Porta Potty Confusion

[fdnynapes]

We stayed in the Keys 1/14-2/14. We went to Flamingo, fiesta Key, Islamorada and Marathons Boot Key. We used the bags the entire trip. When we registered at Boot Key we were told we were in violation of the law. That while here we had to have the class 3 MSD. We were given 10 days to comply or leave. Now I don't know if that meant the entire Keys or just Boot Harbour. I believe it meant the entire Keys.

fdnynapes
S/V Styx
26m

[RobertB]

An explanation I found on marine heds states:
"Type III MSDs
A Type III MSD is a holding tank. Holding tanks are considered automatically certified under a clause in the Coast Guard regulations if they only store sewage and flush water at ambient temperatures, and therefore will not have a certification label attached. Regrettably, this definition makes it legal, though not advisable, to store sewage in any container, whether or not the container is suitable for that use."
So, could it be a matter of opinion that storing bags in a bucket is or is not a Type III system?

[Russ]

http://www.bootkeyharbor.com/Current%20Laws.htm
Interesting

Key West's municipal sewage system pumps out sewage that is only partially treated directly into the water a few hundred feet off one of the beaches through a 12 inch pipe? The output is SEVEN MILLION GALLONS PER DAY OF SECONDARILY TREATED SEWAGE! Doing the math, and assuming even very large holding tanks on boats of 50 gallons, this is the equivalent of 20,000 Boats every day simultaneously dumping their entire septic holding tanks within one small confined area just off a beach. Boot Key Harbor has about 300 boats when crowded.
It's easy to see why all the boats combined only contribute 1% to water pollution.
(Information is from the Water Quality Protection Report from the EPA to the FKNMS, 305-743-2437)

[Tomfoolery]

The rules in Florida are a little confusing. I found this web page, which says that boats in Florida under 26 ft (mine is 25'-9", and the registration says 25 ft) are NOT required to have an installed MSD. But that's just a boating education web page - I don't know what Florida law actually says.

Florida Marine Sanitation Devices

Florida law requires any vessels 26 feet or more in length, with an enclosed cabin with sleeping facilities, to be equipped with a toilet if on Florida state waters.

Every houseboat must be equipped with at least one permanently installed toilet properly attached to a U.S. Coast Guard-certified Type III MSD.
On vessels other than a houseboat, the toilet may be either a portable device or a permanently installed toilet properly attached to a U.S. Coast Guard-certified MSD. (emphasis added)

http://www.boatcourse.com/Florida_PWC/0 ... rbage.aspx

http://www.uscg.mil/hq/cg5/cg5213/msd.asp

[Russ]

I've heard of these stories and it really is disturbing that common sense is totally thrown out the window and local law enforcement have no leeway for even deploying common sense.

The goal is clean water. The boater demonstrates that he is not polluting. It should end there.

So authorities waste time and energy harassing boat owners who are in good faith complying while "SEVEN MILLION GALLONS PER DAY OF SECONDARILY TREATED SEWAGE" is dumped a few hundred feet offshore.
Two options. Fine the boat owner that isn't damaging the waters, or chase him away so he spends his money elsewhere. Either way, the boat owner isn't coming back and will tell his friends on forums to stay away.

This is why I could never be a lawyer. It would drive me insane.

[\rant]

--Russ

[Tomfoolery]

The goal is clean water. The boater demonstrates that he is not polluting. It should end there.

So authorities waste time and energy harassing boat owners who are in good faith complying while "SEVEN MILLION GALLONS PER DAY OF SECONDARILY TREATED SEWAGE" is dumped a few hundred feet offshore.
Two options. Fine the boat owner that isn't damaging the waters, or chase him away so he spends his money elsewhere. Either way, the boat owner isn't coming back and will tell his friends on forums to stay away.

And water pollution from the pipe remains the status quo, while the boats that weren't polluting, well, remain not polluting, or leaving (and still not polluting).

