More California Nonsense Proposed

[Skipper]

Let's do a reality check. Those marina toilets and showers loose their appeal in the middle of the night when it is raining outside. Don't tell me there are live aboard sailors that never use their boat heads. I'm not in favor of any testing and much less in forcing people to pay for some service they don't desire.

Reality check: Rain, in So Cal? I don't think so.

Also, nobody uses their heads for #2 at the docks, even in the rare event that it's raining in Oceanside. Therefore, it's a rare need to pump out unless you're cruising, and then you can do it offshore - legal distance.

It's the achorages and mooring fields I'd be more concerned about. Especially boats that never move IE: boat hobos

 

[Skipper]

Avalon and Oceanside: 2 different animals.

Avalon has huge transient mooring traffic. Easy to administer the dye program when visitors rent a mooring, and an effective way to keep human waste out of a bay that by nature is not a great self-cleaner.

People swim and snorkel nearby, and keeping junk out of the water using dye tablets is a good program. You never know who's coming into the bay, and it's worthwhile to have some control. Keeping animal and runoff waste out is another story.

In Oceanside, it would be ludicrous to legislate a dye program for permanent tenants, much less a compulsory monthly pump out. It wouldn't be feasible. Also, as a former short-term live-aboard and a person who spends 8 days a month on his boat currently, the reason you don't see the live-aboard boats at the pumpout is that they use the dockside heads.

One thing I forgot, for those who have not visited Catalina, Avalon Harbor is all mooring fields. The only docks are for the ferries, and a coouple for dinghies. Therefore, no immediate access to onshore heads. This brings clarity to the need for the dye program.

They do offer mobile pumpout.

 

[ggrizzard]

Hey Joe,
Those wouldn't be picture ID's would they?

 

[Edward]

It seems strange that people in general want to live in a clean safe enviorment boaters included,but don,t expect me to contribute.. We sailors in other areas have been paying pumpouts for decades,
I guess some sailors that can spend $????? on the purchase of a boat plus
the rest of its up keep gripe at a $10.00 po charge.
Not realistic

 

[KD3PC]

- there is no way those people are skittering to the marina head every time nature calls.

Patently not true, the wife and I while liveaboards on the northern neck, did head for the shoreside facilities, each and every time the call was made....it was just under 1/4 mile round trip and other than me scaring a heron or the other way around at 2 am....it was a pleasant trip.

We stayed in shape and got to know a lot of people along the way to and fro, doing so.

 

[dparilla]

Type 1 MSDs for all my friends! We tested the intake and discharge of our MSD for the presence of fecal coliform bacteria. The Potomac water in was 75-150ppm. Our discharge was 7-15ppm. If we can get people to understand the science of these systems, it will go a long way toward cleaner waterways and easier boating. Never worrying about being near a pumpout at the end of the day has made the initial expense of the system worth every penny. A 15 gallon holding tank for the occasional trip inside an NDZ coupled with an electroscan that can purge from tank or direct discharge (aka Hold 'n Treat) is absolutely awesome.

 

[Stu Jackson]

It seems strange that people in general want to live in a clean safe enviorment boaters included,but don,t expect me to contribute.. We sailors in other areas have been paying pumpouts for decades,
I guess some sailors that can spend $????? on the purchase of a boat plus
the rest of its up keep gripe at a $10.00 po charge.
Not realistic

The issues here in this particular case seem to be completely different. Your point is that if one can spend $$ on a boat, then one shouldn't complain about a few extra $s. And that you find it acceptable that pumpouts cost any money.

I believe that approach is nonsense.

Pumpouts should be free. In California the Dept or Rec & Boating have funded them from TAXES we pay on fuel at boating docks. Why folks back east put up with: a) mandates for pumpouts; b) none appeared; c) when a few did they charged exorbitant rates - is beyond me.

Your east coast pumpout "model" was/is bassackwards.

In this case in Oceanside, the little chick was trying to promote her business by essentially "blaming the victims" - the boaters - who were not creating any problem at all to begin with. A bad solution in search of a non-problem.

 

[Stu Jackson]

Hey Joe,
Those wouldn't be picture ID's would they?

Nah, only if they wanna vote.

 

[Scott T-Bird]

Pumpouts should be free. In California the Dept or Rec & Boating have funded them from TAXES we pay on fuel at boating docks. Why folks back east put up with: a) mandates for pumpouts; b) none appeared; c) when a few did they charged exorbitant rates - is beyond me.

First of all, nothing is ever for free. I think it is odd to link fuel taxes to funding the pump out services. If that is the case, Stu, I doubt that you purchase enough fuel to pay a sufficient amount of taxes to cover your share of the pump-out fees. I figure that many sailors might use gerry cans to transfer fuel that they purchase from a non-marina source at less expense. But, as long as enough power boaters keep the fund alive, I imagine rag-wavers will be satisfied.

I think marinas should be mandated to provide and man a pump-out facility sufficiently to provide the service. The expense would simply be built into the slip fees or user fees ... their choice. Why should marina owners be able to skate from this responsibility? It should be required in order to obtain a permit to operate. This way, it is a competitively based system and more options for boaters are provided. The occasional boater who is not connected to the marina, but needs the service, can pay a one-time user fee. The key is that there should be more pump-outs and they should be manned so that there is no excuse to avoid them. But put the burden on the marinas ... they're making the money and have the dock facilities ... it should be their responsibility.

