Paul Wellman (file)
A cruise ship stops off Santa Barbara's coast in 2009
Wastewater in Seawater
EPA Proposes Ban on Sewage Dumps Close to State’s Shores
Saturday, August 28, 2010
A proposed rule signed by the Environmental Protection Agency this week aims to prevent large ships from dumping sewage within three miles of California’s coastline. The rule, if enacted in the coming months, would stop millions of gallons of waste from making its way into sensitive ocean ecosystems and would complement the recently adopted discharge ban around the state’s national marine sanctuaries.
On Wednesday, August 25, EPA regional administrator Jared Blumenfield signed the proposal during a ceremony in San Francisco, paving the way for the largest “no-discharge zone” in the United States. All 1,624 miles of California’s coast — a total of 5,222 square miles — would be off limits. The ban targets cruise and cargo ships weighing 300 tons or more as well as any vessel that has a two-day wastewater storage capacity.
Ships would have to travel beyond the three-mile limit before their crews could unload waste, whether treated or untreated, the idea being that sewage dilutes better in deeper waters. Boats also typically travel faster as they move away from land, so the offloads could ideally be spread over a distance, not dumped in one concentrated area. The rule looks to protect not only open ocean coastline, but also tidally influenced bays, estuaries, and rivers.
The EPA estimates that about 25.4 million gallons of sewage are generated in state waters each year. The ban, said officials, could prohibit the release of approximately 80 percent — or 20.4 million gallons — of that amount in state waters yearly. Boats caught jettisoning refuse within the zone would be forced to pay a fine or be subjected to other enforcement action, courtesy of the Coast Guard.
“California’s coastal waters are a unique national treasure,” Blumenfield said. “The clear waters of the Pacific are central to California’s economic and ecological vitality. Stopping 20 million gallons of sewage … protects people and wildlife from dangerous pathogens.” An EPA press statement noted that while there are significant regulations for land-based municipal sewage release and stormwater runoff, vessel waste has not received the same level of attention until now.
By Paul Wellman (file)
A cruise ship stops off Santa Barbara’s coast in 2009
Of the 434 state beaches monitored last year, 40 percent were subject to advisories because they exceeding safe pathogen levels; the adoption of the no-discharge zone, said officials, would likely cut down on the percentage. In that vein, legislators are hopeful the ban will have a directly positive impact on the Golden State’s economy because clean, open beaches mean more tourists and clear water means better fishing.
After the proposed rule was signed on Wednesday, explained Paul Amato with the EPA, it made its way over to the federal registrar’s office where it will be posted for a 60-day public comment period. Amato said the agency hopes to prepare and issue final regulation in early 2011. Once it’s signed, the ban will immediately take effect. The EPA, explained Amato, developed the rule in response to a request from the State Water Resources Control Board, and it’s in accordance with the 2005 Clean Coast Act.
Friends of the Earth campaign director Marcie Keever stated: “Big ships make for big pollution, but unfortunately responsible disposal of sewage from ships hasn’t always been a given in California. The actions taken by the U.S. EPA … mean that cruise lines and the shipping industry can no longer use California’s valuable coastal and bay waters as their toilet.”
So far, said Amato, the rule has seen a lot of support. All 20 of California’s congressional representatives have written letters to the EPA’s top administrator, Lisa Jackson, encouraging her to officially endorse the ban, water board agencies are completely behind the idea, and as far as the public is concerned, said Amato, people are simply curious what’s taken so long. “Folks wonder why it hasn’t happened yet,” he said.
The cruise ship industry likely won’t generate too much opposition, he went on, explaining that many companies already do deep water releases. Princess Cruises — whose ships, one or twice a year, grace Santa Barbara’s coastline — reportedly won’t feel any impact at all.
A spokesperson for the company said the Princess vessels don’t discharge any foulness in state waters, and the cruise line “adheres to all U.S. and international environmental regulations regarding the discharge of both ‘grey water’ (from showers, sinks, dishwashers) and ‘black water’ (from toilets) into the ocean.” Boats even go as far as 12 miles offshore to release refuse, the spokesperson said, which exceeds the distance required by current law.
