Do the potty police have science on their side?

[DumnMad]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

There seems to be a legal/procedural reason for that, having to do with the current loopholes in the CWA for commercial shipping, not much appetite for this sort of legislation, and something to do with the current climate (no not that one, I mean in DC). A blanket NDZ is the least-effort, most likely to pass approach, it seems.

Great, he accepts the potty police do not have science on their side.

[senormechanico]

Originally Posted by Exile

I was a snowflake this year, but it wasn't any fun 'cause nobody believed it was really me.

Ooohh, thanks! New computer desktop background photo (for the day)

[Exile]

Originally Posted by senormechanico

Ooohh, thanks! New computer desktop background photo (for the day)

You inspired it!

[GordMay]

I sguuest that we all remember that it’s fine to challenge another’s facts, and to dispute/debate their arguments and conclusions; but NOT to impugn their intelligence nor character.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Exile

Seems like most of this thread has been consumed by correcting your mischaracterizations. Can't you find a more productive way to get your points across than your transparent and increasingly pathetic use of strawmen?

What I said, many others said, and what should be all too obvious is that prohibiting such discharge discourages their installation & use, and also potentially discourages respect for the regs and thus potential illegal dumping. Why do you think I yanked out one of the few functional pieces of (expensive) equipment on my boat soon after purchase? I think there was also some reference to this, btw, in either the white paper or the piece from the CBF.

Not exactly a strawman if you keep repeating it... but since you are walking it back a little... fine. dropped.

Btw, have you ever had to install a $1,000+ piece of equipment on your own boat, only to find out after-the-fact that, although officially approved, it was then illegal to use it?

That would suck. (though it was NEVER approved for dumping in a NDZ) I have suggested a way to grandfather such as yourself.

...others who believe that they're getting unnecessarily screwed over for no good end.

Some people had to pull their clunkers off the road when clean-air acts were introduced. Stuff changes.

To suggest that there's no good end to NDZs...(That's kind of snowflaky, isn't it?) ... that's not yet established, and not likely to be in this thread.

Or are you still assuming, despite info presented to the contrary, that "most" Type 1's have holding tanks?

Based just on comments in this thread, i think it's safe to conclude that the percentage of boats with tankless MSDs is not huge, and they are not being installed nearly as often (or ever) on newer boats, in recognition that more of the coastal areas are NDZ. A transitional period is reasonable and manageable.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by DumnMad

Great, he accepts the potty police do not have science on their side.

Uh what? How do you infer that?

[Captain Bill]

Wow, over 500 posts. This has devolved into a teaching a pig to sing exercise, it wastes your time and annoys the pig. The positions are clear and no minds are being changed.

[sailingharry]

Originally Posted by Exile

Btw, have you ever had to install a $1,000+ piece of equipment on your own boat, only to find out after-the-fact that, although officially approved, it was then illegal to use it? If you have, then you shouldn't be so quick to condemn others who believe that they're getting unnecessarily screwed over for no good end. If not, then I can understand why you think it's no big deal. Or are you still assuming, despite info presented to the contrary, that "most" Type 1's have holding tanks?

Not QUITE the same thing, but not far away either -- how many people installed a LORAN, at about a comparable price, only to have NOAA pull the system off line? Or, I looked at a 1996 boat recently with factory installed Hood Seafurl, which Hood stopped making parts for a few years later -- and now, failure of a $50 part would result in replacement of a $30K rig. Or try and retrofit bluetooth into modern cars with completely proprietary and non-upgradeable radio installations. Obsolescence does come with life.


My problem is less about the loss of my 20 year old investment in a L/S, but more about the even more expensive, and functionally impractical, retrofit to a mandated new system.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

[Type 1's & 2's] was NEVER approved for dumping in a NDZ

I was referring to people who installed their systems prior to the implementation of NDZs, and more specifically people who's entire primary sailing area is now an NDZ (e.g. Puget Sound).

I have suggested a way to grandfather such as yourself.

Very kind suggestion but I'm unaware of any such grandfathering in existing law.

