Illegally Discharging Waste in FL

[hellosailor]

d0n, if you think the distinction between "over the rail" and "through the boat" is stupid, consider the boat from a topological point of view.

A boat is, as I understand it, essentially a torus. A donut. Whether you are on deck or below, you can consider the boat to be a "donut" with a "hole" in it. The hole being the galley sink or any other thru-hull. The cabin, all of belowdecks, is really just the rim of the hole.

Yes, the donut has one and the boat has many...I'm not sure how topologists class that but we can simply the boat and still think of it as a donut with just one hole.

Now, from that point of view, what do the laws say? Right, you can discharge over the outside edge, but not the inside edge? You can discharge the same stuff on this part of the donut,but not that part? And that's not arbitray and capricious, and therefore totally illegal under our laws?

I suspect the distinction in what is legal where ("on" the boat) may need to be revised one day. Just don't tell any watercops that functionally, your boat is a donut. You know, there's a rumour about cops and donuts, you wouldn't want to get anyone confused about that.<G>

Seriously. A torus. Add a urinal in the head, and there's no difference between it, and the side rail. Except under law. Which is probably why it is illegal for legislators to practice topology. (Kidding!)

[fstbttms]

Originally Posted by David_Old_Jersey

You also don't have a "right" to swim (or work!) in sh#t free water.

As a matter of fact, I do. Maybe it's different where you come from, but the laws of this country (which prohibit douchebags from discharging waste into public waterways) exist specifically to protect my right to clean water.

http://www.epa.gov/lawsregs/laws/cwa.html

[hellosailor]

Originally Posted by Don L

Reminds of an ethic and the law class I took once, "if you follow the letter of the law does that make your actions ethic?"

When I break the rules or laws I admit it to myself, I don't try a word games to make it "right".

I'm a boater not a lawyer, if you want to play some word game about the law go spend time on a lawyer site!

Don, these aren't word games. You need to understand that "legal" and "ethical" are totally different concepts. Ethics and morals are personal structures, which each person sets for themselves. Laws, legal, is a societal imposition or agreement that is imposed on people from the outside, and only from the outside.

These are not word games, they are critical differences in the concepts. Your personal ethics may prevent you from jaywalking or speeding, but most of us would feel like fools if we stood on the curb in a rainstorm, waiting for a green light while there were no cars in sight. My own ethics would tell me to ignore the legality of the situation, and get out of the rain. The laws were only created to provide order when there's more than one person involved. Or, when someone feels a moral need to impose their ethics over some other and presumably inferior person, and they go out and create "victimless crimes".


fst-
No so fast. "As a matter of fact, I do. ...the laws of this country ...exist specifically to protect my right to clean water."
Under those laws, only some of those parties are prohibited from some discharges under some circumstances with some exceptions. Your right to swim in pristine waters is an illusion. Somehow, mass dumping from city sewage systems is allowed, exempted, protected, pretty much forever, with no end in sight. A system in which an empty glass is better than a half-full one, yes?<G>

[Dsanduril]

Originally Posted by fstbttms

As a matter of fact, I do. Maybe it's different where you come from, but the laws of this country (which prohibit douchebags from discharging waste into public waterways) exist specifically to protect my right to clean water.

Summary of the Clean Water Act | Laws and Regulations | US EPA

Fast,

thanks for the link to the CWA. The very first page of the CWA says:

...In order to achieve this objective it is hereby declared that, consistent with the provisions of this Act—...

(4) it is the national policy that Federal financial assistance be provided to construct publicly owned waste treatment works;...

(6) it is the national policy that a major research and demonstration effort be made to develop technology necessary to eliminate the discharge of pollutants into the navigable waters, waters of the contiguous zone and the oceans; and

(7) it is the national policy that programs for the control of nonpoint sources of pollution be developed and implemented in an expeditious manner so as to enable the goals of this Act to be met through the control of both point and nonpoint sources of pollution...

I think it could reasonably be argued that a pumpout station is part of a "treatment works" and item (4) clearly indicates Congress' intent that such be at least partially funded at the federal level (by taxpayer dollars).

Items (6) and (7) point toward the development of technologies that would control pollution (and allow discharge) from sources such as boats. These technologies have been developed and do exist, and yet no legal framework has been built to either evaulate or accept them.

From a personal perspective, I'd much rather swim in human **** than toxic industrial soup (containing copper, TBT, amines and esters found in the scrapings from boat bottoms along with 10,000 other chemicals found in legal discharges from who knows where). My body has evolved over hundreds of thousands of years to deal with exposure to human waste (and so has the ocean, albeit not at the concentrations that current populations produce). Yes, it can cause sickness and death, yes it is unsavory, and yes, the discharge of human waste is illegal.

