I didn't say that ALL inland lakes are "no discharge,"...only all NON-NAVIGABLE inland waters...see 40 CFR 140.3 (all caps mine):

"(a) (1) In freshwater lakes, freshwater reservoirs or other freshwater impoundments WHOSE INLETS OR OUTLETS ARE SUCH AS TO PREVENT THE INGRESS OR EGRESS BY VESSEL TRAFFIC subject to this regulation, OR IN RIVERS NOT CAPABLE OF NAVIGATION BY INTERSTATE VESSEL TRAFFIC subject to this regulation, marine sanitation devices certified by the U.S. Coast Guard (see 33 CFR part 159, published in 40 FR 4622, January 30, 1975), installed on all vessels shall be designed and operated to prevent the overboard discharge of sewage, treated or untreated, or of any waste derived from sewage. "

Cumberland is a navigable lake...an impoundment on a navigable river. Some of those are "no discharge," but on a case-by-case basis, and almost always because the impoundment is a municipal water supply.

It worries me that some inspectors in some places are "certifying" Crown Heads as Type I MSDs...'cuz if the owners cruise into waters where the authorities know better, they can still be fined there.

AR and AL don't have enforceable marine sanitation laws...not sure about LA...but KY does have a marine sanitation law, passed about 7 years ago. I have a copy of it. It mirrors federal law very closely...and, much to my surprise, KY enforcement decided to accept the PuraSan as a legal Type I on vessels larger than 65', which I consider nothng short of amazingly enlightened. Seems to me that instead of writing new, more punitive law, all they really need to do is enforce the ones already on the books.

'Cuz all vessels that don't have either a holding tank or a treatment device are already in violation of current laws. ..and changing the status of any body of water to "no discharge" only affects vessels that have Type I or II MSDs installed, which is a very small percentage of boats with toilets.

It would appear that the lawyers have taken this situation way beyond what is necessary. A little common sense and common decency would go a long way in ones decision to dump human waste into our water ways. I could not dump treated or untreated waste into the Mississippi river. I have a system for containing waste and if properly used, will help (all be it , a small part ) keep the river cleaner.
We have plenty of marina's that do pump outs, so I believe that any overboard discharge should be discourged in this area of the country. Other areas of the country are not as fortunate to have these facilities available and accomodations should be made for boaters in those areas. I think that what Pirate and Peggy are saying, mirrors my thoughts to some degree. No matter what, we will always have a small percentage of boaters who will ignore the laws and these individuals know that detection is very difficult, so maybe it is up to us, the boaters to police our own. We have had small instances on the St.Croix river, a federally mandated scenic waterway, in which similar problems were addressed by other boaters. One instance involved a houseboater, I'm sorry to say, that changed out a toilet and thought it would be cute to attach the old toilet to a tree stump instead of discarding in a logical manner. He won't be back.
If I were to see someone discharging waste overboard, I would have to say something, first to the guilty party, and if that did'nt work, to the local authorities. I don't want to swim in someone elses waste.
At any rate, I removed the second Y-valve and and plugged the sea cock so I should have a legal waste system without worrying about the addition of other components which would bring it back to compliance with other codes. The tank is taking longer to fill and pump outs take longer time, so I believe that the hard packed cake from lack of pump outs for two years is finally being turned to more of a liquid. This thing is finally coming around to my way of thinking.

Type I and II now are better than many city sewage plants, I really do not like holding tanks as many will dump them anyway. I have been told you can drink the water out of some MSD I and II. Peggie is that correct? Well, to each his own, I see barges dumping Raw sewage, on the Ohio, Tenn. and Miss. What is the difference between commercial sewage and recreational sewage? I have not found anything to separate the two. I have found some type II systems that do all kinds of things such as the SANI- SYSTEM 600 series. I guess we all have to do what we think is best in our situation as long as it is legal, I opt for I and II in this area.

You couldn't bring yourself to discharge treated waste into the river...but what do you think happens to the contents of your holding tank after it's pumped out? Holding tank waste doesn't magically vanish from the environment...it goes to the local sewage plant where it's treated (most of the time anyway, but not always if the treatment plant overflows) and discharged into the river. Every sewage treatment plant discharges into a body of water somewhere...And it will prob'ly surprise you to learn that the discharge from an onboard treatment device is actually CLEANER than the discharge from any sewage treatment plant...in fact, cleaner than the river it's discharging into. No, it's not clean enough to drink (I don't know where anyone got that idea)...but neither is the water in the river.

Onboard treatment is a MUCH better solution to waste than holding tanks.. I urge to spend some time learning the facts about onboard treatment and land waste treatment. Whether you ever choose to spend the money for an onboard treatment device is up to you--but that decision should be an INFORMED one...it should not be an irrational emotional response without any knowledge to _base_ it on.

