Sometime ago I remember reading an article on here about a pollution study that was done on the Chesapeak Bay that proved there was more pollution from wildlife, i.e. ducks and geese than could ever be created by boaters dumping grey water. A legislator in Vermont is actively trying to get a law passed that would require ALL boats on Lake Champlain to be equiped with holding taanks for their grey water. This would pose a great problem to all boaters and would be a large cost to comply and then enforcement would be costly. The smart move would be to require boaters to use non-phosphate soaps. However, a person on the committee that opposes this legislation has asked if I could find that study for them. Therefore, I'm appealing to all members to see if anyone else remembers that thread and can point it out to me so I can pass it on or if anyone has any information about other studies that would help this cause. Thanks in advance. George
- Status
George I have googled Grey water discharge
studies for the chesapeake bay, EPA studies of grey water discharge in the cheaspeake bay. And I have come up with nothing that will be useful without a great deal of time and effort to sort through the chaff to find the wheat.
studies for the chesapeake bay, EPA studies of grey water discharge in the cheaspeake bay. And I have come up with nothing that will be useful without a great deal of time and effort to sort through the chaff to find the wheat.
George
I don't think you'll find any scientifically valid study for the simple reason that it would be impracticable to quantify the waste produced throughout such a wide area by such a diverse population of animals and birds over a period of time considered statistically reproducible. In other words, to coin a phrase, "you may have read it but that don't necessarily make it so". Lake Champlain is somewhat unique when compared with the Chesapeake in that one is a fresh water drinking supply. Although large, dilution isn't always the solution to coin another phrase so legislation such as what you describe isn't all that difficult to understand. You would be hard-pressed to compare Champlain to the Chesapeake. Further, phosphate free soap would add an incremetally tiny amount of nutrients compared with non-point source runoff into the lake from farms, urban run-off, etc.... If you really wanted to do something substantive, that's the area on which you should be focusing your attention instead of reseaching a report which is inconceivably misguided.
I don't think you'll find any scientifically valid study for the simple reason that it would be impracticable to quantify the waste produced throughout such a wide area by such a diverse population of animals and birds over a period of time considered statistically reproducible. In other words, to coin a phrase, "you may have read it but that don't necessarily make it so". Lake Champlain is somewhat unique when compared with the Chesapeake in that one is a fresh water drinking supply. Although large, dilution isn't always the solution to coin another phrase so legislation such as what you describe isn't all that difficult to understand. You would be hard-pressed to compare Champlain to the Chesapeake. Further, phosphate free soap would add an incremetally tiny amount of nutrients compared with non-point source runoff into the lake from farms, urban run-off, etc.... If you really wanted to do something substantive, that's the area on which you should be focusing your attention instead of reseaching a report which is inconceivably misguided.
And wash those clams...
...down with Lake Michigan Straight sampled near one of the Milwaukee sewage treatment plants (odd when you consider the lake is a NDZ for boaters but municipalities get a 'hall pass') The 2006 vintage was especially fragrent. Cheers!
...down with Lake Michigan Straight sampled near one of the Milwaukee sewage treatment plants (odd when you consider the lake is a NDZ for boaters but municipalities get a 'hall pass') The 2006 vintage was especially fragrent. Cheers!
You've touched a nerve
The thought of tinkeling in the bay being illegal while virtually ALL of the waste water treatment plants seem to have REGULAR "accidental spills" of 500,000 gals at a time makes me so proud to live in MD. Yet nobody ever gets held accountable. Wait, I'm lieing, one guy that ran a treatment plant was repremanded for constant bay discharges. That'll teach him huh! Think happy thoughts Doug, happy thoughts.
The thought of tinkeling in the bay being illegal while virtually ALL of the waste water treatment plants seem to have REGULAR "accidental spills" of 500,000 gals at a time makes me so proud to live in MD. Yet nobody ever gets held accountable. Wait, I'm lieing, one guy that ran a treatment plant was repremanded for constant bay discharges. That'll teach him huh! Think happy thoughts Doug, happy thoughts.
