|
Peggy What is the name of your book?
Peggie Hall wrote:
Yep. A lack of any enforcement of marine sanitation laws there--even a total absence of any pumpout facilities--does not change the fact that federal law prohibits the discharge of raw untreated toilet waste from vessels in ALL U.S. waters within 3 miles of the coastline. But a lack of any enforcement doesn't make it legal. Wrong again. It is not a matter of enforcement at all. The "donut holes" are areas that are more than 3 miles from the nearest land. They are shoreward of the boundary line, within the waters of the State of Alaska and well within what anyone would call the "inside passage." It is perfectly legal to pump sewage in these areas. Law was recently made to prohibit large passenger vessels (read cruise ships) from dumping untreated sewage in these areas but for other than commercial passenger vessels above a certain size it is perfectly legal. As a matter of fact you may sail from just north of Seattle all the way to Glacier Bay on the inside passage and never break the law so long as you observe the location of the donut holes while in SE Alaska. Rick |
Peggy What is the name of your book?
Rick wrote:
Peggie Hall wrote: Yep. A lack of any enforcement of marine sanitation laws there--even a total absence of any pumpout facilities--does not change the fact that federal law prohibits the discharge of raw untreated toilet waste from vessels in ALL U.S. waters within 3 miles of the coastline. But a lack of any enforcement doesn't make it legal. Wrong again. It is not a matter of enforcement at all. The "donut holes" are areas that are more than 3 miles from the nearest land. They are shoreward of the boundary line, within the waters of the State of Alaska and well within what anyone would call the "inside passage." You're referring to the Alexander Archipelego...right? "More than 3 miles from the nearest land" is the key. Any time you're in ocean waters, Federal law prohibits the discharge of raw untreated waste WITHIN 3 miles of the nearest land. State boundary line has nothing to with it...if it did, it would be illegal to discharge untreated waste in the entire 26 miles between the CA mainland and Catalina Island...but it's only illegal within 3 miles of both the mainland and the island...legal in the 19 miles between. Same holds true for the waters of the "donut holes." It is perfectly legal to pump sewage in these areas. Law was recently made to prohibit large passenger vessels (read cruise ships) from dumping untreated sewage in these areas but for other than commercial passenger vessels above a certain size it is perfectly legal. The new law didn't grant any exemptions to smaller vessels, only put an additional burden on the large ones. As a matter of fact you may sail from just north of Seattle all the way to Glacier Bay on the inside passage and never break the law... You would be in Puget sound, and if you sailed closer than 3 miles to any land between Port Townsend and the Canadian border...from there to the AK state line you're in Canadian coastal waters, subject to their laws, not ours. ... so long as you observe the location of the donut holes while in SE Alaska... ....And don't discharge within 3 miles of any land--mainland OR island. It's VERY confusing, I know....'cuz what's the difference between waters in which there are a bunch of islands more than 3 miles apart and a bay or sound that's more than 3 miles shore-to-shore? There shouldn't BE any difference IMO...but there is. Just be glad YOU don't have to try to explain it. :) Peggie ---------- Peggie Hall Specializing in marine sanitation since 1987 Author "Get Rid of Boat Odors - A Guide To Marine Sanitation Systems and Other Sources of Aggravation and Odor" http://shop.sailboatowners.com/detai...=400&group=327 http://www.seaworthy.com/html/get_ri...oat_odors.html |
Peggy What is the name of your book?
