SailNet Community banner
  • SailNet is a forum community dedicated to Sailing enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about sailing, modifications, classifieds, troubleshooting, repairs, reviews, maintenance, and more!

Pumpout Costs

8K views 71 replies 32 participants last post by  fallard 
#1 ·
We just returned from a great trip down the coast. Had a blast in Desoto, Venice, Charlotte Harbor (and Cabbage Key), and FOrt Myers Beach. Really great places for those that have not been there.

However, I want to run something by the forum and get your take. WHile in Fort Myers Beach, we spent most of our time on the mooring ball. However, we wanted to go in one day for water, some supplies, and while we were at it, a pumpout. SO we paid a daily transient and went in.

We got the bill and were shocked... about $125 for the night. WHat frustrated me was that they pump out the boat at the cost of $25/pumpout. THis is on top of nearly $2/foot and $8/per electric hookup. Now, if I was just going in for a pumpout, I would be ok if they charged me something... though I might not completely agree with it. But $25!??

It't not the money, per se, it is the whole point. See, Fort Myers Beach has one of a few Mooring fields put in and sanctioned by the state. They did away with the anchorage because they could monitor it better and keep the water cleaner And come on, let's be honest, they wanted to make money. However, how do you maintain a clean bay when the marinas around you charge $25/pumpout??

I am an advocate of pumping out and managing your waste disposal properly. Nothing pisses me off worse than these boats where people live aboard and dump all around me. It gives all of us a bad name. I know most of you who read this would agree with me. It's grosse and ecologically unsound. However, when the state allows the marinas to charge rediculous amounts of money to pump out, what incentive is there for those that do not hold my opinion of dumping in the water to go to a pumpout? Will I still pumpout? Yeah!! But I guarantee you most of those other boats wont. That is an easy $100/month if not twice that much.

So don't get me wrong... I am not trying to sound tight. $25 surely isn't going to break me. But I believe that when those kinds of fees are charged (even for those who are paying dockage), you create an environment which discourages good boating practices. Instead, why not put up a pumpout station that everyone can access that is free and accessible? If not run by the state, who dictates these laws in the first place, require all marinas to have one and set what they can or can't charge. Consider it the price of owning and operating a marina.

Curious who agrees with me and who doesn't?

Brian

PS THe mooring field in FMB does run a pumpout boat as a service, as does Boot Key. For those that go there, you don't have to pay if you stay on the ball. It does not run on the weekends, only M-F, FYI.
 
See less See more
#38 ·
The marina I use (MD Chesapeake) ripped out the MD state equipment because it didn't work for beans and put in a new system that is MUCH better. It's free because they decided it just wasn't worth keeping track of. I'm sure they came out ahead on good will. It is self service, so there is no labor component, but it works so well most don't mind. I believe you can request help.

No, it doesn't need to be free, but perhaps it's one of those things that smart operators will accept as part of the business. I've got believe the cost of maintaining the pump is far less than that of cleaning a bathroom.
 
#42 ·
Good thought Don, but Salty Sam's isn't on the list/in the program. The business is entirely privately owned and operated and can/will charge what it wishes for services. Opinions of the business vary. There are as many praises of the place as there are complaints. I guess the moral of the story is that one needs ask about the cost of a service before requesting it.

FWIW...
 
#43 ·
Having owned a boat-to-boat pumpout service, I can tell you that for a private pumpout business, $25 is on the low end of the price range. And if you have ever spent a day handling other people's sh*t and piss at $25 a pop, you understand that nobody is being overpaid to do it.
 
#44 ·
I feel for you Brian, but as in your other learning experience reported lately (thank God you were not hurt worse) it is a learning experience. I bet next time you will ask first before pumping out, just as you would for the price of the travel lift, or any other service.This one just surprises you. My guess is that this provider had a reason for the high costs other than greed, but who knows.