Yet another concern
The comment about pollution from wildlife may be valid but if the municicipalities sewage treatment plants dump into the lake then there are other concerns I'd have. The legislator may not realize that the "treated" sewage may still be harmful. There was a study done a few months ago of the effluent from a treatment plant that dumped into Puget Sound and they discovered all kinds of chemicals in it - including hormones. Where did the hormones come from? Probably from women taking them as medication for their menopausal problems. What the study found was that a representative chemical of virtually everything that was dumped into or flushed down a drain that went to the treatment plant came out at the other end. My concern would be for those drinking the water as in many areas of the country, such as Southern California, in particular, the waste water is "recycled". I don't know if it winds up going back into the drinking water supply (maybe someone could comment on this) but if it does I'd be very concerned. If the lake waters are the dumping grounds (er, waters?) for the treatment plant effluent that means the residents wind up drinking that stuff again! Of course, another concern is the wildlife that live off the waters where the effluent is dumped also takes on the waste chemicals, including hormones. There are more unisex fish, for example. The environmental departments are telling people eating fish from some streams to scrape off the fish fat as it contains lots of toxic chemicals. By comparison to the boaters grey-water effluent, while not good, the recycled water, even though it goes into the lake, may be a far worse problem. Not to mention the aforementioned sewage spills and we've got a lot of those in Puget Sound too!
The comment about pollution from wildlife may be valid but if the municicipalities sewage treatment plants dump into the lake then there are other concerns I'd have. The legislator may not realize that the "treated" sewage may still be harmful. There was a study done a few months ago of the effluent from a treatment plant that dumped into Puget Sound and they discovered all kinds of chemicals in it - including hormones. Where did the hormones come from? Probably from women taking them as medication for their menopausal problems. What the study found was that a representative chemical of virtually everything that was dumped into or flushed down a drain that went to the treatment plant came out at the other end. My concern would be for those drinking the water as in many areas of the country, such as Southern California, in particular, the waste water is "recycled". I don't know if it winds up going back into the drinking water supply (maybe someone could comment on this) but if it does I'd be very concerned. If the lake waters are the dumping grounds (er, waters?) for the treatment plant effluent that means the residents wind up drinking that stuff again! Of course, another concern is the wildlife that live off the waters where the effluent is dumped also takes on the waste chemicals, including hormones. There are more unisex fish, for example. The environmental departments are telling people eating fish from some streams to scrape off the fish fat as it contains lots of toxic chemicals. By comparison to the boaters grey-water effluent, while not good, the recycled water, even though it goes into the lake, may be a far worse problem. Not to mention the aforementioned sewage spills and we've got a lot of those in Puget Sound too!
Thank you
Gentleman Thank you for all your thoughtful considerations and comments so far. I think that grey water from boaters would represent such a miniscule portion of potential pollution, that the legislators shoud be looking at other areas also. They are lookng at farmer's practices of fertilizing and have made it illegal to spread manure on top of frozen ground (almost 6 months here in vermont). A lot of pollution comes from Missiquios Bay, a shallow bay across the border in Canada that is surrounded by farmland. We have a tremendously large population of wild cormorants that are ruining the fishing in the lake by their voracious appetites plus their waste, and yes, we have numerous sewage treatment plants on both the Vermont and New York sides of the lakes plus industrial waste such as in Ticonderoga from the Georgia Pacific plant. We have a lot of things that we can do, but forcing boaters to install grey water tanks is short sighted and that money and effort can be better spent on other more productive areas. Even making it illegal to sell phosphate containg soaps in Vermont would be an easy thing to do. The hormones mentioned earlier might also be from females taking birth control pills (don't wantthem to stop tho') Anyway thanks for everyon'e concerns and in put. I have copie all the comments and forwarded them to my friend on the committe who will be giving testimony. Oddly enough, this legislator is being pushed to do something by the commisioner of wildlife. His department tried unsuccessfully a couple of years ago to reduce the cormorant population on the Lake, and , of course, seagulls (MacDonalds Dumpster chickens) while prolific are protected species. Go figure. Thanks again George
Gentleman Thank you for all your thoughtful considerations and comments so far. I think that grey water from boaters would represent such a miniscule portion of potential pollution, that the legislators shoud be looking at other areas also. They are lookng at farmer's practices of fertilizing and have made it illegal to spread manure on top of frozen ground (almost 6 months here in vermont). A lot of pollution comes from Missiquios Bay, a shallow bay across the border in Canada that is surrounded by farmland. We have a tremendously large population of wild cormorants that are ruining the fishing in the lake by their voracious appetites plus their waste, and yes, we have numerous sewage treatment plants on both the Vermont and New York sides of the lakes plus industrial waste such as in Ticonderoga from the Georgia Pacific plant. We have a lot of things that we can do, but forcing boaters to install grey water tanks is short sighted and that money and effort can be better spent on other more productive areas. Even making it illegal to sell phosphate containg soaps in Vermont would be an easy thing to do. The hormones mentioned earlier might also be from females taking birth control pills (don't wantthem to stop tho') Anyway thanks for everyon'e concerns and in put. I have copie all the comments and forwarded them to my friend on the committe who will be giving testimony. Oddly enough, this legislator is being pushed to do something by the commisioner of wildlife. His department tried unsuccessfully a couple of years ago to reduce the cormorant population on the Lake, and , of course, seagulls (MacDonalds Dumpster chickens) while prolific are protected species. Go figure. Thanks again George
Let me understand
Help me understand something. If I read this correctly you and all the other boaters using the lake can take a dump and discharge it overboard and everyone finds this acceptable? Perhaps the number of people boating on the lake is much less than I expect but why in heaven's name would anybody object to properly processing human waste? It's controllable and every little bit helps keep the environment clean. Remember how to eat an elephant? One bite at a time. Wake up and spend the money, your grandchildren will thank you for it some day.