Rick wrote:
Peggie Hall wrote: Yep. A lack of any enforcement of marine sanitation laws there--even a total absence of any pumpout facilities--does not change the fact that federal law prohibits the discharge of raw untreated toilet waste from vessels in ALL U.S. waters within 3 miles of the coastline. But a lack of any enforcement doesn't make it legal. Wrong again. It is not a matter of enforcement at all. The "donut holes" are areas that are more than 3 miles from the nearest land. They are shoreward of the boundary line, within the waters of the State of Alaska and well within what anyone would call the "inside passage." You're referring to the Alexander Archipelego...right? "More than 3 miles from the nearest land" is the key. Any time you're in ocean waters, Federal law prohibits the discharge of raw untreated waste WITHIN 3 miles of the nearest land. State boundary line has nothing to with it...if it did, it would be illegal to discharge untreated waste in the entire 26 miles between the CA mainland and Catalina Island...but it's only illegal within 3 miles of both the mainland and the island...legal in the 19 miles between. Same holds true for the waters of the "donut holes." It is perfectly legal to pump sewage in these areas. Law was recently made to prohibit large passenger vessels (read cruise ships) from dumping untreated sewage in these areas but for other than commercial passenger vessels above a certain size it is perfectly legal. The new law didn't grant any exemptions to smaller vessels, only put an additional burden on the large ones. As a matter of fact you may sail from just north of Seattle all the way to Glacier Bay on the inside passage and never break the law... You would be in Puget sound, and if you sailed closer than 3 miles to any land between Port Townsend and the Canadian border...from there to the AK state line you're in Canadian coastal waters, subject to their laws, not ours. ... so long as you observe the location of the donut holes while in SE Alaska... ....And don't discharge within 3 miles of any land--mainland OR island. It's VERY confusing, I know....'cuz what's the difference between waters in which there are a bunch of islands more than 3 miles apart and a bay or sound that's more than 3 miles shore-to-shore? There shouldn't BE any difference IMO...but there is. Just be glad YOU don't have to try to explain it. :) Peggie ---------- Peggie Hall Specializing in marine sanitation since 1987 Author "Get Rid of Boat Odors - A Guide To Marine Sanitation Systems and Other Sources of Aggravation and Odor" http://shop.sailboatowners.com/detai...=400&group=327 http://www.seaworthy.com/html/get_ri...oat_odors.html |
Peggy What is the name of your book?
Gotta give you cedit for tenacity if not accuracy.
You wrote: "There are no coastal (or inland) waters in the whole US--east coast, west coast, or Gulf--in which it's legal to discharge raw untreated toilet waste directly overboard or dump a tank." You're referring to the Alexander Archipelego...right? "More than 3 miles from the nearest land" is the key. Any time you're in ocean waters, Federal law prohibits the discharge of raw untreated waste WITHIN 3 miles of the nearest land. State boundary line has nothing to with it... Do you know what a "boundary line" is? The waters in the donut holes are landward of the barrier islands forming the west side of that part of the inside passage. They are not in "ocean waters," except for the purposes of COLREGS. They are in the sheltered coastal waters of Southeast Alaska. The new law didn't grant any exemptions to smaller vessels, only put an additional burden on the large ones. The new law exempted small vessels carrying less than 50 overnight passengers. It did not give them any more rights than they had to begin with. The new law only removed the "right" of larger vessels to legally dump raw sewage in certain areas of the inland and coastal waters of Alaska. You would be in Puget sound, and if you sailed closer than 3 miles to any land between Port Townsend and the Canadian border...from there to the AK state line you're in Canadian coastal waters, subject to their laws, not ours. No dumping is allowed in Puget Sound or the Strait of Juan de Fuca. The point I was trying to make is that a small boat can indeed travel from just north of Seattle all the way to Glacier Bay via the inside passage and legally dump raw sewage. That is directly and correctly in opposition to your statement that "There are no coastal (or inland) waters in the whole US--east coast, west coast, or Gulf--in which it's legal to discharge raw untreated toilet waste directly overboard or dump a tank." If starting at the southern Canadian border bugs you then start at the other Canadian border just north of Prince Rupert and go north from there in US coastal waters and dump raw sewage in the donut holes. It's VERY confusing, I know.... No, it's not confusing. It is part of the information a competent and informed person requires to safely and legally operate a vessel in US waters. What confuses people is when false or misleading statements are posted on the internet by people who do not know what they are talking about. Call it nitpicking if you like but, just like your inspected vessel statement, the devil is in the details when it comes to the regulatory side of boating. Rick |
Peggy What is the name of your book?
Gotta give you cedit for tenacity if not accuracy.
