Visit our Popular Forums

donradcliffe · 06-08-2010, 09:17

I have learned that most pumpout facilities in the US are receiving refunds of a good portion of their capital and operating costs through a grant program. I believe that the program is federally funded and administered by each state.

The salient point is that any facility which is receiving these funds is limited to charging $5 or less for pumping out up to 30 gallons.

My personal experience was in Newport, RI, where the Goat Island Marina wanted $10. An email to the RI Department of Environmenta Management brought a promp reply that they were indeed funded under the clean vessel act, and the $10 was an overcharge.

So the next time someone wants more than $5, ask them if they are funded under the clean vessel act, and are aware of the limits--that will probably go right over the dockhand's head, and you will probably have to talk to the manager.

**Hudson Force** · 06-08-2010, 09:49

I have found $5 pumpouts common on the East Coast US and pumpouts at no charge common when buying diesel or renting a slip. We are temporarily at a marina that provides 2 free pumpouts/month and added pumpous at $5 each. Some city docks have DIY operated free pumpout stations such as in Jacksonville, Fl. No charge pumpouts are common for patrons at south florida marinas. Take care and joy, aythya crew

foggysail · 06-08-2010, 14:23

I voice my opinion on pump outs at every opportunity. First, WHAT A RIP OFF!!! Fairhaven, Massachusetts offers pump outs ONLY on Saturdays and Sundays!!! Now really...............and do they expect compliance?????

The "do gooder's" cannot do enough to make it harder for the average non-do gooder. States have invoked no discharge zones that cover most navigational water but they also banned or will not accept on board waste processing.

OK....fair enough!!! Every little bit counts therefore, no boat poop allowed. But wait!!!! Is that rain I hear beating on the roof???? Quickly, go check the local sewage systems and see how much raw sewage is being pumped into the drink. I questioned what our local municipalities dump, and was told they process everything, rain or no rain. But I lost count of the number of times I passed the 10' diameter discharge pipe outside of New Bedford Harbor when the effluent was being pumped. The seagulls were having a field day diving onto the floating "gunboats!"

Sure, beach and congested marinas should not be exposed to any unnecessary contamination but neither should states be allowed to ban ALL discharges.

We live in a society that finds something wrong in everything done. We suffer from toooo much BIG BROTHER!!!! Government DOES NOT KNOW BEST!!!!

Foggy

anjou · 06-08-2010, 14:39

On inland waterways in the UK, the annual licence fee includes trash disposal and fresh water but not all pumpouts.

Those with a casette type head can dispose for free but those with a holding tank requiring a pumpout have to pay on average £15 a time.

In the French river and canal systems, there are very few pumpout facilities, and its normal for boats to dump waste directly into the water. I wouldnt ever wish to see this happen in the UK but if authorities dont make facilities more accesable, it only leads to illegal dumping and is very short sighted

S/V Illusion · 06-08-2010, 15:02

Quote:

Originally Posted by foggysail

so banned or will not accept on board waste processing.

OK....fair enough!!! Every little bit counts therefore, no boat poop allowed. But wait!!!! Is that rain I hear beating on the roof???? Quickly, go check the local sewage systems and see how much raw sewage is being pumped into the drink. I questioned what our local municipalities dump, and was told they process everything, rain or no rain. But I lost count of the number of times I passed the 10' diameter discharge pipe outside of New Bedford Harbor when the effluent was being pumped. The seagulls were having a field day diving onto the floating "gunboats!"

Foggy

Shall we deduce from your comments you are in favor of massive tax increases to pay to eliminate all combined sewer overflows? I believe the cost estimate for New Bedford is $6 billion after which you are still left with an even more massive PCB contaminated sediment problem which will take an equivalent amount of money to clean up. I won't make an obvious political comment except to say we're on the fast-track to higher taxes now so who knows...

foggysail · 06-08-2010, 19:14

Quote:

Originally Posted by S/V Illusion

Shall we deduce from your comments you are in favor of massive tax increases to pay to eliminate all combined sewer overflows? I believe the cost estimate for New Bedford is $6 billion after which you are still left with an even more massive PCB contaminated sediment problem which will take an equivalent amount of money to clean up. I won't make an obvious political comment except to say we're on the fast-track to higher taxes now so who knows...

Higher taxes??? Of course not.

I thought the message contained in my last post was clear but good writing skill is something that has always alluded my every effort. I will try again.

I am fed up with so called environmental experts ranging Pergs, Serrias, Save the Polar Bears, Society of Concerned Scientists.............now that is one Hell of a name, one you can have for the $25 membership fee and the list goes on.

There is NO REASON for the ludicrous discharging bans on waste outside of congested water ways that now proliferate everywhere. But the NO NOTHINGS some how get empowered in government positions that make life difficult for all who own boats.

My reference to local waste discharge was to emphasize the dichotomy between what government imposes on its citizenry compared to government doing what it damned well feels like doing.

