GL: Discharge in the Hudson

[Lawrence Zeitlin]

On Feb 22, 2009, at 12:00 AM, Bob wrote:

> I think most boaters dont even disagree with the NO DISCHARGE  
> provisions.

Well, I personally think that the no discharge regulation for the  
entire stretch of the Hudson River is stupid.

The NYS Environmental Protection Department's contention that the  
entire 153 miles of the Hudson River from Troy to the Battery is a no  
discharge area because riverside communities use the river as a  
source of drinking water is illogical. The Hudson is a tidal estuary  
and the lower 50 miles are salty or brackish and unsuitable for  
drinking. The first major water intakes are just below Poughkeepsie  
and nearly 80 miles upriver from New York City. River water was  
intended to used only in severe drought emergencies to extend  
reservoir supplies. It is never used by itself. The pumping station  
has not been activated in 50 years and is unlikely to be used ever  
again. To the best of my knowledge, NO communities on the Hudson use  
river water as part of their municipal supply.

Storm sewers from riverside communities and from New York City  
discharge directly into the river. The outflow from sewage treatment  
plants is also pumped into the river. Currently several communities  
are planning a pipeline to pump liquid treated sewage residues from  
Northern Westchester and Putnam counties into the Hudson near  
Peekskill. The garbage burning plant in Peekskill pumps its efflux  
directly into the river. The Indian Point atomic energy plant uses  
river water as a cooling medium. Dredging of the upper Hudson has  
freed long buried PCBs from the bottom into the water and it is  
suggested that no more that one meal of Hudson River fish be consumed  
weekly. Pregnant women are advised to avoid Hudson River fish entirely.

As a lifelong Hudson River boater I am all in favor of cleaning up  
the river. I can vouch for the fact that it is considerably better  
now than it was 35 years ago. This is almost certainly due to the  
effort of successive state governments in implementing the NYS Clean  
Water Act. If the DEC wants to consider a compromise, I suggest  
tightly enforcing the ban on discharge north of the Hudson-Beacon  
bridge and allowing the discharge of properly treated sewage in the  
salt and brackish portion of the river south of that point. USCG  
approved Type 1 treatment plants aboard recreational boats, when used  
in saltwater estuaries, treat the effluent enough to significantly  
reduce pathogen levels and lessen the biological oxygen demand. No  
additional discharge regulations are needed. It is already illegal  
under Federal law to discharge untreated sewage within the three mile  
limit.

The fact that pumpout stations exist on the river hardly guarantees  
that they will be used. Most are concentrated in the already polluted  
area near New York City. The remainder are so far apart that they  
represent half a day's boating to reach them. In many cases the waste  
is simply pumped into municipal treatment plants and the liquid  
residue is returned to the river.

New York State has spent a considerable amount of money in  
publicising its wonderful waterway system as a major recreational  
asset. Boating on the river is enjoying a renaissance and is a major  
source of revenue for riverside communities. Demonizing the  
recreational boater as a major source of contamination is a public  
relations exercise but does little to purify the water supply.  
Targeting the recreational boater while allowing millions of gallons  
of municipal waste water to be dumped into the river is hypocritical  
in the extreme.


Larry Z