Help me understand something. If I read this correctly you and all the other boaters using the lake can take a dump and discharge it overboard and everyone finds this acceptable? Perhaps the number of people boating on the lake is much less than I expect but why in heaven's name would anybody object to properly processing human waste? It's controllable and every little bit helps keep the environment clean. Remember how to eat an elephant? One bite at a time. Wake up and spend the money, your grandchildren will thank you for it some day.
George am I reading this correctly?
We are talking Grey water????...and not Black water????.....Grey being water from sinks, showers, bilge,,,,,,and NOT Black water from holding tanks and head discharge?
We are talking Grey water????...and not Black water????.....Grey being water from sinks, showers, bilge,,,,,,and NOT Black water from holding tanks and head discharge?
My apologies
My apologies I belive he was. I was confused by the sewage discharge comments. That said we always use bio degradable soaps and avoid dumping anything overboard that might create a negative impact on the environment.
My apologies I belive he was. I was confused by the sewage discharge comments. That said we always use bio degradable soaps and avoid dumping anything overboard that might create a negative impact on the environment.
Aren't all Phosphate soaps banned??
Wasn't phosphate soaps banned a long time ago??? People can make laws that are stupid. Wastewater treatment plants do so much more damage than any boater but the plants are owned by the government and regulated by the government. It's just like the military doesn't have to follow any environmental rules. If they were ever serious they'd make air craftcarriers do something about their waste. An ACC is home to 5000 or so people. No holding tank and unless they've changed they just pump the poop overboard. It's much easier to pass a law than it is to do something constructive. There is a lake in east tenessee called Boone Lake that has five waste water plants that dump in it's waters. Let's blame the wildlife!!! Just think how filthy the waters in the US were before we had 300,000,000+ people living here!!!! Those bears and alligators just can't be poty trained.
Wasn't phosphate soaps banned a long time ago??? People can make laws that are stupid. Wastewater treatment plants do so much more damage than any boater but the plants are owned by the government and regulated by the government. It's just like the military doesn't have to follow any environmental rules. If they were ever serious they'd make air craftcarriers do something about their waste. An ACC is home to 5000 or so people. No holding tank and unless they've changed they just pump the poop overboard. It's much easier to pass a law than it is to do something constructive. There is a lake in east tenessee called Boone Lake that has five waste water plants that dump in it's waters. Let's blame the wildlife!!! Just think how filthy the waters in the US were before we had 300,000,000+ people living here!!!! Those bears and alligators just can't be poty trained.
Only talking about grey water here
Like any other inland waterway, it is illegal as hell to discharge Black Water and we all want EVERYONE to observe that law. The issue here was to oppose legislation mandating grey water holding tanks. We all know that we use (create) a lot more Grey water than black water and therefore a holding tank for grey water would have to be 3 or 4 times the size of your black water holding tanks. My marina estimates this could cost up to $5,000 per boat depending on how much retrofitting is required. Take 1,000 boats on the Lake, we're talking big money to solve a miniscule portion of the problem. Anyway, thanks to everyone for their input George
Like any other inland waterway, it is illegal as hell to discharge Black Water and we all want EVERYONE to observe that law. The issue here was to oppose legislation mandating grey water holding tanks. We all know that we use (create) a lot more Grey water than black water and therefore a holding tank for grey water would have to be 3 or 4 times the size of your black water holding tanks. My marina estimates this could cost up to $5,000 per boat depending on how much retrofitting is required. Take 1,000 boats on the Lake, we're talking big money to solve a miniscule portion of the problem. Anyway, thanks to everyone for their input George
The Chesapeake Bay
suffers from a wide variety of natural and man-made problems. In addition to contacting the Chesapeake Bay Foundation ("Save The Bay"), I suggest taking a look at the Maryland Sea Grant site below and requesting a copy of the Chesapeake Bay Program's Scientific and Technical Advisory Committee's (STAC)report "Chesapeake Futures," which can be done online. While the bay can still be "saved," it will take billions of dollars, a lot of coordinated effort, and a lot of behaviorial changes.... yet, another "inconvenient truth." See this link also: http://www.chesapeake.org/stac/futreport.html
suffers from a wide variety of natural and man-made problems. In addition to contacting the Chesapeake Bay Foundation ("Save The Bay"), I suggest taking a look at the Maryland Sea Grant site below and requesting a copy of the Chesapeake Bay Program's Scientific and Technical Advisory Committee's (STAC)report "Chesapeake Futures," which can be done online. While the bay can still be "saved," it will take billions of dollars, a lot of coordinated effort, and a lot of behaviorial changes.... yet, another "inconvenient truth." See this link also: http://www.chesapeake.org/stac/futreport.html
rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic
George Your state legislative friend would be better advised to focus on some of the more significant contributors to Lake contamination. It's always easier for local government to rearrange the deck chairs to create the appearance of doing something constructive and then bragging about it. Unfortunately, it takes a more dedicated effort to actually get anything worthwhile done and the public (read - voters) don't usually appreciate unseen long-term efforts that are actually good public policy. It might be easier for you friend to ask his legislative co-member what scientific basis he has in support of a gray water ban - I tend to doubt such a thing exists and even if it does, it would pale in comparison to some of the many other major sources currently unregulated in Vermont.