In the Great Lakes we don't have any option but to pump out. Most are very reasonable at $5-10, almost all subsidized by the state and federal grants. Serves a good cause so makes sense, especially to those of us who use it and know where it would go if the pump out was not available. However, for all those that think the idea of a "free" service makes sense....there is nothing "free"! The states and fed's get there money from us. We may be the beneficary of a "free" pump out, but we paid for it up front. We, and the 99.99% of people that have never, and will never, have a boat with a head on it! Governments are not efficiently run so the real costs are even higher than the reported costs.
 
#45 ·
In the Great Lakes we don't have any option but to pump out. Most are very reasonable at $5-10, almost all subsidized by the state and federal grants. Serves a good cause so makes sense, especially to those of us who use it and know where it would go if the pump out was not available. However, for all those that think the idea of a "free" service makes sense....there is nothing "free"! The states and fed's get there money from us. We may be the beneficary of a "free" pump out, but we paid for it up front. We, and the 99.99% of people that have never, and will never, have a boat with a head on it! Governments are not efficiently run so the real costs are even higher than the reported costs.
It is obvious from the posting that if the govt didnt subsidize this program that the true cost would be a lot higher. We probably all agree with the concept of non-pollution of our waterways, and if this was a pay for use program, which will cost higher, the participation would IMHO drop. Iit makes sense for there to be a discount provided for by the government as it is for the common good and accomplishes a goal for the common good.

Almost all goverment subsidies on programs, the programs dont benefit the majority of the people, For instance enegy credits on income tax only benefit people who have bought new appliances or solor panels, road and tunnel projects only benefit people with cars.

As Chuckles and Fastbttms have pointed out that the true cost of the pumpout service proabably is close to the $25 Cruisindad paid. Hihs experience should be a teaching lesson to the rest of us to ASK before pumping out what the cost is and not assume it is cheap. Brian sorry you were the guine pig here but thatnks for making us all more aware.:)

Dave
 
#47 ·
Wow! Lots of great replies. I am not sure I can answer everyone here, but I will take a shot.

First, Fstbottoms:

You ran a private pumpout boat. Totally different. You provide a service where you come to the boat and pump them out. However, did you ever consider applying for the CVA? THey will pay 75% of the upfront costs, plus 75% of the annual costs for upkeep. Florida alone has dealt out over $7 million dollars for these causes. Their pumpouts under this program have almost tripled.

And please don't take this comment negatively, as it is not meant that way. But if you take a job or create a business doing pump outs, then don't complain about doing pumpouts. Find another job if you don't like handling other people poo.

Dave:

Exactly.

Tomandchris:

You see, therein lies the crux of the matter. You cannot pumpout into the great lakes. You would not want someone else pumping out in the great lakes. The laws prevent you pumping out in the great lakes. Pumpouts are a requirement, set by the government. I also suspect that the reason you only pay $5/$10, is because they took CVA money or are regulated by the state.

However, in order for those pumpouts to be truly used, they must be readily available, operational, and economically acceptable. When any one of those conditions are not met, you create an environment that diescourages proper disposal of waste. Will I still pumo out? Sure. But what about the many other cruisers and boats that are out there? Will they? When you consider that most of the cruisers out there are on a bare bone budget (don't even get me started about the derilict liveaboards), and considering that the typical cruiser will pumpout once a week if not more, you are now looking at costs of $100-$200/month... just for a pumoout. That does not include the marina costs, electrical costs, etc.

My whole point in this whole matter is not that I got screwed (which I believe I did). My point is that we have to stand together to make sure our waterways stay clean. I am a HUGE proponent of pumping out and properly handling waste disposal. That is why I fully support programs such as the CVA and CMP (Clean Vessel Act and Clean Marina Program). THese programs recognize that it is a group effort and that the environment must be created and maintained to promote clean waterways.