 

[fstbttms]

California should subsidize the installation of pump out stations...

It does.

A lot of ignorant opinions being shared in this thread, all by people who have never spent a minute in the water in a marina. If you honestly think that illegal discharges are not happening in your marina every single day, then I have a bridge you might be interested in buying.

 

[Scott T-Bird]

Abuse of any system that is put into place is the human condition. Fstbttms, since you don't seem to have an opinion, what's your point?

 

[fstbttms]

Abuse of any system that is put into place is the human condition. Fstbttms, since you don't seem to have an opinion, what's your point?

My point is that those who argue that discharging of black water in marinas is a non-issue make that statement from a position of ignorance or apathy.

 

[Gunni]

As a former California liveaboard (Santa Barbara) and a current slip holder (Ann Arundel county), I can attest that most of my fellow liveaboards were derelict owners who were rightly and appropriately hounded to get shipshape or shipout. Here in MD the marina operators put a hairy eyeball on the liveaboards because of liability concerns that far exceed the release of their excrement. One such local character recently burned up two other boats with his ratty 40 year old electrical system. If you can't manage to make way to the pumpout dock on a 30 day schedule - you are a vagrant, not a boater.

Anyone remember that Sodom and Gomorrah of the Keys - Stock Island anchorage? Florida eventually had to take strong measures to clean out the mess of derelict, uninsured floating vagrants- keelhauling, chainsawing, and crushing the lot. No responsible boater should be defending these bad apples.

For my misinformed left coasters - we do get free pumpouts as slip holders. Many marinas even have pumpout hydrants scattered conveniently about the marinas, with mobile hose carts available. They do charge the transients for pumpouts under the timeless code of hitting up the tourist. And the MDNR police regularly boards and inspects MSD systems to confirm discharge compliance. Care to guess who most of the citations go to?

 

[fstbttms]

Regarding publicly funded pumpout facilities- the federal government provides all states with funds to dole out as grants (typically) to marinas and municipalities for the intallation of shoreside and mobile pumpout facilities. The big caveat in this program is that the pumpout operator may not charge more than $5 or $10 for use of the equipment or service. Therefore, most marinas or municipalities that take advantage of this do not charge anything, as it would require man hours to run and the keeping of a set of books to justify receipts to the feds. For this reason, few (if any) commercial pumpout services apply for the grant.

 

[Stu Jackson]

California Pumpout Facts

1. First of all, nothing is ever for free. I think it is odd to link fuel taxes to funding the pump out services. If that is the case, Stu, I doubt that you purchase enough fuel to pay a sufficient amount of taxes to cover your share of the pump-out fees. I figure that many sailors might use gerry cans to transfer fuel that they purchase from a non-marina source at less expense. But, as long as enough power boaters keep the fund alive, I imagine rag-wavers will be satisfied.

2. I think marinas should be mandated to provide and man a pump-out facility sufficiently to provide the service. The expense would simply be built into the slip fees or user fees ... their choice. Why should marina owners be able to skate from this responsibility? It should be required in order to obtain a permit to operate. This way, it is a competitively based system and more options for boaters are provided. The occasional boater who is not connected to the marina, but needs the service, can pay a one-time user fee. The key is that there should be more pump-outs and they should be manned so that there is no excuse to avoid them. But put the burden on the marinas ... they're making the money and have the dock facilities ... it should be their responsibility.

1. You got the "business model" backwards. Whether I personally pay enough in fuel taxes is immaterial. I'm a sailor, I don't use a lot of fuel per year and most folks I know use a lot less, but you're right, powerboaters use a LOT of fuel. It's called a "community", Scott, where GROUPS of people merge their accumulated funds to benefit everyone. If your model worked, then I would be charged individually for pumpouts based on the fuel I personally used, which is a completely nonsensical approach to what is perceived as a community (of boaters) issue, and a fair solution. Think of it like firemen and police: taxes by everyone pays for the service. I would dread the day that firemen couldn't save my home because I didn't pay individually for their services. Although some "privatizers" would have you believe that's a good approach - I think that's nuts. Pumpouts are funded by grants from the California Dept of Parks, Division of Boating & Waterways and provide grants of up to 25% of the cost of pumpout installation.

2. Continuing, the Dept also states:

Can I charge for use of the pumpout or dump station?

Yes. While the State encourages the free use of facilities constructed under this program, a maximum user fee of $5 can be charged. However, during the grant application evaluation process, a higher priority will be given to applicants who propose free use or a lower-than-maximum user fee.

YIKES!!! $5. Gee, guess it's completely unlike the "back East" model of gouging the customer.

"...and they should be manned so that there is no excuse to avoid them..." Why? Potti police? How are they gonna do that? Chase boaters down with 50 caliber machine guns on inflatables? Nonsense.

