Maryland Proposed changes for Chesapeake Bay

How's this: http://www.epa.gov/reg3wapd/nodischarge/
http://www.epa.gov/owow/oceans/regulatory/vessel_sewage/vsdnozone.html

Actually the language is "from shore." Until 2000, it was legal and common for cruise ships to discharge raw sewage in the waters of the inside passage of Southeast Alaska in what were called "donut holes," areas that were more than 3 miles from the nearest shore even though they were well inside US territorial waters but technically outside state waters. Outrage about the huge volumes of raw sewage dumped by cruise ships led the EPA to create a new geographical boundary that defined the inside passage and closed the holes.

You will find that most environmental rules use the "from shore" when talking about saltwater.

The waters of the Chesapeake belong to Virginia or Maryland and those states make their own laws about discharges into state waters. The EPA has agreements with the states to make laws pertaining to discharges in the Bay and has given them the authority to make NDZs, which Virginia has done in several areas already.

Being perfectly pedantic, the laws typically say "from shore" but the difference is not the 3 mile limit, as you can be more than three miles from shore or offshore in a bay (Cape Cod, Buzzard's, Raritan, Delaware, Chesapeake, etc.) by the dictionary definition of the word.

The difference is "from shore" or "offshore" in this context now means the territorial waters of the USA, 3 miles from an imaginary land boundary with the ocean generally understood to be a smoothed line congruent with the mean low water mark along the coastline of ocean states (plus incorporated and unincorporated territories, insular areas, and dependent territories) and protectorates, including islands) and a straight line across the mouths of bays - closing the holes in the centers of larger bays. The Chesapeake is within the territory of the USA and Maryland (edit - and VA).

You know, when I first read the question I thought it was a "Duh" question. Guess that because I've always considered anywhere inside the 3 mile limit no discharge. My appologies. I think the 2nd link I posted http://www.epa.gov/owow/oceans/regulatory/vessel_sewage/vsdnozone.html should give you the answers.

The prudent mariner knows there is a big difference between "no discharge" and "the discharge of untreated sewage is prohibited."

There are a lot of "duh" questions when we know the answers. It takes a little extra to think outside our own wheelhouse when considering how a question is asked and by whom when we go to answer.

Often when we want to answer with something smart-alecky such as "well I know this so you should know this," or, "when you ask it on this board, you're an a$$ for asking something you should know," we would all be well advised to recall we weren't born knowing everything. Answering a question fully instead of sniping at the person asking contributes more to the forum, since the person asking is asking because they don't know - and often because they haven't had a prior need to know. Sometimes these people are owners, sometimes young folks looking to learn. Hostility and a general attitude that these questions ought not be asked is a detriment to the forum, because there are a lot of lurkers afraid to ask for fear of being snapped at. Let's appreciate and take care of the people with the bravado (or impudence) to ask!

Even the members who know it all can learn a few things this way.

There is much imprudence in the world. By sharing knowledge in a friendly manner, we all stand to benefit.

'Accidental Discharges' by the Treatment Plants

I often considered bringing up these exact observations about all the 'accidental discharges' by the various municipalities around the bay when I lived and worked in the boat business in Annapolis.

The boater just makes a much easier target for the politicians to blame than do the cities themselves.

A friend of mine works with SPLASH, a volunteer organization out of Freeport, NY. Pull up their web site and you'll find more of the same here and probably most municipalities up and down the coast. It's sort of like the campaign against second (and now 3rd) hand smoke. It's just more fun to vilify smokers than the internal combustion engine, etc. And it's more fun going after a boater than a municipality that has the power to fight back. That said though, I don't want to live in anyone else's cesspool. We should all boat responsibly.

Forgot who quoted this above, but its oh so true.

The boater makes such an easy target. To be really serious about this problem they need to address the farm runoff and the municiple sewage spills....SO MUCH BIGGER PROBLEM.