Of course Pumpouts are not a economically viable business. If so, they would be everywhere. But clean waterways are good busines for everyone... not just the beach goers and boaters. They are good for the marinas too. Let us not forget, a marina is making money off of the watereways. Clean sounds and bays and beaches are in their best interests too. Promoting those comes in part by supporting pumpout stations and their use. If you charge $25/pumpout, are you promoting their use? Or, are you trying to make money? And if the latter, and if you are categorically against having to spend your own money on a station, why not apply for the CVA grant and mitigate if not eliminate your costs? The way I see it, pumoouts should be a necessary evil on doing business. DOn't feel too sorry for the marinas here. They are making money elsewhere, and much of it based upon these same clean waterways which attract their customers.

Brian

PS Just so everyone knows, Per my conversation with the FL Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), Salty Sams accepted the CVA grant money in July, 2012. The FL website is not updated. I have already spoken with the FL DEP in Tallahassee and in Ft Myers. They asked for the receipt which I provided, clearly showing the price and the pumpout. They are having a meeting regarding this as I type this and we will be following up later in the day, with both myself and Salty Sams. I have no idea how this will turn out for them. I am also doing an article on this which I will publish. But even if they had not accepted the money, I hope everyone can see my point. It is in everyones best interest to make pump-outs readily available, operational, and economically acceptable. DOnt fool yourself. If any one of those are not met, the goal of clean water will not either.
 
#49 ·
Of course Pumpouts are not a economically viable business. If so, they would be everywhere. But clean waterways are good busines for everyone... not just the beach goers and boaters. They are good for the marinas too. Let us not forget, a marina is making money off of the watereways. Clean sounds and bays and beaches are in their best interests too. Promoting those comes in part by supporting pumpout stations and their use. If you charge $25/pumpout, are you promoting their use? Or, are you trying to make money? And if the latter, and if you are categorically against having to spend your own money on a station, why not apply for the CVA grant and mitigate if not eliminate your costs? The way I see it, pumoouts should be a necessary evil on doing business. DOn't feel too sorry for the marinas here. They are making money elsewhere, and much of it based upon these same clean waterways which attract their customers.

Brian
Not to mention I like eating fish/ crabs and stuff that lives in the water. No one wants to get sick with all the food bourne illnesses that thrive on fecal matter ( to numerous to list). There is an old saying..." you dont eat where you ****"

Good points Brian. Remind me you are banned from even approaching the dock of my club without letting me know all involved you are coming....:laugher:laugher

Dave
 
#51 ·
Brian-
Complaints & meetings: Kudos for fighting evil. No, really, I do believe that if we don't stop the little things, it encourages folks to take bigger bites. And that folks that "only" steal a buck a million times know that those million people won't bother to complain because it is just a buck. (sigh)

$100 a month, huh? Almost sounds like, wait for it, a SEWER TAX! Them gummint boys are going to turn boaters into responsible members of society, like it or not.

Of course boaters aren't the only beneficiaries. In the same way that "everyone" benefits when open cesspools are banned in a community, everyone benefits ftom cleaner water. The dockside restaurant, the folks dining at it, the folks strolling along the beach or swimming in it...No reason that it should be JUST the boaters paying the full monty for the pumpouts. We all pay for the sewer plants ashore, even if we use compost heaps.

Same same. But $25, with no warning..."I want it back! Open that tank and give it back!" I'm going to start a $50 "correspondance fee" whenever some utility wants to speak to me. Heck, if they can stick me with their franchise fees...I can stick it back too, right?
 
#54 ·
"and I get my $25 back?" "
No no no, that's being a victim.

I want my $25 back, and I'll need another $25 for a restocking fee, plus ten dollars more for the transaction fee.

The only way to win some games, is to refuse to play. Or, play by your own rules, as they do.

Whaddayamean, you don't understand? You assumed I was going to pay you, when I was selling my valuable compost? That I always get paid for? See, there's a SIGN posted in MY office. <G>
 
#55 ·
Brian,
Good for ya! With any luck there is a serious fine associated with this.

I would still post something on Active Captain. If they're gouging on the pumpout you have to wonder what else they're gouging on.

