% legal holding tank dumping?

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

Another thing that this story illustrates is what a stupid waste of resources it would be to pump out any waste which could be harmlessly discharged at sea.

I think this underlines how smart it would be to do the science and then adopt policy which follows the science.

Not blaming jt, but a couple of things in that marina owner's story seem strange:

• I don't know why a pumpout would be placed where it can't either go directly to a municipal sewer, or sufficient tankage. Going to a septic tank, unless it was huge, seems ill-considered. Of course boaters add deodorizers etc.
• pumpout is a 2" pipe; if one broke underwater, drop another one in.

If it was gummint money that put that pumpout there, with those weaknesses... then I smell boondoggle (throwing money at marinas without sufficient oversight) and can agree that money was wasted there.

Re discharge vs pumpout.... you're in effect advocating for about zero laws and enforcement. Here's one way in which I think the 3 nm line has been helpful (in N American boating): it helps sort boats into freshwater/coastal and offshore. Runabouts, daysailors, weekenders, don't routinely run out that far, so there's no reason for them to even have the ability to dump. Cruising boats, passagemakers... they do.

If the US limit was dropped to 1 nm, then more boats would be equipped to be able to discharge, more boats would be discharging closer to shore, more boats would discharge inappropriately. Not much of a win, is that?

[jtsailjt]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Not blaming jt, but a couple of things in that marina owner's story seem strange:

• I don't know why a pumpout would be placed where it can't either go directly to a municipal sewer, or sufficient tankage. Going to a septic tank, unless it was huge, seems ill-considered. Of course boaters add deodorizers etc.
• pumpout is a 2" pipe; if one broke underwater, drop another one in.

If it was gummint money that put that pumpout there, with those weaknesses... then I smell boondoggle (throwing money at marinas without sufficient oversight) and can agree that money was wasted there.

Re discharge vs pumpout.... you're in effect advocating for about zero laws and enforcement. Here's one way in which I think the 3 nm line has been helpful (in N American boating): it helps sort boats into freshwater/coastal and offshore. Runabouts, daysailors, weekenders, don't routinely run out that far, so there's no reason for them to even have the ability to dump. Cruising boats, passagemakers... they do.

If the US limit was dropped to 1 nm, then more boats would be equipped to be able to discharge, more boats would be discharging closer to shore, more boats would discharge inappropriately. Not much of a win, is that?

To answer a few of your questions:

It was placed in this location by the prior owner because it’s the only marina in this area for quite a ways and the government was trying to put pumpouts in as many places as possible. There is no municipal system in the town where the marina is located. It’s rural. There is very limited real estate for a big, above ground tank and the marina is built on solid ledge. Big, above ground tanks cost big money and as mentioned above the marina loses money both transporting the waste and in missed fuel sales.

Repairing it by just “dropping another one in” sounds simple but it’s not something the marina owner can do himself and the local companies he’s contacted have turned down the job citing insurance issues. Probably whoever was licensed to initially install it could redo it if the government put up the money but I can understand why the marina owner isn’t making it a priority to spend his own money on it so he can lose more money from it being used. And of course anything involving sewage on the waterfront requires government oversight and permits, etc. I think you’re right about government boondoggle combined with shortsightedness, especially since money for repairing/maintaining them apparently wasn’t included. All this money ineffectively thrown at something that’s never been a problem around here!

It might theoretically be a handy way to sort boats from local to offshore types but despite the 3nm rule, apparently manufacturers haven’t got the word so lots of boats that will never go 3nm out have heads capable of flushing directly into the ocean and are still being built that way. . And lots of sailors that have boats not designed for offshore work do take them out beyond 3 miles. So I can’t see what practical use this sorting that you mention would have.

As to your last paragraph, that’s pure speculation that more boats would discharge closer to shore. As far as I can tell, almost nobody is paying any attention to the 3 mile rule so a change from 3 to 1 would only affect those few boaters who are actually following the 3 mile rule, and if they then started following the new 1 mile rule or 1/2 mile rule if that was scientifically deemed adequate, what’s the harm in those who were conscientious about 3 miles then being equally conscientious about the new, easier to abide distance? Then, if the line were moved to a shorter distance offshore to what was perceived as more reasonable, at least a few boaters who were ignoring the 3 mile rule might decide that 1/2 mike was something they could live with and actually follow it. Plus, a lot of boaters who are ignoring the 3 mile rule are already dumping at least 1/2 mile out so there would be no change there except to change the legality of what they are already doing and would continue to do.