Pirate, I don't know where you got the idea that commercial vessels are exempt from any marine sanitation laws...they're governed by a different set, that in some cases are actually stricter than those pertaining to recreational vessels. If you dig around in the CFR you'll find 'em. That the commercial vessels in your waters aren't complying with 'em (not surprising if there's no enforcment) doesn't mean they don't exist.

Peggie, I knew they had to comply, as the federal law is for all vessels, I was referring to the AL. law which exempted them. I see things all the time that are not lawful. I am glad you told them about the sewage plant, I have been telling it for years, now they may think about it as you put it in a very understandable way. Fact the sewage goes in the River anyway not as clean as if you had a Pura-san. Some marinas have the pumpout and it just goes in the river, no tank or anything. Thank you for telling it like it is. Sailor, you need a type I as that would be better than what you are doing and you save time and money.

Peg & Pirate -- This issue seems to be entirely politically motivated. Laws which reside on the books should be strictly enforced by local officials even if it means going after large waste treatment plants that have a powerful lobby. Too many people are "dumber than a box of rocks" and must be prosecuted if found to be dumping raw sewage into the rivers and lakes. Unfortunatly, I believe that inspectors and certain law enforcement officials are in the pocket of local political hacks who can circumvent or hide offenders. Call me a cynic!

I will look into the Type 1 system to see what is involved, but I still believe that if an onboard waste tank is properly maintained and pumped on a regular basis, and that the proper additives are used, no overboard discharge is necessary no matter what the system. I have much work to be done on the waste tank on our boat and it will probably take a few years until everything is correct and all the built up solid waste is removed. I just wish I had more time to play.

I appreciate all the comments made on this forum and I am learning a lot more than I expected, all of it good. Thankyou all.

Sailor, it's not about politics, it's about money.

Waste treatment plants don't have any lobby...they're not privately owned, they're built, operated and maintained by counties and municipalities--with YOUR tax $$. Many are too old and inadequate to meet the needs created by population growth, and when it's a choice between keeping roads open and and maintaining the water treatment plant or the sewage treatment plant, the money goes to the roads and keeping the potable water safe. But even the most efficient sewage treatment plants don't treat to as a high a standard as a properly working onboard treatment device...making onboard treatment a far superior solution to onboard waste than holding tanks.

It's all very noble to say that all laws should be enforced, but enforcement also costs money--your tax $$ again...for additional manpower and administration. The CG as well as state agencies are already underfunded and over-committed...they have to allocate their resources to the tasks that have the greatest cost/benefits ratios. And marine sanitation law enforcement is about as low as it's possible to get on the cost/benefit ratio scale. There are only about 12 million registered boats in the whole US, and 90% of them are under 20'--too small to have toilets....less than 5% are over 30'. Compare the number of boats with toilets against the size of the general population and it's not hard to see WHY the cost/benefit ratio is so low. What resources that agencies have to use on the water are far better spent on enforcing BUI laws...and there aren't enough "water cops"--or money to pay for more and their boats and equipment--to do as much of that as is needed.

Of course, all of the above could easily be solved with a 200-500% increase in federal, state and local taxes....I'm sure you'd be first in line to campaign in favor of that! Or, since the issue is waste from boats, you'd rather help to pay for it with a $1,000/yr boat "potty tax." ...the money to meet your enforcement standards has to come from somewhere, and your neighbors who don't own boats certainly don't want to pay for it...

The only time it gets political is when some politician tries to pander to the environmental extremists by going after boats--too few in number to have any real impact on the environment, which also makes us too few in number to fight back effectively against irrational knee-jerk emotional arguments.

The best thing any boat owner can do is learn all the facts he can, and question anything that provokes a purely emotional reaction...I'm reminded of the time I was standing in the cockpit of a friend's cruiser...tossing stale crackers to a flock of about 20-30 Canada geese gathered around his transom, doing what geese do any time the urge strikes as well as eating the crackers. As often happens when I'm around, the conversation turned to marine sanitation...like you, he was adamantly opposed to onboard waste treatment: "I don't want to swim in my poop or anyone else's, treated or untreated, and I don't want my kids to swim it either!" But when the last of the crackers had been fed to the geese and one of his kids dove off the boat in the middle of 'em, he never batted an eye. And although the effort nearly strangled me, I didn't say a word either.

So just get the facts that allow you to make informed decisions...ok?

Peggie, I have to commend you on the simple direct way you told the story, I think it was great. I have been trying to get this across for years, you put it so they have to listen and actually think about it. Thank you. You tell it the way it is. I for one hate holding tanks and would get rid of mine if I knew I would not be entering no discharge waters. Mine is Y valved off and goes to the MSD type I and out. We just did in the tax here in Alabama so the potty police will not be around for some time. No one wants to pay a potty tax, it is ridiculous. Get the MSD I or II and be done with it, you will actually be helping the purity of the water.