is agricultural runoff. As I understand it, every 20 chickens produces enough poop to equal 1 person. There are 300 million chickens on the eastern shore. That's the equivalent of 15 million people. The human population for the entire state of maryland is only 5.5 million.

---------------article begins here-----------------------------

http://www.environmentamerica.org/action/clean-water/chesapeake-call?id4=ES
Why Perdue?
Perdue owns many of the 300 million chickens packed into the Bay's watershed. As you may remember, those 300 million birds generate about 1 billion pounds of waste each year. [1],[2] When rainfall washes wastes into the Bay, algae goes wild, oxygen levels sink, and wildlife suffer.
And we all know the end result: A biological dead zone that extends across one-third of the Bay most summers.
In public, Perdue claims that it is "committed to environmental stewardship and shares that commitment with our contract producers." [3]
Yet just last month, a farm under contract to Perdue refused to let state environment officials test for pollutants on the land -- even though the law demands it. Meanwhile, pollution levels in a ditch that runs from the farm are at health-threatening levels. That ditch drains, ultimately, into the Bay. [4]

I wonder why a company would waste a valuable resource like chicken manure. It's a very potent fertilizer and composts easily. I would think that they would sell it to someone who would process it and either use it or sell it.
I'm amazed that there isn't some enterprising entrepreneur hauling the stuff away for them.

But then if we as individuals don't care enough to live that way, why should we expect businesses to.

Time to change mindset on waste | Stuff.co.nz

[schoonerdog]

ok, that is a little confusing that they put the 65 ft stipulation on it and then retract it later on by making it a universal limitation?

[FrankZ]

When yer reading government documents they can get confusing. If you understood them you might get twice as angry.

[hpeer]

FWIW, yesterday I had the opportunity to hear someone review the recent and proposed changes to MD law as regards to development. The changes are pretty far reaching and will I'm sure many will complain of the cost. For example, if I head it right, say you have a and old parking lot and warehouse. You want to develop the land into something else, a mall for example. Until recently the redevelopment (mall) could have no negative impact compared to the warehouse. Now the lot will have to have increased permeability. It will have to emulate the the lot being 25% covered by a woods.

Not taking sides here (yet). That is what I heard. Wide changes across the board that are effecting most all development in the watershed.

[ronbo1]

DEVELOPMENT IN MARYLAND

The Baltimore Sun's article on development in Maryland on January 26th.
Pollution control is a complex issue in the Chesapeake Bay. Runoff is just one of the big ones.


Storm over storm water

Our view: Might regulating run-off cause harm by discouraging redevelopment? The evidence is not compelling enough to weaken — or even delay — pending rules



January 26, 2010


Cleaning up the Chesapeake Bay is not unlike cleaning up one's home. Everyone wants things to be neat and tidy, but nobody wants to be stuck with the chore. The latest example of this phenomenon can be found in the halls of the State House, where some influential groups are pushing for a relaxation or perhaps delay in imposing new rules on managing the water that runs off property after a storm.

They are not opposed to cleaning up the Chesapeake Bay, or even tighter controls over storm water runoff.

Instead, their argument puts an unusually green twist on deregulation: They say new rules developed by the Maryland Department of the Environment and now being adopted by local governments will discourage recycling of land in older communities, direct more sprawl-type development in suburban and exurban open spaces, and therefore run counter to Maryland's stated Smart Growth philosophy.

And it's not just builders who would like to see the rules relaxed but also leaders such as Baltimore County Executive James T. Smith Jr., who has taken up their cause out of concern that redevelopment zones may be greatly hampered.

But before lawmakers rush to turn back the clock on a storm water law that was passed nearly three years ago and is supposed to go into effect this May, they will need to scrutinize this claim a bit more closely. After all, what they are asking is that redevelopment projects be allowed to pollute.

That's a tough argument to sell, especially with the health of the Chesapeake Bay in crisis. The state has met with some success in addressing such sources as sewage effluent and factory discharge, but storm water is one area where pollution is getting worse.

Aha, opponents may say, if the policy causes more building in open spaces, wouldn't that ultimately be worse for the environment? Absolutely, but only if it causes such an open space land rush, and the evidence that it will is suspect at best.

How much financial burden do storm water regulations cause? Nobody seems to know for sure, but some other states are just as strict. At least two Maryland counties, Montgomery and Carroll, have already imposed similar regulations on their own.

The sprawl complaint is also a familiar one. Some local governments fretted the same thing would happen a decade ago -- the last time the state stiffened storm water controls -- and the redevelopment sky did not fall.

In Baltimore County, officials concede that redevelopment efforts won't be affected immediately because existing projects are exempted under a grandfather clause and because the economic downturn has already put a damper on future construction. If the regulations have an impact, it won't be felt until the real estate market recovers -- at which time the outlook for (and economics of) redevelopment may be greatly enhanced.

Better for the MDE to adopt the regulations as planned and re-evaluate, if necessary, in several years. To backtrack now after all the compromises and delays that the rules have already endured would only enable polluters and reward any industry that drags its feet over environmental regulations.

Staying the course would not only represent a victory for the Chesapeake Bay but also for taxpayers. After all, who do you think pays to clean up storm water when the rules for new construction are relaxed? Inevitably, it will mean government spending to retrofit existing development with storm water control ponds and similar improvements to make up the difference. That's the most expensive proposition of all.

Readers respond

The new regulation requires that the storm water runoff from new construction have the same characteristics as the storm water runoff from a healthy forest -- the highest performing land use. Similarly, redevelopment projects are required to retrofit and improve the existing environmental conditions more than they are today.

With the support of the development industry and local government, the Maryland General Assembly instructed that these new storm water management rules be applied to "the maximum extent practicable." What is now being debated is whether it is "practicable" to apply 2010 rules to projects that have already been designed and received government approvals under existing storm water rules. Or, whether the redevelopment regulations are so onerous that urban land -- most with no existing storm water management of any kind -- will lie idle while redevelopment projects that could measurably clean up existing environmental problems are deflected away from Maryland's growth areas.

Tom Ballentine, Baltimore

The writer is the National Association of Industrial and Office Properties' vice president for policy and government relations.

Copyright © 2010, The Baltimore Sun

[ronbo1]

Maryland moves to Establish a No Discharge Zone in the Chesapeake Bay
In my opinion, if you care about clean waters, if you're tired of being made a scapegoat as a boater so that politicians can avoid going after the real polluters and if you want to help with facts and science rather than to allow misinformation to diminish the ways that we can achieve clean water. Click here to read more about this issue.
Thank you,
Tom Neale

The linked article on No Discharge Zones and Type I Marine Sanitation Devices was written by Tom Neale, a well known cruising writer and ongoing columnist for BoatUS.com. BoatUS members have a wide array of strong opinions on this topic. This article represents Tom's views; it does not reflect a BoatUS policy position.
*****

PLEASE NOTE: If you prefer not to receive Tom & Mel Neale's East Coast Alerts, click here to unsubscribe. Click here to forward to a friend

© 2010 Boat Owners Association of The United States
880 S. Pickett St.