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by jtsailjt

So, we have a longer boating season, especially in the south, many more boaters, and a much longer coastline with more serious inbound crime/smuggling issues than the UK or Canada so I don’t think it should surprise anyone that all these conditions put together generate more excessive boardings stories on a forum such as this.

Fair enough JT. I guess we'd have to somehow look at the per-capita events (the rate) to do a fair comparison. It's not hard to find threads here where people are complaining about water policing in certain US waters. Even on this thread we've seen such comments. And we appear to have a dearth of those stories from anywhere else.

But I take your point. The sheer number of boaters down your way, plus the fact that this forum has more Americans than other country, certainly could magnify the effect.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Not blaming jt, but a couple of things in that marina owner's story seem strange:

• I don't know why a pumpout would be placed where it can't either go directly to a municipal sewer, or sufficient tankage. Going to a septic tank, unless it was huge, seems ill-considered. Of course boaters add deodorizers etc.
• pumpout is a 2" pipe; if one broke underwater, drop another one in.

If it was gummint money that put that pumpout there, with those weaknesses... then I smell boondoggle (throwing money at marinas without sufficient oversight) and can agree that money was wasted there.

Re discharge vs pumpout.... you're in effect advocating for about zero laws and enforcement. Here's one way in which I think the 3 nm line has been helpful (in N American boating): it helps sort boats into freshwater/coastal and offshore. Runabouts, daysailors, weekenders, don't routinely run out that far, so there's no reason for them to even have the ability to dump. Cruising boats, passagemakers... they do.

If the US limit was dropped to 1 nm, then more boats would be equipped to be able to discharge, more boats would be discharging closer to shore, more boats would discharge inappropriately. Not much of a win, is that?

I'm not at all advocating zero laws or zero enforcement. Not sure where you got that.


I'm advocating good science-driven practices for disposing of on-board waste. That's all.


IF the science says it is harmless to discharge a cable offshore, then set the limit with some margin for good measure -- 2 cables, 5 cables, or whatever. And encourage people to direct discharge where it's harmless. And use holding tanks and pumpouts less.


Pumpouts are not cost free and not free of other harm. A lot of waste from pumpouts is concentrated and discharged directly -- into the sea. Others go into municipal systems which discharge concentrated waste when it rains (the Maine problem). Others go into septic tanks. Some of it is fetched by trucks. Why would you add more waste to any of those systems, if it's harmless to discharge directly?



I'm not sure where you get the suspicions about the marina in the anecdote in question. It's pretty usual to locate pumpouts on floating pontoons and pretty normal to pipe them underwater. I can well believe that in some places it might be difficult to get the underwater pipes repaired. In most countries this is all at the cost of the operator, who has to cover that cost with pumpout fees. This can get uneconomical real fast, as the anecdote relates. There is nothing inherently good about pumping out, and it is not necessarily better than discharging directly.



I needn't say, I think, since we discussed it before that if I (and my eminent marina biologist friend) are wrong about the harmfulness of direct discharge, and the science shows that it is harmful to discharge less than 5 miles, or 12 miles, or whatever, then those harmful discharges should be prohibited and depending on the culture involved and the degree of harm, possibly even enforced, possibly even with GPS y-valves with seals on them. Just for the record.


And as a right-libertarian, I don't think the "gummint" should be paying for our pumpouts. We should pay for it ourselves, and we should pay enough that it is economic to for marina owners etc. to operate them.


My guess, however, based on everything I know, is that it would be better to discharge into the sea. In tidal salt water environments (obviously not fresh water lakes). More economical, better for the environment, more convenient. My guess is that pumpouts are probably not even needed except as a special service for vessels which never move or don't ever go out beyond 2 cables (or 5 cables or a mile or whatever). But I am glad to be corrected depending on what the science says.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by jtsailjt

. . . As to your last paragraph, that’s pure speculation that more boats would discharge closer to shore. As far as I can tell, almost nobody is paying any attention to the 3 mile rule so a change from 3 to 1 would only affect those few boaters who are actually following the 3 mile rule, and if they then started following the new 1 mile rule or 1/2 mile rule if that was scientifically deemed adequate, what’s the harm in those who were conscientious about 3 miles then being equally conscientious about the new, easier to abide distance? Then, if the line were moved to a shorter distance offshore to what was perceived as more reasonable, at least a few boaters who were ignoring the 3 mile rule might decide that 1/2 mike was something they could live with and actually follow it. Plus, a lot of boaters who are ignoring the 3 mile rule are already dumping at least 1/2 mile out so there would be no change there except to change the legality of what they are already doing and would continue to do.