George Your state legislative friend would be better advised to focus on some of the more significant contributors to Lake contamination. It's always easier for local government to rearrange the deck chairs to create the appearance of doing something constructive and then bragging about it. Unfortunately, it takes a more dedicated effort to actually get anything worthwhile done and the public (read - voters) don't usually appreciate unseen long-term efforts that are actually good public policy. It might be easier for you friend to ask his legislative co-member what scientific basis he has in support of a gray water ban - I tend to doubt such a thing exists and even if it does, it would pale in comparison to some of the many other major sources currently unregulated in Vermont.
And where are the boat dealers, manufacturers
and other marine related businesses weighing in on this subject? I have yet to see any input from these interested parties in any proposed legislation affecting/restricting sailors or in any discussions of loss of access to water due to losing commercial marinas. etc., to development. If we have more restrictions that cost us money and we continue to lose access to the water, the above mentioned businesses will lose money as well.
and other marine related businesses weighing in on this subject? I have yet to see any input from these interested parties in any proposed legislation affecting/restricting sailors or in any discussions of loss of access to water due to losing commercial marinas. etc., to development. If we have more restrictions that cost us money and we continue to lose access to the water, the above mentioned businesses will lose money as well.
See the Washington Post newspaper
If you search in the Washington Post you will find several articles that show data that the pollution from boaters is infinitesimal compared to the pollution from the towns, cities and farms. It is clear that if the money spent on restricting pollution from boats was spent on town sewage systems, there would have been much more bang for the buck. But then again, I look at this as a scientist. This is a political matter. Allan
If you search in the Washington Post you will find several articles that show data that the pollution from boaters is infinitesimal compared to the pollution from the towns, cities and farms. It is clear that if the money spent on restricting pollution from boats was spent on town sewage systems, there would have been much more bang for the buck. But then again, I look at this as a scientist. This is a political matter. Allan
Fertilizer
I've read where the amount and types of fertilizer the farmers on the bay use is a major contributor to the problems on the bay. We're on the Sassafras and a farm across the river used to use a crop duster until this past summer. Seems as though somebody from the county or state found he was using a banned fertilizer and stopped him. One down, how many more to go? Now if we can get the cities to clean up their act. Oh yea that means every city or town from upstate PA where the Susquehanna originates all the way down to the mouth of the bay. And that leaves us boaters to help. I can't begin to count the number of people who use their on board heads but never move the boat to the pump out dock. Nor do they seem to use the portable pump out service either. Maybe they can't afford the $3.00 charge. It all adds up and it's everybody's responsibility to help.
I've read where the amount and types of fertilizer the farmers on the bay use is a major contributor to the problems on the bay. We're on the Sassafras and a farm across the river used to use a crop duster until this past summer. Seems as though somebody from the county or state found he was using a banned fertilizer and stopped him. One down, how many more to go? Now if we can get the cities to clean up their act. Oh yea that means every city or town from upstate PA where the Susquehanna originates all the way down to the mouth of the bay. And that leaves us boaters to help. I can't begin to count the number of people who use their on board heads but never move the boat to the pump out dock. Nor do they seem to use the portable pump out service either. Maybe they can't afford the $3.00 charge. It all adds up and it's everybody's responsibility to help.
- Status