GL: Great Lakes etc. toilet plumbing

[Ken Bloomfield]

Fred wrote:
> Ken,
> Much as I would like to agree with you, I have to ask:  Have you ever
> seen a waiting line at a pumpout station?  I never have, which means most
> folks simply pump over the side when nobody is looking.
>
> Laws like that are
> probably the only way to get some folks to use the pumpout.  Blah.

Ken replies:
Actually Fred, yes, but not due to a host of holding-tank pumpers.  In our 
marina there are vacuum pumpout ports plumbed every 2'nd slip, so being easy 
they are well utilized. For my boat, with an 85 gallon holding tank, it is 
easy for me to utilize the pumpout facility, since I just run the hose from 
the front of my slip to the deck outlet, and turn on the valve at the deck 
level.  That is likely the key to getting good compliance with pumping 
out, -- make it reasonably easy.  Right now where I live, there are many 
miles between functional pumpout facilities (often a hundred or more) with 
the key word being "functional".  Also, often when you do find them, they 
are on fuel docks (with only one pumpout station), and the dock in summer is 
gridlocked with boats waiting to fill up with fuel.  Your pumpout-only need 
is about as welcome as ants at a picnic in those times.

What I was really referring to, however, was the real basis behind the 
"holding tank only" philosophy.  At the end of the day, what are the rules 
trying to prevent?  I would say to prevent disease due to bacteria (likely 
E-Coli O157:H7 and Legionella ) transmitted to humans via the water 
(drinking or swimming).  Now, having said that, it seems to me that if you 
want to do an effective job at that task, it would make the most sense to 
develop effective sewage treatment systems for boats.  In my opinion, the 
Purasan and ElectroSan type systems are not the answer, as my experience is 
that within a relatively short time they are usually not working very 
effectively.  I know for a fact that that is the case in my marina. 
Arguably, that is due to maintenance lacking, but regardless they are not 
doing the job.  Maybe that means they are too maintenance demanding, or 
what, you can speculate.

However, treatment systems working or not, I would love to see some reliable 
data on the coliform bacterial levels in a sizeable lake with good exchange 
first prior to, and second after -- the implementation of no discharge 
rules.  My gut feeling (no pun intended) is that you would be VERY hard 
pressed to see a difference.  Between the swamping effect of natures 
critters "doing their thing" in the water as well as the other heterotrophic 
bacteria present, and the dilution effects of the exchange (flowing water) I 
will bet that there is bugger all gained.  The real problem in my mind is 
the emotive issue, not the scientific issue.  The "Eeewwwh, would you want 
to drink that???" thing.  My answer is "No, and I won't, holding tank or 
not" so again, what does the "no discharge" really buy you.  I think squat, 
relative to a reasonable treatment system (and perhaps even relative to no 
treatment although I am not supporting that).

Maybe there are more folks than I imagine that like to see idiotic 
non-science based restrictions put on the many to trap the few, but I don't 
like that approach.  What I even dislike more, is the current propensity to 
"fix" non-problems.  The number of times in my life that I have seen the 
approach taken to "identify a solution, create a problem, and then regulate 
it" -- is just too many.  I think this is one of them.