We've had this discussion before.


It's an axiom of policymaking that reasonable regs result in higher compliance.


If boaters feel that 3nm is unreasonable (and based on hundreds or thousands of conversations, I believe that a large majority of sailors do think this), and enforcement is easy to circumvent, then many sailors will just ignore the rule altogether and just dump wherever, maybe even inside harbours.



Faced with a much more reasonable and easy to comply with rule, it suddenly becomes worth the trouble to comply irrespective of enforcement and you will find fewer, in some cases dramatically fewer people violating the rule. So this will certainly REDUCE, not increase, harmful dumping.


For the same reason why you would never put a 23mph speed limit on the interstate highway hoping fewer people will drive over 70. In this case the speed limit will simply be ignored completely, except to the extent that enforcement is feared, and more, not less people will drive over 70. These principles are not controversial among professional policymakers.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by jtsailjt

.... that’s pure speculation that more boats would discharge closer to shore.

... and no less plausible then your and DH's contention that people would suddenly behave better if they liked the law more.

More boats able to discharge, and closer to shore will mean more discharging overall, including an increase in accidental and improper discharging where they shouldn't. How could it be otherwise?

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

... and no less plausible then your and DH's contention that people would suddenly behave better if they liked the law more.

More boats able to discharge, and closer to shore will mean more discharging overall, including an increase in accidental and improper discharging where they shouldn't. How could it be otherwise?

How many times does the position you disfavor have to be explained? You disagree -- we get it -- you're entitled to your opinion even though it doesn't appear all that informed (thx Lester ).

This may now actually be taking longer than the obvious fact in another never-ending poop thread that if you prohibit dumping by recreational boaters with LectraSans in NDZ's, you'll likely disincentivize people from installing (expensive) LectraSans.

Maybe the answer is for you to never leave your boat by going for a swim? I mean if you're still that concerned about the poop science that's already been presented, and think so little of your fellow boaters doing the right thing . . . .

[jtsailjt]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

... and no less plausible then your and DH's contention that people would suddenly behave better if they liked the law more.

More boats able to discharge, and closer to shore will mean more discharging overall, including an increase in accidental and improper discharging where they shouldn't. How could it be otherwise?

Of course people are more likely to obey a law that’s easier to obey. For example. If the speed limit were set at 80 everywhere, very few people would disobey it, especially on twisty, back country roads Likewise, if the dumping line were set at only half a mile, by the time you get out of the harbor and the sails up and trimmed you’d be ok to dump without having to wait at all. What could be easier to follow than that? On the other hand, it’s a 20nm + slog to get 3nm offshore from where I’m moored right now. Which rule do you think most people would ignore and which would they obey?

You keep bringing up accidental discharges and I can’t really envision what that means or if you think that happens very often? Have you ever observed it? On my boat I have to go to the CB panel and close a breaker labeled “Holding Tank” and an “on” light illuminates next to the label and then I can hear the Whale Gulper doing it’s thing. It takes a conscious decision on my part and zero times have I just absentmindedly reached up and “accidentally” closed that breaker. Others regulate their dumping with a ball valve or a Y valve and those don’t usually get opened accidentally either. So, I don’t think it’s a problem now or would be a problem if the distance were changed. If one in a thousand boaters actually turns on his holding tank pump when he intended to turn in his anchor light, or open I guess that could make a mess if someone was anchored nearby but I’ve never experienced it or even heard of it happening.

I disagree that there would be more dumping and think about the same amount of dumping would occur, but even if a few folks who now would search out a pumpout instead decided to dump, as long as they do it outside the scientifically determined line, who cares? If, up until now they’ve been conscientiously searching out pumpout stations, they’re probably not the type who would cheat on a closer in rule, and everyone else is already dumping anyway. So I can’t see any downside to a closer in rule IF scientific studies of its effect on the environment determine it’s not harmful.