What the commercial shipping industry thinks about the rule is another story, said Amato. “The jury is still out,” he said. While the EPA doesn’t expect any dramatic assault on the proposal, cargo ship companies could very well ask for a bit of tweaking. Calls to a few corporations had not been returned as of press time.
Naval ships would also fall under the ban’s parameters, explained Amato, as the proposal’s language does not offer the military a specific exemption. However, the Department of Defense can override the rule if the requirements get in the way of national security.
How the pending no-discharge zone could affect Santa Barbara boating operations is unclear at this time. Calls to local businesses that offer multi-day trips — and whose vessels presumably have sewage capacities of two days or more, making them subject to the proposed guidelines — had not been returned as of press time.
Comments
I'll keep this thought as I hit the water for my morning surf sesh.....unfortunate that when it comes to the ocean we are still wallowing in our own poo..... cruise ships are livestock feed lots for humans and their "veal" they call children. Ban 'em, line up at the buffet in Vegas and keep the crap in Nevada. Obesity on the high seas !!!!
lordleadbetter (anonymous profile)
August 28, 2010 at 6:13 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Shouldn't cruise ships be REQUIRED to unload sewage and waste on the LAND where it belongs. This law re-enforces the false myth that "dilution is the solution". This law is saying it's ok to dump waste in the ocean but not along the coast. The EPA should know better. ALL ocean-dumping is wrong.
Georgy (anonymous profile)
August 28, 2010 at 9:20 a.m. (Suggest removal)
They may dump the sewage further out at sea, but notice that nice plume of exhaust smog in the top photo.
David_Pritchett (David Pritchett)
August 28, 2010 at 11:47 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Where are all the complaints from the "less government", "fewer regulations", and "the free market will correct this" crowd?
EastBeach (anonymous profile)
August 28, 2010 at 12:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)
You sure taught that straw man a lesson, EastBeach.
Pinatubo (anonymous profile)
August 28, 2010 at 11:38 p.m. (Suggest removal)
You sure missed the whole point, Pinatubo.
SezMe (anonymous profile)
August 30, 2010 at 5:21 a.m. (Suggest removal)
How droll to see someone call his own core ideology a "straw man". We'll remember that next time someone claims that the government is the problem not the solution, that regulation interferes with free markets, etc. "Sorry, but according to Pinatubo that's a pathetically weak argument that no one actually adheres to."
truth_machine (anonymous profile)
August 30, 2010 at 10:13 a.m. (Suggest removal)
P.S. Just a few days ago I responded to one of Pinatubo's fellow travelers who wrote "if you think government is going to run health insurance better than the free market I have a bridge to sell you" -- so much for it being a "straw man". As I said then, that isn't an argument, it's what stupid people substitute for one.
truth_machine (anonymous profile)
August 30, 2010 at 10:27 a.m. (Suggest removal)
People who complain about the free market in relation to the environment don't understand the concept of property rights. If somebody is polluting our property (OUR property being the beach and watersheds), then the government's job is to protect that property from being damaged.
When you enact regulations, the Cruise Ship Industrial Complex (CSIC) will pay off politicians and write the regulations that get passed. These regulations will bypass the rights of property owners and allow the Cruise Ships to damage the beaches and waterways just as they are now. The solution is not regulation, it is simply protecting the beaches by prosecuting cruise ships who dump waste that ends up damaging the beaches or our ability to enjoy them. It would be very easy to track a cruise ship, where it dumps, and then prove whether the waste impacted the shoreline, and the government can have an integral roll in tracking this. Private property owners along the coast and those who care about the coastline could also collectively hire a corporation to do the tracking of cruise ship vessels so they can ensure their coastline is protected. However, more importantly it would bypass this whole BS regulation business that corporations like to take advantage of. Right now you can't sue a cruise ship line for damaging the coast, because the government regulations PROTECT THEM.
So if you like regulations, what you're really saying is that you like rules that protect big corporations and allow them to pollute a certain amount.
loonpt (anonymous profile)
August 30, 2010 at 10:29 a.m. (Suggest removal)
"ALL ocean-dumping is wrong."
Unfortunately, there is a pipe in Carp that sends all of our treated sewage miles out into the ocean.