I don't want to get political here, or even in the same zip code, but I'm reading an interesting book on that very subject right now (it rips all sides of the political spectrum, so it's offender-neutral ), called "The Rule Of Nobody", by Philip K. Howard. The kind of strictly-by-the-rules-no-matter-the-result vs achieving-the-intent-while-exercising-flexibility tension that we see everyday, like Florida, is what he discusses. I haven't gotten to the 'solution to the problem' part of the book yet, and I rather doubt there is an actual practical solution, but it's an interesting read nonetheless.

Edit: Oh, and I'm not even sure what the OP expressed is actually the law. It wouldn't be the first time a law or rule was enforced that didn't actually exist. I see it all the time in my work.

[mastreb]

So in So. Cal they're now implementing extreme drought restrictions on residential use of water.

How much water in So Cal is used by residences?

7%.

93% is industrial and agriculture.

So the math works like this: Every single resident of southern California reduces their water consumption by 50% and we save 3.5% of our fresh water, OR

We stop growing avocados in CA and import them from MX. Also 3.5% of water consumption.

Same effect.

[Russ]

So the math works like this: Every single resident of southern California reduces their water consumption by 50% and we save 3.5% of our fresh water, OR

We stop growing avocados in CA and import them from MX. Also 3.5% of water consumption.

Same effect.

I know what you are saying. But I'd rather buy avocados from CA and support CA farmers if some folks could go without watering their lawns. I feel quite guilty running my sprinklers and having such a green lawn while others have no water. Our new house will not have a manicured lawn and will contain local grasses that grow with less water.

[mastreb]

I know what you are saying. But I'd rather buy avocados from CA and support CA farmers if some folks could go without watering their lawns. I feel quite guilty running my sprinklers and having such a green lawn while others have no water. Our new house will not have a manicured lawn and will contain local grasses that grow with less water.

You live where water is a natural phenomenon, and I applaud your use of regional plants to better match the ecosystem. Which is exactly why avocados, which are a jungle plant from central american rain forests, should be grown where there is a lot of rain, IMHO, and not where there's a lot of competition with humans for water.

But I don't want to drift too far off topic or onto politics. I'm just rather tired of government regulations that create a great inconvenience for the many to little actual benefit.

[Russ]

You live where water is a natural phenomenon, and I applaud your use of regional plants to better match the ecosystem. Which is exactly why avocados, which are a jungle plant from central american rain forests, should be grown where there is a lot of rain, IMHO, and not where there's a lot of competition with humans for water.

But I don't want to drift too far off topic or onto politics. I'm just rather tired of government regulations that create a great inconvenience for the many to little actual benefit.

Interesting point about avocados and water requirement. My perspective is that in the short term, I'd rather support the livelihood of a farmer than wash driveways and water lawns. However, I'm sure lawn watering is already been nixed so that may not be a good comparison.
Long term, it certainly makes sense to discourage farming crops with less water requirements in arid climates. It also amazes me how Southern California could not exist as it is without importing water. There is an expression here "Whiskey is for drinking and water is for fighting." Water rights are an interesting topic around here during droughts.

My decision in our new house landscaping comes mainly from laziness more than conservation. I don't want to mow grass.

The porta potty laws never made sense to me. I know in places in Canada they are not tolerated. Is this because they feel people will just dump them over the side? I doubt the few that would can make that much of an impact compared to land based pipes dumping.

[Tomfoolery]

The porta potty laws never made sense to me. I know in places in Canada they are not tolerated. Is this because they feel people will just dump them over the side? I doubt the few that would can make that much of an impact compared to land based pipes dumping.

This has been discussed a lot in the past, and I'm still not 100% sure of where PPs stand in Ontario waters (normally verboten), but I replaced mine with an otherwise identical unit, but with plumbing connections for pump-out and vent, and as far as I can tell, it's legal. If I wanted to, I could unscrew the plumbing connections, leave the hoses connected to the boat, and dump it out, but it was made without the big pour spout, and it's not 'convertible' (a key word in the rules), so although it could be dumped I suppose, it meets the letter of the law. Which is the only reason I did all that. And it's never even been used, which is OK with me. It's only there to make the admiral happy. But the point is, while it meets the letter of the law (as far as I can suss them out), it's a pretty silly waste of time, effort, and money to end up right back where I started.