Jim
 
#59 ·
sailordave is correct. "No Discharge" has no exceptions, and that is how Rhode Island interprets it as far as Lectrascans are concerned.

The State DEPs can really be anal about discharges. There was a Navy facility in New London, CT that pumped water from the Thames River (actually an estuary) into a shallow pool to recreate a salt water "ground plane" for submarine antenna testing. After they finished their testing, they pumped the water back into the river until the State made a "federal case" of it and forced the Navy to treat the used salt water as industrial waste. This wasn't a case of lubricants or any other contaminants, but the environmentalists asserting that the water had been warmed by the sun and was probably biologically different than the river it came from. Increased algae or plankton? Who knows what they were afraid of--logic?

Do you really think these DEP folks would make an exception for a Lectrasan (which is probably producing a better product than a lot of municipal sewage plants)?
 
#62 ·
Well first, we were talking about ft. Myers beach where lectrasans are legal.

Second, most no discharge zones are stupid. Lectrasans are much better than the raw sewage that routinely gets dumped by wastewater treatment plants all across America. When sewage does get treated, it's roughly equivalent to what the lectrasan produces in the first place.

Why isn't the EPA out putting diapers on birds and whales? Used to live near a beach that was always closed because of goose cr@p polution.
 
#63 ·
.......Why isn't the EPA out putting diapers on birds and whales? Used to live near a beach that was always closed because of goose cr@p polution.
We dock alongside a pier that is roughly 250 ft long and the gulls don't bother it during the season. However, right now, they have a field day. By Spring, it will literally be covered in nearly an inch of cr@p and thousands of broken clam and crab shells. I dare say how many gallon of raw, untreated, undiluted cr@p and food garbage, just get sprayed into the water when the newbie high school dockhand comes on board in May.

Now, I don't condone humans dumping sewage, nor garbage, in the harbor. But I find the environmental zelots to be a stubborn as those that do. There needs to be some middle ground here, where the eco-system is well prepared to deal with humans.

BTW, it is illegal to buy a lobster that came from the Bay, eat it while on the hook right next to where it came from in the Bay and throw the shell overboard, where it would have been molted off or died anyway. This one, I refuse to comply with and so does everyone I know.
 
#64 ·
Second, most no discharge zones are stupid. Lectrasans are much better than the raw sewage that routinely gets dumped by wastewater treatment plants all across America.
Don't these 2 sentences seem strange, right next to each other? Why can't I speed by 10 mph; everyone else is going 15 over? Yes, by-passing is a issue, but it's a different issue.

Yes, the Lectrasan discharge is sterile, but in pollutant load it is insignificantly different from untreated waste (actually much higher than domestic waste but only because it lacks shower and rain dilution) and certainly contains some interesting chlorinated compounds. The notion that these units "make better product than municipal plants" is a shameless fabrication without basis in facts that I've seen.

From an EPA report:
EPA Summary Data (results in mg/L)
Annalyte After Lectrasan Treatment EPA Sewage Treatment Standard
BOD5 780 45
TSS 1,000 45
Fecal Coliform < 82 200 (swimming areas)
http://www.epa.gov/nrmrl/pubs/600r10008/600r10008.pdf

Certainly one toilet with a Lectrasan would have no impact, but I stay in a NDZ with over 1000 boats in a poorly flushed harbor. I'm sure some of them would function improperly (if sewers over flow, Lextrasans break or are not maintained) I expect that would be a problem. Fortunately, the harbor also has several pump-outs.
 
#66 ·
Next, the environmentalist will go after animals on board that don't use the head underway or use a beach in a poorly flushed anchorage like the Block Island Salt Pond.

After that, they might go after the Mystic Aquarium which--as I understand it--dumps their filter backwash into the Mystic River, 2.5 miles or more from open water. Supposedly it's treated, but there's got to be a lot more marine mammal poop (whales, dolphins, seals, penguins, etc.) than people poop from a few Lectrasans.