Some people had to pull their clunkers off the road when clean-air acts were introduced. Stuff changes.

Only in places with emissions inspection requirements, but not an unfair analogy. The big difference is that, in the large NDZs mostly at issue here, we've yet to see any evidence that restricting all small boaters from discharging what are -- even taken together -- small amounts of treated sewage has any impact on the common goal of cleaning up inland waters.

To suggest that there's no good end to NDZs... (That's kind of snowflaky, isn't it?) ... that's not yet established, and not likely to be in this thread.

My comment plainly stated there was no good end to prohibiting the use of these systems by small boaters. And both the EPA and the State of Calif. apparently agree based on the 2012 ruling that was recently posted. I'm also dubious that other states which have applied for and been granted EPA approval for coastal NDZs have met their scientific burden of proof as the CWA requires. The only thing snowflaky are your repeated attempts to change peoples' positions and then make an argument against that new position.

Based just on comments in this thread, i think it's safe to conclude that the percentage of boats with tankless MSDs is not huge, and they are not being installed nearly as often (or ever) on newer boats, in recognition that more of the coastal areas are NDZ. A transitional period is reasonable and manageable.

Not sure it's safe to conclude from this thread anything more than the total percentage of small boats with Type 1's is not huge, and they are probably made up mostly of boats with limited or no space for a holding tank since that's how Raritan historically designed & marketed these products. It seems there are now more options for products which both treat sewage and offer holding tanks. I know Dometic/Sealand now makes one using their line of Vacuflush heads. Hopefully with the growing recognition that NDZs are counterproductive -- as least as applied to small boats -- both states & the EPA will use Calif. as a precedent and more boaters will be induced to install such systems over the more ubiquitous Type 3's.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by sailingharry

Not QUITE the same thing, but not far away either -- how many people installed a LORAN, at about a comparable price, only to have NOAA pull the system off line? Or, I looked at a 1996 boat recently with factory installed Hood Seafurl, which Hood stopped making parts for a few years later -- and now, failure of a $50 part would result in replacement of a $30K rig. Or try and retrofit bluetooth into modern cars with completely proprietary and non-upgradeable radio installations. Obsolescence does come with life.


My problem is less about the loss of my 20 year old investment in a L/S, but more about the even more expensive, and functionally impractical, retrofit to a mandated new system.

I thought I heard rumors that the US govt. was considering reactivating the LORAN system, no? Concerns about hostile powers taking down GPS systems?

As for your analogies, I agree obsolescence is a fact of life, and you don't have to look far beyond modern computers & devices. But quite different when the govt does it artificially, especially in this case when the same agency approves it but then effectively prohibits it for many people who installed it in good faith and often by necessity. Even then I don't think there'd be all this pushback if the science supported it.

P.S. I have a resource for keeping the old Hood furling systems going should you find it on another boat you're interested in. I've had several professional riggers tell me they still consider it the best system out there, at least for cruising boats. I had to have mine rebuilt after 25 years, but it's otherwise been flawless.

[sailingharry]

Originally Posted by Exile

Hopefully with the growing recognition that NDZs are counterproductive -- as least as applied to small boats -- both states & the EPA will use Calif. as a precedent and more boaters will be induced to install such systems over the more ubiquitous Type 3's.

I wish you were right, Exile. However, I seem to see a different tendency. In the last 3 or 4 years, Maryland has tried to implement a Bay-wide NDZ, has an application for designating a major river as an NDZ (outcome pending) (oh, and said river has very few if any vessels with Type II -- this is purely targeting small pleasure boats), and has an entire county ramping up to apply for NDZ status.


None of these efforts have included exemptions for small vessels, funds to help cover the cost of conversion, funds to build more pumpouts in places that don't have them, grandfather plans for existing vessels, clearly stated science, or anything more than "optics politics."


I wish the tide were turning, so to speak.

[Lake-Effect]

tangential: today is World Toilet Day. If you gave at the office, you need not give at home.

Bonus: is there a whiff of gold in all that brown? You could be sitting on a fortune...