You wrote: "There are no coastal (or inland) waters in the whole US--east coast, west coast, or Gulf--in which it's legal to discharge raw untreated toilet waste directly overboard or dump a tank." You're referring to the Alexander Archipelego...right? "More than 3 miles from the nearest land" is the key. Any time you're in ocean waters, Federal law prohibits the discharge of raw untreated waste WITHIN 3 miles of the nearest land. State boundary line has nothing to with it... Do you know what a "boundary line" is? The waters in the donut holes are landward of the barrier islands forming the west side of that part of the inside passage. They are not in "ocean waters," except for the purposes of COLREGS. They are in the sheltered coastal waters of Southeast Alaska. The new law didn't grant any exemptions to smaller vessels, only put an additional burden on the large ones. The new law exempted small vessels carrying less than 50 overnight passengers. It did not give them any more rights than they had to begin with. The new law only removed the "right" of larger vessels to legally dump raw sewage in certain areas of the inland and coastal waters of Alaska. You would be in Puget sound, and if you sailed closer than 3 miles to any land between Port Townsend and the Canadian border...from there to the AK state line you're in Canadian coastal waters, subject to their laws, not ours. No dumping is allowed in Puget Sound or the Strait of Juan de Fuca. The point I was trying to make is that a small boat can indeed travel from just north of Seattle all the way to Glacier Bay via the inside passage and legally dump raw sewage. That is directly and correctly in opposition to your statement that "There are no coastal (or inland) waters in the whole US--east coast, west coast, or Gulf--in which it's legal to discharge raw untreated toilet waste directly overboard or dump a tank." If starting at the southern Canadian border bugs you then start at the other Canadian border just north of Prince Rupert and go north from there in US coastal waters and dump raw sewage in the donut holes. It's VERY confusing, I know.... No, it's not confusing. It is part of the information a competent and informed person requires to safely and legally operate a vessel in US waters. What confuses people is when false or misleading statements are posted on the internet by people who do not know what they are talking about. Call it nitpicking if you like but, just like your inspected vessel statement, the devil is in the details when it comes to the regulatory side of boating. Rick |
Peggy What is the name of your book?
Rick wrote:
Gotta give you cedit for tenacity if not accuracy. :) Do you know what a "boundary line" is? Which ones? There are at least a dozen affecting every country, depending on what the issue is...territorial fishing rights, state lines, mineral rights, marine sanition...just to name a few. The waters in the donut holes are landward of the barrier islands forming the west side of that part of the inside passage. They are not in "ocean waters," except for the purposes of COLREGS. They are in the sheltered coastal waters of Southeast Alaska. Doesn't matter, Rick..as long as there's more than 3 miles separation between 'em. You didn't disagree that it's illegal to dump or flush directly overboard within 3 miles of any of 'em. The new law didn't grant any exemptions to smaller vessels, only put an additional burden on the large ones. The new law exempted small vessels carrying less than 50 overnight passengers. It did not give them any more rights than they had to begin with. The new law only removed the "right" of larger vessels to legally dump raw sewage in certain areas of the inland and coastal waters of Alaska. How does that differ from what I've already said: the new law doesn't exempt smaller boats, it only places an additional burden on larger boats that were in violation of federal law anyway. You would be in Puget sound, and if you sailed closer than 3 miles to any land between Port Townsend and the Canadian border...from there to the AK state line you're in Canadian coastal waters, subject to their laws, not ours. No dumping is allowed in Puget Sound or the Strait of Juan de Fuca. The point I was trying to make is that a small boat can indeed travel from just north of Seattle all the way to Glacier Bay via the inside passage and legally dump raw sewage. That is directly and correctly in opposition to your statement that "There are no coastal (or inland) waters in the whole US--east coast, west coast, or Gulf--in which it's legal to discharge raw untreated toilet waste directly overboard or dump a tank." You cleverly left out the operative phrase that I've stressed: "within 3 miles of the coastline"--which includes the coast of any islands. It's VERY confusing, I know.... No, it's not confusing. It is part of the information a competent and informed person requires to safely and legally operate a vessel in US waters. And if you want to be one, I suggest you read the law, which you can do by going he http://www.setonresourcecenter.com/4...0/wcd0006d.asp What confuses people is when false or misleading statements are posted on the internet by people who do not know what they are talking about. Yep...and if you want to keep on doing it, you'll have find someone else to argue with. Peggie ---------- Peggie Hall Specializing in marine sanitation since 1987 Author "Get Rid of Boat Odors - A Guide To Marine Sanitation Systems and Other Sources of Aggravation and Odor" http://www.seaworthy.com/html/get_ri...oat_odors.html |
Peggy What is the name of your book?