Of course, we've never had a malfunction of the Mystic Sewage Plant, which discharges about 1.5 miles from open water, have we?

I'm all for clean water, but some of the environmental policies are ridiculously overstated, as Minnewaska said.
 
#69 ·
About those Lectrosan units. They kill the bacteria using a chlorine made from salt water and electricity. They do NOT remove any solids, as do ALL land based treatment plants. This means that you are still discharging nutrients into the water. These nutrients feed the bacteria already in the water, along with the algae and other organisms. These organisms all consume oxygen, so they contribute to low oxygen levels in areas that don't get enough vigorous mixing. So the idea they are as clean as shore side plant is simply untrue.

Those big 100,000 spills of raw sewage? If the plant knows it is going to happen (equipment breakdown, and none of their customers have their legs crossed and holding it) They will super chlorinate it to kill all the bacteria. Similar to the Lectrasan.

Then there are the small sewage plants like the ones we build. They are based on membrane technology with filter pores so small that no solids, including bacteria and viruses can pass through. We also remove dissolved phosphorous and nitrogen down to less than 3 mg per liter, and oxygenate to 10 mg per liter. The water gets UV sterilized too, just in case, something actually did get through. At this point the water is crystal clear, and I'd bet it is better than the drinking water supply in most major cities!

We just put a plant on line. The state of Maryland wanted us to run it for three months and discharge through the old system. After three DAYS they said "Hey this is stupid, the old system is just dirtying up the discharge! You can let it go out directly"

Gary H. Lucas
 
#70 ·
When GaryHLucas can compare the total discharge of Lectrasan units in a given boating area with all the stuff that is going into the water from surface runoff, critters in, on, and adjacent to the water, and other approved discharges, like the filter backwash from the Mystic Aquarium, and then say that the Lectrasan discharge is a problem in QUANTITATIVE terms, then I am more likely to accept his position.

In the absence of factual inputs on the ABSOLUTE level of liquid and solid discharges--I will consider the GaryHLucas position as a well-meaning--even technically informed--opinion on the QUALITATIVE nature of discharges. In the meantime, I have a hard time believing that Lectrasan discharges are a REAL environmental problem, anymore than extending the RI No Discharge Zone to 3 miles out is justified on scientific terms.

I certainly understand the argument about solids discharge, but my argument is about the absolute amount of discharges in the bigger picture. The contribution of actual and projected Lectrasan discharges in New England waters--if allowed--has to be ridiculously small. If the discharge is sterile, that takes care of e-Coli. As far as solids are concerned, let's consider the nitrogen issue as a feeder to hypoxia. You need to worry a lot more about lawn fertilizer and dog poop in the watershed than boaters.

Just for the record, I don't have and don't intend to install a Lectrasan. I use the pumpout boats and an occasional land-based pump out. Occasionally I will pump out past the 3 mile limit. I really do resent those folks who discharge untreated waste in harbors and would prefer that Lectrasan discharges not occur there either, but prohibiting Lectrasan discharges out to 3 miles off the RI shore is ludicrous.
 
#71 ·
I would never suggest that dumping a holding tank inside a confined harbor was a good idea. But, believe that every single boat in Narragansett Bay could dump their lectrasan tank in West Passage on any given weekend and the Bay would flick it aside, let alone between Beavertail and Point Judith.

There needs to be reasonable balance here. Humans will have an impact on the environment. However, our current rules seem to be written like speed limits. They are backed off 10 mph from what they know you will do, not what makes sense.
 
#72 ·
I'm with Minnewaska on this issue. While I would agree with the goals of clean water, that has to be consistent with a realistic definition of what "clean" means. It isn't the same as "pure", particularly in the coastal areas.

If we eliminated all biologics in the water column it would really screw up the food chain. Maybe the solids from a lectrasan are actually beneficial in the quantities that are actually released, particularly in areas that are flushed, like West Passage.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top