But of course lawmakers with the power to change this aren’t likely to log onto CF and based on our consensus commission a scientific study be done, and then use that study as a guide to change the law, So I guess we‘ll have to all continue to do whatever we deem appropriate regarding waste disposal, and regardless of our preferred method, live with the consequences if a LEO happens to notice our Y valve or ball valve on a thru hull happens to be open inside 3nm. Oh well.

[Exile]

I don't understand the concern over accidental discharges either, but different boats have different set-ups so maybe L-E can explain his oft-repeated concerns. It seems to me that a minimum of two separate acts are required, namely turning the Y-valve and opening the seacock for anything to go overboard. I have no doubt accidental discharges happen, but does this account for a significant amount or are we just making something up?

If the science determines that 1nm is safe (for e.g.) and the limit is changed to 2nm for a buffer, then it will likely encourage more people to undertake what is a shorter trek to dump and therefore be less inclined to dump in harbor. More importantly, if the science says 1nm is safe than how do people complying with a 2 vs. a 3nm limit possibly harm the environment?? Seems pretty basic, and the law should reflect this, not try and manipulate people into behavior that doesn't comport with the science or common sense. Just play it straight with the citizenry and they'll be more inclined to believe their govt is credible and therefore worthy of the benefit of the doubt.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

Faced with a much more reasonable and easy to comply with rule, it suddenly becomes worth the trouble to comply irrespective of enforcement and you will find fewer, in some cases dramatically fewer people violating the rule. So this will certainly REDUCE, not increase, harmful dumping.

There are currently some coastal spots, including aforementioned harbours, where waste dumping from recreational boaters is already an issue. And we've already seen studies showing the rise of fecal coliform counts that correspond to boat gatherings. (eg a popular anchorage over a long weekend).

How does the proposed shorter limit improve those areas?

[Mike OReilly]

Shifting the line to less than 3nm will certainly result in more people dumping closer to shore. This is both by definition, and based on human nature. I've referenced this human behavioural research a few times, but failed to provide support. I can provide some academic papers if you prefer, but here is a nice summary from one of the leading researchers in this area:

https://www.innomind.org/the-truth-a...eat-and-steal/

I completely agree evidence also shows that laws that are deemed to be reasonable and rational are obeyed more often than the reverse. Human behaviour is complex, and multi-faceted. There are multiple effects at play here. Regardless... assuming we are driven by sound ecological science, I believe we can set a sound dumping limit.

I remain dubious, however, that if the science said we need to set the new limit to beyond the current line, that there would suddenly be a general embrace of the new limit. I know everyone here is beyond reproach (including me ), but I think the honest truth is most of us will act according to our needs/wants, balanced against what we believe is OK, and the threat of negative consequences (enforcement).

[jtsailjt]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

Shifting the line to less than 3nm will certainly result in more people dumping closer to shore. This is both by definition, and based on human nature. I've referenced this human behavioural research a few times, but failed to provide support. I can provide some academic papers if you prefer, but here is a nice summary from one of the leading researchers in this area:

https://www.innomind.org/the-truth-a...eat-and-steal/

I completely agree evidence also shows that laws that are deemed to be reasonable and rational are obeyed more often than the reverse. Human behaviour is complex, and multi-faceted. There are multiple effects at play here. Regardless... assuming we are driven by sound ecological science, I believe we can set a sound dumping limit.

I remain dubious, however, that if the science said we need to set the new limit to beyond the current line, that there would suddenly be a general embrace of the new limit. I know everyone here is beyond reproach (including me ), but I think the honest truth is most of us will act according to our needs/wants, balanced against what we believe is OK, and the threat of negative consequences (enforcement).

I think you’re absolutely right that if the line were moved out even further that everyone who now dumps inside 3nm would continue to and some of those who are willing to abide by the 3nm rule would dump illegally if they had to go all the way out to 6nm.