My body has no naturally evolved defense against heavy metals, artificial hormones (or their mimics) or any of the other myriad of chemicals of modern life that are legal to discharge. In some cases industry cried "we're doing the best we can" (Best Management Practices), in others the regulatory framework simply did not consider that items might be harmful, or did not even think that they might exist in discharges (drug residues - the legal kind). The discharge of human waste is illegal, the discharge of all of these other things is legal and we all swim around in them every day. I think a reasonable discussion could (and probably should) be had around the risks associated with all of the above.

Guess that makes me an entitled (post #47) moron (post #28). Sorry, I don't meet the requirements to add douchebag (post #77) to that list. While I do believe it is an item for rational discussion, I do use my Type III MSD (more because I think it is the right thing than because it is the legal thing).

[fstbttms]

Originally Posted by hellosailor

fst-
No so fast. "As a matter of fact, I do. ...the laws of this country ...exist specifically to protect my right to clean water."
Under those laws, only some of those parties are prohibited from some discharges under some circumstances with some exceptions. Your right to swim in pristine waters is an illusion. Somehow, mass dumping from city sewage systems is allowed, exempted, protected, pretty much forever, with no end in sight. A system in which an empty glass is better than a half-full one, yes?<G>

When I used the term "douchebags", I was referring specifically to boaters who willfully violate the law and discharge untreated sewage within the 3-mile limit. Do our waterways sometime become polluted by municipal waste? Yes. But we're not here to discuss municipal waste. To use that extremely tired and illogical argument to justify boaters polluting is a poor defense. I've said it before and I will continue to say it; pumping overboard is a dick move perpetrated by dicks.

[hellosailor]

dsanduril-
Did you nmotice how the CWA neatly omitted making any real statement like "Congress shall pay at least 60% of any project" ?

That's what is called "feel good legislation" because it makes people happy that Congress has endorsed a policy, and said it might pay for it--but it falls short of actually mandating the funding of anything.

Want to build a pumpout station? OK, here's a dollar, go pay for the rest. Congress has met the federal policy of partially funding it with that buck. So everyone goes on the Nooze and says they got federal funding, but...

That's all part and parcel of the exemptions for fracking, which allow companies to pump unspecificed chemicals into the aquifers without disclosing they may be toxic or radioactive. Can't pump that same brew into a sewer or cesspool, but you can pump it under a shale deposit.

Feel good? Legislation?

This is why folks used to get rode out of town on a split rail. Frugal Yankees could re-use the one rail, unlike needing a fresh barrel of tar each time they tarred and feathered.<G>

[fstbttms]

Coincidentally, I am currently on a conference call with the California Coastal Commission IACC (Interangency Coordinating Committee) and the agenda item being discussed right now is the "Pathogen TMDL and Other Wastewater Issues in Richardson's Bay." I'll post any pertinent info that comes up in the meeting here.

[rognvald]

Originally Posted by fstbttms

When I used the term "douchebags", I was referring specifically to boaters who willfully violate the law and discharge untreated sewage within the 3-mile limit. Do our waterways sometime become polluted by municipal waste? Yes. But we're not here to discuss municipal waste. To use that extremely tired and illogical argument to justify boaters polluting is a poor defense. I've said it before and I will continue to say it; pumping overboard is a dick move perpetrated by dicks.

Fstbttms, I have two questions concerning your above terminology:
1. Would "douchebags" be considered discharge or grey water?
2. If pumping overboard is "a dick move perpetrated by dicks," how would you classify discharge from female sailors?

[David_Old_Jersey]

Originally Posted by fstbttms

As a matter of fact, I do. Maybe it's different where you come from, but the laws of this country (which prohibit douchebags from discharging waste into public waterways) exist specifically to protect my right to clean water.

Summary of the Clean Water Act | Laws and Regulations | US EPA

From your link I see no mention of you having any "rights" - just lots of mention of laws requiring permission to regulate discharges into the sea, at whatever levels da Gubberment deems neccessary to be "safe" (but that term will cover a multiple of sins, all involving water you would not want to swim in let alone drink ).

All that not the same as you having the "right" to clean water - and I would certainly not recomend drinking any water simply because the Govt said it was "safe" under this legislation........