Rick wrote:
Gotta give you cedit for tenacity if not accuracy. :) Do you know what a "boundary line" is? Which ones? There are at least a dozen affecting every country, depending on what the issue is...territorial fishing rights, state lines, mineral rights, marine sanition...just to name a few. The waters in the donut holes are landward of the barrier islands forming the west side of that part of the inside passage. They are not in "ocean waters," except for the purposes of COLREGS. They are in the sheltered coastal waters of Southeast Alaska. Doesn't matter, Rick..as long as there's more than 3 miles separation between 'em. You didn't disagree that it's illegal to dump or flush directly overboard within 3 miles of any of 'em. The new law didn't grant any exemptions to smaller vessels, only put an additional burden on the large ones. The new law exempted small vessels carrying less than 50 overnight passengers. It did not give them any more rights than they had to begin with. The new law only removed the "right" of larger vessels to legally dump raw sewage in certain areas of the inland and coastal waters of Alaska. How does that differ from what I've already said: the new law doesn't exempt smaller boats, it only places an additional burden on larger boats that were in violation of federal law anyway. You would be in Puget sound, and if you sailed closer than 3 miles to any land between Port Townsend and the Canadian border...from there to the AK state line you're in Canadian coastal waters, subject to their laws, not ours. No dumping is allowed in Puget Sound or the Strait of Juan de Fuca. The point I was trying to make is that a small boat can indeed travel from just north of Seattle all the way to Glacier Bay via the inside passage and legally dump raw sewage. That is directly and correctly in opposition to your statement that "There are no coastal (or inland) waters in the whole US--east coast, west coast, or Gulf--in which it's legal to discharge raw untreated toilet waste directly overboard or dump a tank." You cleverly left out the operative phrase that I've stressed: "within 3 miles of the coastline"--which includes the coast of any islands. It's VERY confusing, I know.... No, it's not confusing. It is part of the information a competent and informed person requires to safely and legally operate a vessel in US waters. And if you want to be one, I suggest you read the law, which you can do by going he http://www.setonresourcecenter.com/4...0/wcd0006d.asp What confuses people is when false or misleading statements are posted on the internet by people who do not know what they are talking about. Yep...and if you want to keep on doing it, you'll have find someone else to argue with. Peggie ---------- Peggie Hall Specializing in marine sanitation since 1987 Author "Get Rid of Boat Odors - A Guide To Marine Sanitation Systems and Other Sources of Aggravation and Odor" http://www.seaworthy.com/html/get_ri...oat_odors.html |
Peggy What is the name of your book?
Peggie Hall wrote:
You cleverly left out the operative phrase that I've stressed: "within 3 miles of the coastline"--which includes the coast of any islands. You mean this statement? "So unless you're only using the the head when you're out to sea at least 3 miles from the nearest point on the whole US coastline, ..." The donut holes are indeed formed by the radius of 3 mile distances off the nearest points of land but a vessel in one is far from "out to sea." That boat is sailing the coastal waters of Alaska in the INSIDE passage. There are many places on the US coast that have distances between points of land that exceed three miles but do not have donut holes. How wide is the Chesapeake Bay? Puget sound and the Strait of Juan de Fuca have areas more than 3 miles from land in several spots and do not fall into that category, so it takes more than a simple 3 mile distance to define the limit of no dumping. The Alaska donut holes are a unique exception but they are an exception and any blanket statement such as "there are no coastal (or inland) waters in the whole US--east coast, west coast, or Gulf--in which it's legal to discharge raw untreated toilet waste directly overboard or dump a tank" is wrong. Rick |
Peggy What is the name of your book?
Peggie Hall wrote:
You cleverly left out the operative phrase that I've stressed: "within 3 miles of the coastline"--which includes the coast of any islands. You mean this statement? "So unless you're only using the the head when you're out to sea at least 3 miles from the nearest point on the whole US coastline, ..." The donut holes are indeed formed by the radius of 3 mile distances off the nearest points of land but a vessel in one is far from "out to sea." That boat is sailing the coastal waters of Alaska in the INSIDE passage. There are many places on the US coast that have distances between points of land that exceed three miles but do not have donut holes. How wide is the Chesapeake Bay? Puget sound and the Strait of Juan de Fuca have areas more than 3 miles from land in several spots and do not fall into that category, so it takes more than a simple 3 mile distance to define the limit of no dumping. The Alaska donut holes are a unique exception but they are an exception and any blanket statement such as "there are no coastal (or inland) waters in the whole US--east coast, west coast, or Gulf--in which it's legal to discharge raw untreated toilet waste directly overboard or dump a tank" is wrong. Rick |
Peggy What is the name of your book?
It's been studied to death and now that the city finally has it's share of
the cost, the Feds and province are only kicking in a paltry $30 mil apiece. The whole cost could run up to half a billion. We have been paying increasingly higher fees & taxes on our water bills to cover this since the 80's. wrote in message ... On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 22:11:12 GMT, "Don White" wrote: I guess we're a bit behind you in our regulations. I sail in Nova Scotia waters. My homeport is Halifax. Didn't I hear that Halifax is FINALLY getting a raw-sewage treatment plant. Instead of spewing it directly into the harbour, I mean. Man, high tide there must take on a whole new meaning. Victoria does this crap--pun intended--too, I believe. It's disgraceful. R. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:52 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com