Do the potty police have science on their side?

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

I don't know of any declared NDZ that isn't part of some larger scheme that includes other polluters. In fact I posted one legal article that explained how some states have had to resort to an NDZ to plug a big hole in the CWA that allows cruise ships to dump. I'm pretty sure that for every NDZ you'll also find other initiatives focussed on land-based pollution into the same area.

I get that just targeting recreational boaters, in particular the types 1 and 2 would seem useless, but i don't really believe that that's ALL that's going on, or that those boats are the only targets.


Where's the fun in that? It's been more amusing to hear people whip this up into a gummint conspiracy or a purely political move for votes.

I may have missed it, but only you seem to think the argument against pointless regulations is equivalent to a protest against a gummit conspiracy. And saying that you need to tell the owner of a 27' sailboat that he can't flush his johnnie into 200' of water so that a cruise ship is prevented from pumping 5,000 gallons of raw sewage in the same place is just silly.

The objection to the NDZ for pleasure boats has been clearly stated. It discourages the installation of systems that would reduce significantly the environmental impact of marine toilets and they serve no material beneficial impact on water quality. So of course their only purpose is political window dressing that have about as much impact on what they are supposed to impact as hate crime legislation has on murder rates.

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by sailingharry

The "Agricultural" section is actually bit misleading. The page has good info and good navigation, but it's hard to see where you are. The first link below "Agricutural" is "Air Pollution" -- it's sort of all there and all broken up too.


The big guys are in the crosshairs -- sewage and septic -- but it's 100% land based. MSD's don't get a footnote.


Interesting paper. As kid, I had a crush on the second author's sister. And, yes, it's the same one -- I've been in contact with Donna on another NDZ matter. Small world! I like the part of the report that finds a recent study showing that boat sewage (legal and illegal) represents 0.0017 percent of the nutrient loading in the Bay. It's also interesting that the very agency that would shepherd through an NDZ (Maryland Department of the Environment) would write a paper that is so strongly unsupportive of the effort (that's my take -- in the political world, many documents are used to support both sides of an argument! LOL).

The .0017% contribution illustrates the absurdity of these regulations. The other issue with NDZs that has been mentioned, and sorry for repeating your point, is that the problem with contamination from human sources is "point source" pollution, meaning a sewage pipe dumping into a waterway, or one of the frequent overflows of millions of gallons of raw sewage from Puget Sound treatment plants, or agricultural runoff from a dairy farm, etc. An argument can, and has been made, that non point sources of sewage, like from pleasure boats who randomly flush their johns as they putter along, are beneficial to the ecosystem.

Only a moron flushes his head in a marina or harbor and that moron is not going to be paying any attention to an NDZ. Better to encourage the use of pumpouts and type 1 and 2 MSDs if you actually think the .0017% matters.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Delfin

I may have missed it, but only you seem to think the argument against pointless regulations is equivalent to a protest against a gummit conspiracy.

It's the difference between throwing out the whole NDZ regulation, and just fixing the part that's an irritant.

And saying that you need to tell the owner of a 27' sailboat that he can't flush his johnnie into 200' of water so that a cruise ship is prevented from pumping 5,000 gallons of raw sewage in the same place is just silly.

The objection to the NDZ for pleasure boats has been clearly stated. It discourages the installation of systems that would reduce significantly the environmental impact of marine toilets and they serve no material beneficial impact on water quality. So of course their only purpose is political window dressing that have about as much impact on what they are supposed to impact as hate crime legislation has on murder rates.

Politics is the art of the possible. If a blanket NDZ affecting all boaters is the only way to close the CWA loophole permitting cruiseliners to dump anywhere... you do what ya gotta do.

Anyway, from the white-paper and other sources, there is an appreciation of the burdens that NDZs can pose to some boatowners, and a willingness to seek compromise.

Maybe a better approach is for boaters to work with those setting up NDZs, and perhaps stop yelling


The Zealot who can bag the biggest NDZ advances higher in the organization.
or
The ecozealots got the pols to declare all of Puget Sound a NDZ.

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

If a blanket NDZ affecting all boaters is the only way to close the CWA loophole permitting cruiseliners to dump anywhere... you do what ya gotta do.

I believe that is called the fallacy of the excluded middle, which doesn't say much for the logic of your argument. Bit like asserting that since the small bridge can't handle a 48' semi, bicyclists need to be barred from using it.

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Maybe a better approach is for boaters to work with those setting up NDZs, and perhaps stop yelling

Actually, every boating organization I know of went on record against establishing Puget Sound as an NDZ if it didn't exclude small boats, but it made little difference, anymore than the scientific arguments in support of such an exclusion made any difference. Why? Simple politics from the same eco-authoritarians who think banning straws will have any positive impact on anything.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Delfin

I believe that is called the fallacy of the excluded middle, which doesn't say much for the logic of your argument. Bit like asserting that since the small bridge can't handle a 48' semi, bicyclists need to be barred from using it.


Actually, every boating organization I know of went on record against establishing Puget Sound as an NDZ if it didn't exclude small boats, but it made little difference, anymore than the scientific arguments in support of such an exclusion made any difference. Why? Simple politics from the same eco-authoritarians who think banning straws will have any positive impact on anything.

I'm a bit unclear on your stance. Are you for throwing out the whole NDZ and letting commercial shipping, including cruiseliners, dump in the Sound, as long as the recreational boats prevail?



https://www.federalregister.gov/docu...age-receipt-of

[senormechanico]

That remark is even dumber than expected from you.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

It's the difference between throwing out the whole NDZ regulation, and just fixing the part that's an irritant.

Politics is the art of the possible. If a blanket NDZ affecting all boaters is the only way to close the CWA loophole permitting cruiseliners to dump anywhere... you do what ya gotta do.

