How seriously is the 2M dumping policy enforced? (Yet another poo question)

[StoneCrab]

I am saddened by the extent of the selfishness that starts a discussion which basically asks "can I get away with it".

How about looking beyond you own selfish interests and consider that we all live on this planet together and need to take care of the environment. Your dumping will likely have a negligible effect but if there are lots of other boaters with the same twisted morals and ethics dumping their **** in the water, then the effect is accumulative.

Personally, I'd like to breathe clean air and drink clean water. I think it is a basic right. There is no argument that justifies putting sewage or industrial effluent in the water. What you want to do is inexcusable, particularly in you case where all you have to do is go to a pump out.

Man up and start doing the right thing.

[Simi 60]

And if there are no pump out facilities? ^^^^^^^^^
Rant meet reality.

[Stu Jackson]

Originally Posted by Simi 60

And if there are no pump out facilities? ^^^^^^^^^
Rant meet reality.

Thanks, Simi, I asked the very same ? three pages back! No responses...

[uncledom]

Originally Posted by Trawlerman

What I never see REASONABLY discussed, is the reasons given why properly treated on-board sewage treatment systems are not permissible. Shore based sewage treatment plants treat city waste and then release the effluent into streams, rivers, and often direct into ocean waters. They reduce the waste particle size and destroy all bacteria and pathogens. There are commercially available systems that do this, and I see no truly defensible reason why they are "OK" some places and not in others. I understand the "ICK" factor, but here in the inland waters where I boat about 50% of the time, I have NEVER seen a situation where anyone has been harmed by this technology nor have I seen anyone bitching that they could not swim due to the use of this system. Anyone who says it is not hard to take care of pump-outs clearly has not done much long distance boating. Pump-outs are often few and far between in many areas, and frequently defective, and during periods of below freezing temperatures are frequently "winterized" and thus unavailable for use.

Cruise ships have real black water treatment facilities on board by law and they are not allowed to dump overboard any where. They are supposed to empty the tank to a shore treatment plant.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Simi 60

And if there are no pump out facilities? ^^^^^^^^^
Rant meet reality.

Well, you do what ya gotta do, I suppose.

So, in this thread, what is the real question here:

• why are the laws so unfair and stupid? (waaah)
• is it so bad if I dump in open water but I'm not all the way to 3 miles out?

Some of the comments seem to be like saying the laws are unfair for making me stop at a stop-sign when there's clearly no other traffic.

The answer in both cases is... use your judgement. It might be reasonable to dump before you're 3 miles out. It might be reasonable to roll through that stop. But if you get caught ... it's still no one's fault but yours, right?

[thruska]

How serious is a 55 mph speed limit ?

Go 65 and find out , lol

You can dump anywhere all you want without conscience. But when your boat gets impounded for fines worth more than your boat is worth, you’ll probably figure out the answer to your question.
Kind of a silly question, I thought you might be trolling So i dint even read the 18 pages ....

[Mike OReilly]

There's a tinge of 'holy than thou' emanating from some of these comments. The solution to pollution is dilution. Always has been. Probably the best way for cruisers to manage their effluent is by dumping it out at sea, in areas with good flow/high volume.

The three-mile limit is an easy way to codify this requirement into law. But as with most laws, it is a blunt and overly-simplified statement of the underlying intent, or in this case, ecology. There are lots of ways to achieve the same outcomes.

I absolutely agree with the restriction on dumping raw sewage in areas of low flow/small volumes. And this goes doubly for areas with high concentrations of people. While I don't think cruises' contributions amount to much of anything, I also strongly believe we must all take responsibility for our own contributions to environmental problems, from the sewage we produce to the carbon we emit (or cause to be emitted to support our lifestyles).

But to live is to pollute. We use resources, and we emit waste products. We don't have to apologize for this, but we all should do our best to limit our resource usage, and our personal pollution.

[RaymondR]

About half the discussion herein is negative on the basis of public health issues. How many cases of sea water vectored communicable diseases have actually occurred in the places which are promulgating and vigorously policing savage anti discharging provisions?

