More California Nonsense Proposed

[woodster]

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

maybe i should have made myself a little clearer on this ...if they used this type of system they would not have to keep books only the record of tokens sold and no labor for a pump out person ...just need somebody to rob the tokens back out of the pump slot bank and you would have all the record you need

 

[Stu Jackson]

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

Scott, that was a joke for all you "market forces" folk.

 

[Scott T-Bird]

Don't I know it!

 

[Gunni]

The problem is; $30 to $35 for a pumpout only encourages people to simply dump it in the lake. That is a ridiculous fee. I suppose this is the difference between Federal regulation of coastal waters and State waters, where the notion is if the state wants to manage their freshwater resources like a farmers cow pond - they will address it when the Federal CWA lawsuit hits the courts. In the meantime, coastal boaters are clearly being better served by their government.

 

[fstbttms]

That is a ridiculous fee.

If you were handling somebody else's sh*t, you wouldn't think it was ridiculous.

 

[Gunni]

If you were handling somebody else's sh*t, you wouldn't think it was ridiculous.

I handle my own sh*t, have since I got out of short pants ! However, if crew earn enough demerits they can be assigned "Pumpout Specialist".

 

[shemandr]

We have FREE pump out boats. It is really a good system and a great deal for the boat owners. (BTW, you're a real schmuck if you don't give the operator a tip). Sadly, the service is underutilized.
Boatyard workers I know maintain that the yard needs to charge at least $60 to operate a pump out profitably. And most probably can't at that price (On eastern LI). Local governments paid yards to install systems for pump out and as a part of that tree was a limit what they could charge. Unfortunately, the yards took the money and now almost all those systems are "Not available due to mechanical failure." Local governments never installed a system to monitor the ongoing use. So - SURPRISE!
I now advocate that logs be kept on the number of pump outs a vessel gets per season. The pump out boats already log every pump out event. The pump out operators know who is out and not getting pump outs. They need a visit from law enforcement to encourage participation. This doesn't have to be too intrusive. "Hello Capt. Do you have a holding tank? You've not had a pump out so far this season. Would you like to have a free pump out right now or a boarding by law enforcement this afternoon?"
We do have live a boards. At least one responsible yard requires closed overboard discharge. But they are enforcing a rule against their customers. I think inspection via a governing authority is reasonable. We also get transient live a boards. "Welcome! Please keep a regular pump out schedule - or, you're not welcome. And would you like a safety inspection?"
It's a small enough place here that we can monitor things. The problem is that everyone knows everyone, and enforcement is difficult. So I have come to the view that law enforcement is necessary. The mechanism is in place for boaters to get convenient, cheap pump outs - at tax payers expense. It shouldn't be optional. Other areas have different situations.
Flame Suit on. I probably shouldn't press that "post" button but ….bang

 

[Scott T-Bird]

The problem is; $30 to $35 for a pumpout only encourages people to simply dump it in the lake. That is a ridiculous fee. I suppose this is the difference between Federal regulation of coastal waters and State waters, where the notion is if the state wants to manage their freshwater resources like a farmers cow pond - they will address it when the Federal CWA lawsuit hits the courts. In the meantime, coastal boaters are clearly being better served by their government.

It's not the fee I object to, it's the lack of opportunity for a service that I would find useful. I'd guess that 98% of the boats on Lake Hopatcong have no toilet. But I do, and there are more than a handful of power cruisers in the 24' to 28' range that surely do as well. All I want is a marina that will provide the service with reasonable convenience. Since it is such an oddity on the lake, I can't complain about the fee.

It's simply not a situation that has generated much thought. How should the State manage this issue? Should they banish all people from recreating on the lake because they can't control people who jump in the water to pee? That's ridiculous.

 

[Stu Jackson]

Not only a California Issue

Don't I know it!

Good one. See how well we can work together?

If you were handling somebody else's sh*t, you wouldn't think it was ridiculous.

Last weekend a friend invited me to go on his boat, with one other crew member (3 of us total) to sail out into the ocean from SF to Monterey and back. Before we left his marina, he motored over to the fuel/pumpout dock. He and the other crew member filled the diesel, while I was assigned to do the pumpout. In retrospect, I thought that was quite gross, to ask a guest to pump someone else’s sh*t out, but I did my duty, with a smile.

Point is, the pumpout was FREE. As I mentioned in an earlier post, California has solved the “business model” by utilizing BOATING taxes to fund BOATING issues that BENEIFT US ALL. [/quote]

1. We have FREE pump out boats. It is really a good system and a great deal for the boat owners. (BTW, you're a real schmuck if you don't give the operator a tip).
2. I now advocate that logs be kept on the number of pump outs a vessel gets per season.

1. Good idea. Underutilized FREE services make little sense.

2. Logs? I find it offensive that those of us who RESPONSBILE boaters should have to do this cr*p. There are much better ways to deal with the miscreants.

[/quote]

It's not the fee I object to, it's the lack of opportunity for a service that I would find useful. I'd guess that 98% of the boats on Lake Hopatcong have no toilet. But I do, and there are more than a handful of power cruisers in the 24' to 28' range that surely do as well. All I want is a marina that will provide the service with reasonable convenience. Since it is such an oddity on the lake, I can't complain about the fee.