Foggy

S/V Illusion · 06-08-2010, 19:23

I may misunderstand but I infer from your last paragraph that you think "government" is to blame. It seems to me that is a misplaced - it's us who is to blame in that we would never want the financial burden required to improve our sewerage systems nor would we elect anyone who promised to require combined sewer overflow elimination at the taxpayers enormous expense. Although it may be a minimally egregious additional pollution burden, I never met anyone who said a little bit of sewage (from boats) was okay.

Captain Bill · 06-08-2010, 19:28

Quote:

Originally Posted by donradcliffe

So the next time someone wants more than $5, ask them if they are funded under the clean vessel act, and are aware of the limits--that will probably go right over the dockhand's head, and you will probably have to talk to the manager.

My guess would be if you asked the manager and made a point of the $5 he would say that the pumpout was $5, the other $5 was for tying up to our dock. $10 Please.

Minggat · 06-08-2010, 20:00

In my former marina, my understand from the the guy running the pumpout, was that he was pocketing $10 per pumpout while the gas dock owner thought he was generously giving them away.

Aside from that, when I was a livaboard there, we used the marina facilities for the most part. Since I have never been a fan of holding tank systems, that means that I used my porta potty as seldom as possible. When i did need to empty that holding tank, I simply put it in a large plastic trash bag (so nobody could tell what it was and I didn't get caught up in conversation about it) and carried it up to the restroom. This worked fine until the marina posted a sign "NO DUMPING OF PORTA POTTY TYPE DEVICES". I asked the dockmaster what the deal was. He reported that someone who should well have know better, dumped one in the SHOWER DRAIN, thereby the need to set a new rule. They drew the line in the wrong spot. But the need to draw any line at all is because ... stupid people still breed.

Chief Engineer · 06-08-2010, 20:12

Our State passed a potty tax of $30.00 per house hold....even if you weren't connected to a public sanitation system.

Chief Engineer · 06-08-2010, 20:14

And furthermore, they are now studying the bacteria in the Bay for a bazillion dollars.

My nose "knows".

Any high school kid with a microscope and a good taxonomic book on Bacteria could do it in his spare time.

foggysail · 07-08-2010, 07:36

Quote:

Originally Posted by S/V Illusion

I may misunderstand but I infer from your last paragraph that you think "government" is to blame. It seems to me that is a misplaced - it's us who is to blame in that we would never want the financial burden required to improve our sewerage systems nor would we elect anyone who promised to require combined sewer overflow elimination at the taxpayers enormous expense. Although it may be a minimally egregious additional pollution burden, I never met anyone who said a little bit of sewage (from boats) was okay.

It is goverment that imposes discharge bans. It is government that refuses to allow discharge from marine waste water systems. It is government that fails to provide adequate pump out facilities. Yes, government is the problem.

And I repeat "My reference to local waste discharge was to emphasize the dichotomy between what government imposes on its citizenry compared to government doing what it damned well feels like doing."

Captain Bill · 07-08-2010, 08:41

Quote:

Originally Posted by foggysail

And I repeat "My reference to local waste discharge was to emphasize the dichotomy between what government imposes on its citizenry compared to government doing what it damned well feels like doing."

Foggysail,
First thing I should say is that I'm not defending unwarranted no discharge zones and by no discharge zones, I mean the discharge of treated on board wastes, not untreated wastes. I find it interesting that you think that government is somehow separate from the citizenry. These people are supervised by people elected by the citizenry to govern. The elected officials then hire citizens to accomplish the job that they were elected to do. I worked for a state government for a few years and I didn't know anyone who considered themselves separate from the rest of the state citizenry. We were charged by the elected officials with providing the best information we could and to suggest solutions to problems they were hired to solve. We did this in an environment of a citizenry that wanted services, but did not want to pay for them. This meant that the elected officials could not solve the big problems, so they looked for simple solutions that did not cost anything and affected as few citizens negatively as possible. They often had little or no impact on the larger problem, but could be seen as action on the part of the official. The no discharge zones are a great example of this type of action. The lack of discharge of treated wastes from boats will have no measurable effect on the overall pollution problem, but gives the appearance to a largely ignorant (not stupid) public that something is being done to clean up their local waters. In the meantime, the officials have to try to find a way to solve the big problem without pissing off the citizenry. Lets face it any time taxes are raised the citizenry gets pissed off. Since declaring a no discharge zone costs almost nothing and affects only a small number of "rich" boaters it is an easy thing to do. Let’s face it, the public thinks that anyone who owns a boat over 25 feet must have money to burn.

No discharge zones (in the US) are only declared at the request of local government. How many boaters went to the local government public meetings where these requests were being considered? I would bet we'll be hard pressed to find many who have. My guess is that cruisers in particular have little interest in the proceedings of local governments. I would suggest that the rules were imposed by your fellow citizens, not some separate and dictatorial government, because we couldn't be bothered participating in the governmental process and making sure that our interests were taken into account.