I notice that we are in the grip of another world wide nasty virus crisis originally sourced from China. There is no doubt that these things are rapidly spread by airline travel. Should we ban air line travel in the future?

Difficult to achieve balance in these matters even where rationality rules let alone where emotion governs.

[thruska]

The gubmint on one hand, collects fines from offending citizens. While on the other hand ...
https://www.facebook.com/senatormccaskill/posts/10154708090817619

[David Mathis]

You’re not serious, or are you. In many areas, sailboaters have a reputation as being cheap and avoiding spending any money but you’ve brought this to a new level. To save ten dollars, you want to dump your holding tank in someone’s front yard. What a classy way to sail. Perhaps you could plumb the holding tank to discharge into your bilge. The boat wouldn’t smell any worse than the slick you left by discharging overboard. How seriously is it enforced? If I saw you discharging, I would call the police and sign the complaint. Many other boaters probably feel the same way. Have you considered selling the boat and getting a new hobby? Bungee jumping is a nice pastime

[thruska]

Originally Posted by Simi 60

And if there are no pump out facilities? ^^^^^^^^^
Rant meet reality.

Idk ....
But I’d guess the answer is three miles out, or two or dump at the dock at night ....

[StoneCrab]

I can imagine the discussions at the Flint, Michigan water department sounded a lot like these arguments here...
dilution, high flow, it's inconvenient, it's only a little bit, nobody will know....

[Dsanduril]

Hmm, if dilution isn’t the solution to pollution then what are we to do with all the engine exhaust discharged to the atmosphere and ocean while motoring to the head pump out? Exhaust that is full of carcinogens and other poisons. And with a wet exhaust some ends up in the air and some in the water. I guess that means we should have exhaust holding tanks.

Pretty easy to say “you don’t want to swim in my ****, I don’t want to breathe yours.” If we followed the science closely we’d probably create NDZs for exhaust and remove those for sewage. Or maybe have them for both. You can’t be virtuous about one thing without examining everything of your own.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by StoneCrab

I am saddened by the extent of the selfishness that starts a discussion which basically asks "can I get away with it". . .

Sure there is. Unless you think that there is a moral compulsion to obey laws just for the sake of it.

Originally Posted by StoneCrab

Personally, I'd like to breathe clean air and drink clean water. I think it is a basic right. There is no argument that justifies putting sewage or industrial effluent in the water.

Sure there is. There isn't a body of water in the world which doesn't have sewage in it. Sewage is harmless if it is sufficiently diluted. As was discussed above, we drink it every day.



You cannot judge what it means to "put sewage in the water" without considering the concentration. Discharge sewage near a beach, in an anchorage, or near shellfish beds -- that is clearly bad. Discharge a whole holding tank in near-shore waters -- that is bad. Nice people don't do any of that. But discharge a single toilet, a few cables offshore, especially if it's a macerating toilet -- this is as meaningless as a fart in the Astrodome.

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by StoneCrab

I can imagine the discussions at the Flint, Michigan water department sounded a lot like these arguments here...
dilution, high flow, it's inconvenient, it's only a little bit, nobody will know....

I have no idea what background discussions happened at Flint, and I assume neither do you. And that was about lead, which is not very relevant to what we're discussing here. I do know that all pollution, human-made or otherwise, ends up as part of various ecosystems. This is partly how ecosystems work.

The challenge for us humans is to find and maintain the right balance. We have done a piss poor job () of this over the 12,000 years of our civilization, but it's certainly possible. Comes down to volume and toxicity.

Small amounts of human effluent into large volumes of water, or into the equivalent on land, is the best way to manage our poop. Concentrating it into large toxic slurries is a convenient way to manage urban effluent on a large scale, but it definitely makes the problem worse before making it better. Cruisers who can manage their own poop safely is the best solution for all. But if you can't, then using modern sewage treatment systems, where available, is likely the better choice.