It's simply not a situation that has generated much thought. How should the State manage this issue? Should they banish all people from recreating on the lake because they can't control people who jump in the water to pee? That's ridiculous.

Yes, I agree, but the fee should be as close to zero to encourage MORE use, as well, as you have said earlier, an opportunity for use.

You ask: How should the State manage this issue? Please refer to my earlier posts, which discuss how California handles it. Provide grants for pumpouts, fund them, make a LOT of them, put them where skippers can access them, and the problem goes away. Except for the miscreants, who, unfortunately, will always be with us. One of things that works for limited liveaboards here in California is PEER PRESSURE. If you don’t think that liveaboards KNOW who is a sneakboard, than you’re, uhm, missing the boat. They KNOW, hour by hour, day by day, who is ABUSING the system. That might be a good starting point.

 

[shemandr]

I'm open to suggestions about how to deal with non-compliance.
Logs already exist. I'm suggesting that that they be co-related with boats that locals already know are in use in local anchorages, and in marinas so that they are getting pump outs.
My post didn't include that many boat owners pump into the bays so that they don't have stinky heads. This is a behavior. It will not change without pressure. I no longer think a voluntary system in adequate in a estuary such as ours.

 

[Stu Jackson]

...how to deal with non-compliance.
Logs already exist. I'm suggesting that that they be co-related with boats that locals already know are in use in local anchorages, and in marinas so that they are getting pump outs....This is a behavior. It will not change without pressure. I no longer think a voluntary system in adequate in a estuary such as ours.

That is "The Rub," Andrew. It becomes a "slippery slope" in dealing with non-compliance. To avoid the Gestapo approach to life.

Let's say, just for discussion sake, that there were numerous, accessible and free pumpouts all over the place.

Is it your contention that even then the miscreants would not avail themselves of those services?

If we can agree on that, then we can narrow the discussion to that, and put aside "how" pumpouts can magically appear to facilitate their use.

Instead of discussing the "How do we get pumpouts available in the first place", we can begin to deal with the miscreants, which, it seems to me, ARE the issue.

Thanks,

Stu

 

[shemandr]

OK Stu. First I'm happy to have a civil discussion about this. That is very much appreciated.
Yes, it is my contention that there are those who will not comply with the rules, laws or even common sense regarding pump outs. NY culture may differ from California but I can confidently say there is willful non-compliance going on here.

 

[Stu Jackson]

Thanks, Andrew

OK Stu. First I'm happy to have a civil discussion about this. That is very much appreciated.
Yes, it is my contention that there are those who will not comply with the rules, laws or even common sense regarding pump outs. NY culture may differ from California but I can confidently say there is willful non-compliance going on here.

Thanks, Andrew. I agree, we, too have "willful non-compliance going on here" and I think we may have an opportunity here to begin that discussion.

Shall we start a new thread entitled that or just keep this one going? Your offshore experience and local knowledge should be very handy.

 

[Rick D]

No Thread Drift

Shall we start a new thread entitled that or just keep this one going? Your offshore experience and local knowledge should be very handy.

No thread drift here. Good discussions regarding no discharge requirements. I guess my observation (in a very compliant and responsible marina) is that I wonder if this is a problem actually worth solving, or has the general level of compliance and responsibility (owing to education, funding and awareness) fixed the major issue? I mean, there is an expense/reward factor at play here. I don't see any solution to whatever degree of problem exists that does not entail significant enforcement assets. Maybe I'm just not seeing something simple. Great discussion though.

 

[Stu Jackson]

Thanks, Rick. Does anybody have any WAGs about the % of non-compliance jerks in YOUR neck of the woods?

We "live" in a marina that gets tidal flushes regularly, and also recognize that many of you do NOT have this natural cleansing agent.

Our marina has maybe 400 boats http://grandmarina.com/. Great facilities. Lakes, of course, are different, as Scott has so wisely pointed out. Our water is too cold to hop in and take a pee.

Other marinas here on SF Bay are in different places with different tidal/current influences.

Those will make a BIG difference in the answers.

 

[shemandr]

Enough tonight but thanks for the discussion. I do love clear water.

 

[Allan Frey]

Why all this time and effort discussing boaters? The time and effort should be put into doing something about those who put nearly all the sewage into the water.

For example, Washington DC puts two billion gallons of raw sewage a year into Chesapeake Bay. Baltimore and the hundreds of other cities and towns put more billions of gallons of raw sewage into the Bay each year. What all the boats would put into the Bay, if there were no pump outs, is infinitesimal compared to that.

Yes, lets put time and effort into reducing sewage in the water. But put it where it would make a significant difference; into stopping the dumping by cities and towns.

 

[Stu Jackson]

Outrage

Allan, you're right. Like when folks start to talk about copper in bottom paint:

Almost, I say almost, regardless of the potential harm, that copper can do to the environment, why, oh why, do these same legislatures IGNORE the REGULAR dumping of millions of gallons of raw sewage?

That is the REAL outrage.

 

[dparilla]

Just last week, DC's two treatment facilities made an "emergency release" of nearly 300,000 gallons of untreated and partially treated waste into the Potomac due to high water levels from the heavy rain. But that said, I know that there are boats in my marina that I have never seen at the pump out. Though, my marina doesn't make it easy either...only a staff member can operate the pump due to National Park Service regulations. Their reasoning was to prevent the accidental spillage of raw sewage!