I don’t disagree with your point that many people cheat a little. Also, my experience is that people will cheat more if they are cheating a big, anonymous entity such as a big corporation or insurance company or government agency rather than cheating an individual, especially someone they know. But I don’t think it matters too much in regards to what we are proposing because if what DH said is true about sewage being undetectable in salt water just 2 cables away, we’re talking about such a small distance out that most people would be out that far before they even got around to dumping if there was no rule at all other than “dont dump near other people or recreational boats please.”. And if someone is such a pathological cheater that they can’t go a few thousand feet out before dumping, then only strict enforcement will stop them, and we know strict enforcement is nearly impossible. So a few disgusting people will keep dumping right in the harbor just like they do now. But I think most people want to think of themselves as honest and law abiding citizens so if they think a rule has a reasonable basis and isn’t too hard to follow, they’ll abide by it just to prove to themselves how honest they are. But when a rule becomes difficult to follow or takes up valuable time they’d rather be doing something else, that’s when the rationalizations begin in earnest even if they have reason to believe the rule is founded in science. Then there’s quite a few who don’t even bother to rationalize why they are justified to break a ridiculous rule, they just do it and willingly admit it unless they fear being socially ostracized.

So I think a closer in line would be widely obeyed for 2 main reasons. First, it would be easy and wouldn’t be much of a inconvenience to anyone. Second, if the line were around 1/2 mile, most sailors would still be so busy getting organized and dodging other boats that dumping wouidnt even occur to them until they were well beyond it.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

Shifting the line to less than 3nm will certainly result in more people dumping closer to shore.

* * *

Yes, of course. But if the new line is set with a reasonable buffer, and the science DH has thus far presented is correct, that new line (accounting for cheaters) would make no difference to shoreside contamination. At least in saltwater that is.

I completely agree evidence also shows that laws that are deemed to be reasonable and rational are obeyed more often than the reverse. Human behaviour is complex, and multi-faceted. There are multiple effects at play here. Regardless... assuming we are driven by sound ecological science, I believe we can set a sound dumping limit.

Agreed, especially since it appears (not entirely sure) that the longstanding 3nm limit did not properly take into account such ecological science but was drawn rather arbitrarily, i.e. based on jurisdictional limits that have nothing to do with ecological factors.

I remain dubious, however, that if the science said we need to set the new limit to beyond the current line, that there would suddenly be a general embrace of the new limit. I know everyone here is beyond reproach (including me ), but I think the honest truth is most of us will act according to our needs/wants, balanced against what we believe is OK, and the threat of negative consequences (enforcement).

Exactly right I bet. But maybe with well-publicized education, along with more (working) pump-outs.

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

There are currently some coastal spots, including aforementioned harbours, where waste dumping from recreational boaters is already an issue. And we've already seen studies showing the rise of fecal coliform counts that correspond to boat gatherings. (eg a popular anchorage over a long weekend).

How does the proposed shorter limit improve those areas?

According to the science that's been presented thus far, a shorter limit would have NO impact on those areas. Unless, as many here have been quite logically suggesting, a shorter limit would induce more boaters dumping illegally in the congested areas you've been highlighting to travel a shorter distance to dump legally.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Exile

According to the science that's been presented thus far, a shorter limit would have NO impact on those areas. Unless, as many here have been quite logically suggesting, a shorter limit would induce more boaters dumping illegally in the congested areas you've been highlighting to travel a shorter distance to dump legally.

So the effect of a closer limit is to make dumping more convenient, and it does nothing to improve areas where a detectable problem does exist... except for some magickal thinking about how everyone, out of gratitude or something for having that punishing 3 nm yoke off their backs, will naturally behave better.

It would be an interesting experiment, if nothing else.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

So the effect of a closer limit is to make dumping more convenient, and it does nothing to improve areas where a detectable problem does exist... except for some magickal thinking about how everyone, out of gratitude or something for having that punishing 3 nm yoke off their backs, will naturally behave better.

It would be an interesting experiment, if nothing else.

According to the science, that "detectable problem" will no longer exist in a short period of time (in saltwater at least). But yes, I think it's both reasonable and logical to assume (all we can really do), that presented with a less cumbersome option for discharging legally there will be more boaters who will go for it than with a more cumbersome option. That in turn could help alleviate the poop contamination coming from congregations of boaters in congested areas that you deem so worthy of multiple photos and countless references.

Now where do your concerns over accidental discharges derive from? I have a completely different system on my boat with no Y-valve so don't understand where this is coming from. I'm inclined to think that most illegal discharges are quite deliberate and willful, as has been acknowledged and explained throughout this thread. I don't even know what types of systems all those errant, Covid-spreading, Trump-supporting, Florida loving, small powerboaters in your photos have onboard, if anything. Do you? Shall we commission a poll to uncover their poop habits, or are we simply chasing a solution for another non-existent problem?