....cheapest way to keep "safe" the folks who are unable to take care of themselves (by not choosing to swim in poop infested waters) is to ban everyone from swimming near where people are located (and poop!)......the difference between direct discharge from boats and a pump out are the chemicals added and the length of journey into the sea.....the problem is simply a numbers thing, with recreational boats their are simply not the number of boats (and active poopers!) for it to be a problem above unpleasant (in practice or in thought!) - with towns, cities and industries the numbers do make the volume a problem, and adding boat poop to those numbers only adds to your contribution.....the best environmental way to deal with boat poop is direct discharge - the "safe" way for people is not to swim in places that happens in concentrations that take time to dilute.

[perchance]

Originally Posted by fstbttms

As a matter of fact, I do. Maybe it's different where you come from, but the laws of this country (which prohibit douchebags from discharging waste into public waterways) exist specifically to protect my right to clean water.

Summary of the Clean Water Act | Laws and Regulations | US EPA

Couldn't agree with you more. Some boat owners seem to feel that boat ownership extends to the water the boat sits in and are entitled to do as they please in regards to jettisoning anything and everything over the side.

[jmackay]

I am just wondering if everybody is as selective as to which "rules of the road" they respect?

[Richard_W]

Originally Posted by perchance

Couldn't agree with you more. Some boat owners seem to feel that boat ownership extends to the water the boat sits in and are entitled to do as they please in regards to jettisoning anything and everything over the side.

Same here ... let's forget the laws and rules, let's focus on what's right, what's friendly to others around, and to the hosting community.

Let's use the moral compass, and contrast and compare a boat owner taking the relive versus a waterfront property owner, RV owner, hiker/camper at camping site. Anybody must see where this is going ...

... everybody is expected to clean, dispose responsibly, manage their own mess at their own cost. Why the boat owner would expect a different treatment or scot-free treatment?

[Matt sachs]

Originally Posted by boatsail

Personally, I would piss after I got in and had not started working yet, so it felt good. My suit never stank. After using a comp as and swimming 3500m underwater to my destination, I figured the piss was flushed away enough. Felt good and wharm while I was a pissing.

3500meters now thats impressive. I assume you had a scooter??

[boatsail]

Originally Posted by Matt sachs

3500meters now thats impressive. I assume you had a scooter??

no scooter...fins....using a rebreather as opposed to scuba tanks... google "marine recon diver" on google images. requirements are 500m underwater in 15 min or less...my times with fins were 11-11.30 minutes. this time was important for underwater navigation to factor tides and currents prior to going underwater, so that you could simply follow your compas for predetermined times and change course to new direction...for example, 1k is a 22 min time, but hten figure for current too coming from side, front or back. the school for that was in panama city, fl. Was a really interesting thing to learn. being able to trust your compass while you have vertigo and hitting a pier and doing it every day (once in morning and once at night...you and your dive buddy had to switch who was navigating) really gave faith in the gear. 4 hours of 02 time in a 24hr period. the physics of it were really awesome and i'm really thankful that I got to go to that school....learned a heck of a lot about diving and myself! that was back when panama city fl was the spring place to be and i was about 22 yrs old! great times!

i would probably guess i pissed in my suit at least twice a day, more if i could muster up enough piss! lol

[Dsanduril]

Originally Posted by Richard_W

Let's use the moral compass, and contrast and compare a boat owner taking the relive versus a waterfront property owner, RV owner, hiker/camper at camping site. Anybody must see where this is going ...

Know anyone who goes hiking/backpacking in wilderness areas and carries out their pee? I know some (a very few) who carry out their #2, I know none who carry out their #1 (yes, I'm sure somebody here can point me to the one saint who does). Most I know step behind a tree or a rock...

From an evironmental perspective it probably makes more sense to not discharge urine than to not discharge feces. We all think the feces are gross (and some think the same of the urine). Urine accounts for about 80% of the nitrogen, 50% of the phosphate and 70% of the potassium in human waste. And those are the nutrients that cause algal blooms, upset water oxygen content, ... In addition, it is the urine that, although (generally) sterile and non-pathogenic, carries the bulk of the pharmaceutical residuals straight through the treatment systems and into the environment. The problem is that even if you using a holding tank and a pumpout, most of the harmful components in urine come out the discharge pipe at the treatment plant, you're just moving the point from your rail to the pipe down the way.

On the other side of the coin, here's some food for thought for our brethern in the South. By the time the Mississippi River gets to New Orleans and gets used for drinking water it has passed through an average of 7 human intestines on its way (that's based on the quantity of water extracted upstream for domestic use, and re-deposited a little further downstream as treated waste). [No point to that I guess, just throwing it out there]