Wrong again L-E. Politics is the art of securing & maintaining power. But fortunately we don't live in banana republics and so have the rule of law to hopefully provide a check on abuses of that power. As applied here, there's the practical standpoint of inducing the necessary voluntary cooperation from the boating public, but there's also legal requirements which require regulations to have a rational basis, i.e. that the object or action being restricted must be reasonably related to the actual harm being caused.

Although cruise ships are an easy & obvious target, it is not yet clear from any science presented here that even their Type 2 treated sewage is causing harm which existing regs don't adequately cover. Probably a good idea to fashion a rule (which the EPA did in Cali) to get them to dump beyond the 3-mile limit (with the narrow exception should they accumulate more sewage than they have capacity for while in inland waters), but the petition to the EPA from the state of WA merely says it "has determined that the protection and enhancement of the quality of the waters of Puget Sound requires greater environmental protection." Do we know what actual environmental harm supports the NDZ for all of Puget Sound, let alone what types of boats it's coming from? If the standards for approval are really as low as thinwater stated awhile back, it makes the regulatory scheme ripe for misleading, arbitrary & unfair political manipulation. Again, why Puget Sound, all Mass. waters, and all of Narragansett Bay, but not waters as ecologically sensitive as exist in the (main part) Chesapeake Bay?

And how about we save some time and brain cells by your not coming back with some moronic accusation that I personally favor cruise ships dumping at my favorite anchorage. Although your posts often sound like you're still in grade school, I don't think anyone else around here still is.

Speaking of political manipulation, you are also dead wrong when you equate the type of politics that unduly distorts regulations (which all sides are guilty of), and outright political partisanship. As we have just read from the state of MD & the CBF, the analysis of the Chesapeake Bay from MD authorities demonstrates that the discharge of Type 1 treated sewage from the relatively few boaters with such systems contribute an infinitesimal amount of harmful pollution into the waters. Sound like the rational basis test has been met to you?

So the answer to a regulation that is so obviously overbroad is not to make recreational boaters suffer, but to repeal or amend the regulation so that it properly targets actual offenders in order to mitigate the harm. And yes, it is in fact a "big whoop" (your words) for small boaters who have spent thousands of dollars on systems which have been approved by the EPA & USCG, only to then have to physically or effectively lock the door to the head if sailing within one of these large NDZs. But that's not something you need be concerned with so why not slight others who are directly affected?

There's really nothing "political" about challenging the motivations, intent & effectiveness of NDZs, except to cause people to reject the type of thoughtless political partisanship that often creates these regulations in the first place.

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

I'm a bit unclear on your stance. Are you for throwing out the whole NDZ and letting commercial shipping, including cruiseliners, dump in the Sound, as long as the recreational boats prevail?



https://www.federalregister.gov/docu...age-receipt-of

L-E, if you keep using such obvious logical fallacies in your argument, people will start thinking you are a bit dim at best or dishonest at worst. Not assuming either, I can only repeat that if you are trying to prevent cruise liners from dumping treated or untreated sewage into Puget Sound, make it illegal to do so. To do that, you do not need to also make illegal activities that have no impact on the problem you are trying to solve. You pretend it is an either everyone dumps, or no one does situation, and you know that is false. Further, when you make things that are harmless illegal, rational people, even honest ones, ignore those laws. It is still illegal to get drunk in bars in Alaska. That law is going to be about as effective in preventing drunkenness as telling a boater his infinitesimal and probably beneficial contribution of NPK to Puget Sound is illegal. Worse, the Puget Sound NDZ designation discourages the installation of largely effective sanitation systems on small boats. So, like most misguided purely authoritarian friendly, politically motivated initiatives, this one causes more harm than good. Yet you seem to support it.

[senormechanico]

Delfin,


I know you're trying to follow CF's "Be nice" rule with the first sentence in your post to l-e , but "Wake up and smell the coffee".
I'm sure most readers of this thread already have made their determinations!

[DumnMad]

Originally Posted by senormechanico

Delfin,


I know you're trying to follow CF's "Be nice" rule with the first sentence in your post to l-e , but "Wake up and smell the coffee".
I'm sure most readers of this thread already have made their determinations!

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by senormechanico

Delfin,


I know you're trying to follow CF's "Be nice" rule with the first sentence in your post to l-e , but "Wake up and smell the coffee".
I'm sure most readers of this thread already have made their determinations!

Which is why I don't need to belabor the obvious.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Delfin

I can only repeat that if you are trying to prevent cruise liners from dumping treated or untreated sewage into Puget Sound, make it illegal to do so.

Sure. Snap and done.

There are a number of reasons that thinwater apprised us of as to why such a law could not find the light of day. Some of the other links of the legal details point that out as well.

So, like most misguided purely authoritarian friendly, politically motivated initiatives, this one causes more harm than good.

You too, huh? Pissing off some type 1 owners is more harmful than stopping cruiseliners and commercial boats from dumping in Puget Sound. ...Ok.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Exile

Wrong again L-E. Politics is the art of securing & maintaining power.

I'm not surprised that you'd think that.


“Politics is the art of the possible, the attainable — the art of the next best”


― Otto von Bismarck

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Delfin

Which is why I don't need to belabor the obvious.

I admire your ability to be much more concise in your posts than me, but your equally adept ability at politeness just makes some of us look . . . well, rather impolite!

[sailingharry]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Anyway, from the white-paper and other sources, there is an appreciation of the burdens that NDZs can pose to some boatowners, and a willingness to seek compromise.

Maybe a better approach is for boaters to work with those setting up NDZs, and perhaps stop yelling

Lake, your suggestions make a lot of sense. However I am unaware of any NDZ in the entire United States that represents the compromise that you suggest. They tend to be all-in.