And you don't need to "man" a pumpout. We've learned how to read here: so I pull my boat up to the marina's pumpout where I keep my boat, or to the SECOND one close to me at our local fuel dock, and READ the instructions: Open waste deck fitting on boat, insert nozzle, turn pumpout on (with either a button or the key fob at my marina for its tenants but right next to the harbormaster office for other visitors), pump out, Have a Nice Day!

What could be simpler?

Marinas don't "skate" - they contribute by having pumpouts. Good for everyone, just what you "want", don't seem to have, but we DO!

So your "business" model seems awkward at best, and ours is implemented and working. I have never paid for a pumpout and I've been boating here for 35 years. May be time to quit California-bashing, at least as far as pumpouts are concerned.

It's a GOOD use of government. Not all government is bad. Just ask your local policeman or fireman.

One of the newer marinas here has pumpouts at every slip!

That's why we who live here think Stinky Sally is crazy, think her "business " model and yours are just the wrong approach, and suggest that you do some fact checking first.

 

[Scott T-Bird]

Stu, I think you misunderstood me. I didn't propose any business model, I just suggested that paying for pump-out service through boat fuel tax doesn't make any sense. The two activities aren't connected and it leads to inequity. But I'm sure it doesn't matter since the funding of pump out facilities is probably barely noticeable in the realm of high taxation.

My comments simply offer the opinion that providing the necessary pump out facilities should be a marina's responsibility, whether it is a marina in the public sector or a privately-owned marina. I suggested that marinas should absorb the cost and simply fund it from their revenues. That's the most logical way to handle any kind of service. They can choose to fund it thru slip fees, user fees, absorb the cost out of the goodness of their heart, make it a profit center, or simply break-even, it makes no difference to me as long as it is there to be used.

But if California throws a bunch of cash into the system to encourage the marinas to provide the service, I see nothing wrong with that either as long as everybody is happy.

My experience stems from a different circumstance. I have a holding tank, and many boats on my lake certainly do as well, but we have very few places to pump out, if any. I guess it doesn't matter very much since anchoring out on the lake overnight is prohibited and marinas also don't allow sleeping over on boats. We simply don't do #2 on the boat and #1 is normally conducted while going for a swim.

But I do occasionally have the need to pump out. At one marina, the service is provided, but only on weekdays because they are too busy on weekends to bother. So I have to take a day off from work, and then I have to wait forever at the dock while some guy trundles out the manual buggy from deep in the recesses of their building. For that privilege, it costs $35 plus tip. I'd gladly do it myself, but that option isn't available.

There used to be a marina that had a nice electric suction hose that did a great job. I found that I could go to them on weekends and it cost just $30. But the new owners can't be bothered with the practice, I was disappointed to find out. I went there one day and the owner looked at me like I had 3 heads when I asked for pump-out service. There might be other marinas, but they would be on the other side of bridges that I can't cross under.

Hence, my opinion that marinas should be mandated to provide the service if they enjoy the privilege of operating a revenue-producing business on the waterfront. If it costs nothing, $5, $35 or is absorbed by the slip fee, it all makes no difference to me, as long as I can weigh the options (or even have options).

 

[Stu Jackson]

NJ Lake Pumpout Nonsense

Scott, that's exactly my point. Why are you paying $35 for anything that isn't available when you need it? Our fuel dock have pumpouts, marinas have pumpouts. The "model" you describe simply doesn't work for you, you're eloquent in describing how really poor it is. Wouldn't it help if the State helped fund MORE pumpouts, that worked and were open when most boaters, you included, are sailing? Gee, one good reason for BIG govt.

Add - You are proposing a business model when you suggest that marinas build and run the pumpouts and charge.

 

[woodster]

Regarding publicly funded pumpout facilities- the federal government provides all states with funds to dole out as grants (typically) to marinas and municipalities for the intallation of shoreside and mobile pumpout facilities. The big caveat in this program is that the pumpout operator may not charge more than $5 or $10 for use of the equipment or service. Therefore, most marinas or municipalities that take advantage of this do not charge anything, as it would require man hours to run and the keeping of a set of books to justify receipts to the feds. For this reason, few (if any) commercial pumpout services apply for the grant.

i was at a marina last year that had a pump out stand made by edson on the fuel dock/pump out dock....you had to buy tokens that had the edson logo on them then you went to the pump when it was your turn and got everything ready to pump and dropped the tokens in the pump slot and away she went or is that thar she blows

 

[fstbttms]

i was at a marina last year that had a pump out stand made by edson on the fuel dock/pump out dock....you had to buy tokens that had the edson logo on them then you went to the pump when it was your turn and got everything ready to pump and dropped the tokens in the pump slot and away she went or is that thar she blows

Nothing keeping a marina or city from funding the pumpout facility themselves as a for-profit endeavor.

 

[Scott T-Bird]

What I am suggesting is that the availability of the pump-out stations should be mandatory, not the funding. There is no need for taxation to fund them. I'll gladly pay whatever the market suggests is the correct price ... as long as there are options because the marinas are mandated to provide the service.

I suppose your fear is that marinas will collude to keep the price artificially high. Well, maybe they would since most will be in some sort of association or another. I'd work on that issue next, if it were a problem.

There is NO good reason for BIG government .... sheesh!