There is also a giant pipe in LA directly out from a surf spot with a deserving name 's--t pipes'.
I'm pretty sure ocean dumping is common practice. I'm not sure what a better solution is that conforms to today's norms of living.
If you want to know about a sustainable way to treat and use human waste, look into humanure. Peat moss or saw dust can turn human waste into valuable, safe fertilizer for agriculture.
loonpt (anonymous profile)
August 30, 2010 at 10:35 a.m. (Suggest removal)
"So if you like regulations, what you're really saying is that you like rules that protect big corporations and allow them to pollute a certain amount."
No, loony, that's not what we're really saying -- that IS a strawman.
truth_machine (anonymous profile)
August 30, 2010 at 10:55 a.m. (Suggest removal)
No, that is not a straw man, that is REALITY.
If you want to protect people and resources from pollution, protect them from pollution. The result of your ideology is corporatism where corporations control the government. They get to define the rules rather than simply make it a matter of principle where the property owner (in this case the tax payers) receive awards for damages that help restore the property to its former condition. The result of freedom is real justice and ingenuity. The result of "progressivism" is bills that are several thousand pages long written by big corporations.
loonpt (anonymous profile)
August 30, 2010 at 1:36 p.m. (Suggest removal)
loon, your solution is no solution. If Big Biz can influence regulations so that they protect them, they can also write law penalties in such a way to make damages so small as to just be a minor cost of doing business.
SezMe (anonymous profile)
August 30, 2010 at 2:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)
SezMe, you are refusing to recognize the inherent difference between just compensation and regulations.
What you just described IS regulation... that is where they write laws that mandate penalties for various levels of pollution rather than fully compensate the owner of the property who was damaged. This is done by large corporations in order to SKIRT full compensation. Large corporations lobbied the government to create regulations for pollution back during the time of the Industrial Revolution because they were tired of being sued by property owners who had their land or watersheds damaged. We haven't had a free market oriented justice system as it relates to the environment since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, and that is why we are such horrid polluters.
You don't need laws to do this, you just need a government who provides compensation to property owners who have damage done to their property. It's already in the Constitution, it's called the fifth amendment. Unfortunately we don't follow the Constitution anymore.
loonpt (anonymous profile)
August 30, 2010 at 3:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)
LOL at all the people in this thread getting huffy over what they imagine a conservative guy might post here.
Pinatubo (anonymous profile)
August 30, 2010 at 5:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)
"No, that is not a straw man, that is REALITY. "
It's not reality that what we're really saying is that we like rules that protect big corporations -- it's a lie, one of you many.
"Large corporations lobbied the government to create regulations for pollution back during the time of the Industrial Revolution"
Pure loon-acy.
truth_machine (anonymous profile)
September 1, 2010 at 2:24 a.m. (Suggest removal)
There is an Opportunitty here for an aspiring person or person's to make a buck and provide an environmetal service. While working at a local factory that made Circit chips for the computer industry back in the 80's, they had on site (property) a Reverse Osmoses, using charcole to filter contaminates of waste from the water system, so that they could use the cleaned waste water in their cooling and washing of these Circuit chip's. This proceses also used a compressing system to compact the human and other waste into blocks of compacted waste. These blocks were treated with a bio-degradable componet that sped-up the break-down of these blocks in the soil, that allowed for greater dispersal in the soil before it hit the ground water tables.
If Santa Barbara is going to become a Tourist Spot for Cruise ships, then a system simular to the above could be employed along with a boat or waste management ship to off-load the waste and deliver it the the plant for treatment and dispersal in a land based waste pit for break-down with soil and dispersed at farms as treated for farming soil. Environmental, profitable and ecnomical, a viable business for Santa Barbara and income producer.
Just an idea that could be used for the inginous rather than a missed opportunity.
Charles.
dou4now (anonymous profile)
September 6, 2010 at 5:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Not quite sure about what all the stuff from LOONPT is about, but I would like one of these advocates to explain the "private property rights" related to air pollution and ocean dumping.
Are we not supposed to care about ocean pollution until the sewage slick hits the beach? In California, the coastline is public property.
David_Pritchett (David Pritchett)
April 15, 2011 at 11:11 a.m. (Suggest removal)