a

GAO

United States General Accounting Office

Report to the Honorable Jim Saxton, 

House of Representatives

May 2004 WATER QUALITY

Program 

Enhancements Would 

Better Ensure 

Adequacy of Boat 

Pumpout Facilities in 

No-Discharge Zones

GAO-04-613
www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-613.

To view the full product, including the scope 

and methodology, click on the link above. 

For more information, contact John 

Stephenson at (202) 512-3841 or 

stephensonj@gao.gov. 

Highlights of GAO-04-613, a report to the 

Honorable Jim Saxton 

May 2004

WATER QUALITY 

Program Enhancements Would Better 

Ensure Adequacy of Boat Pumpout 

Facilities in No-Discharge Zones 

EPA’s process for determining whether adequate facilities are reasonably 

available to remove and treat sewage from boats in proposed no-discharge 

zones could be improved. EPA currently requires states to submit general 

estimates of need for facilities (known as pumpouts) in state applications for 

no-discharge zones, but other information that would support site-specific 

estimates is optional. As a result, EPA does not receive this information 

consistently. Moreover, EPA generally makes its determinations on 

adequacy without site visits to evaluate the facilities identified in the 

applications to ensure, for example, that they are accessible and functioning. 

GAO found no EPA and limited state oversight of pumpout facilities after nodischarge zones are established. The Clean Water Act does not address the 

monitoring of such facilities in established no-discharge zones, nor does it 

define a specific role for EPA after the agency has initially determined that 

the facilities are adequate. Because the success of no-discharge zones 

depends in large measure on adequate facilities, GAO believes that EPA 

should assess the continued adequacy of these facilities, seeking additional 

authority, if needed, to require periodic recertifications or reassessments. 

The Coast Guard limits its enforcement of no-discharge prohibitions to the 

three federally designated no-discharge zones; it does not enforce them in 

the 56 state-designated zones. While the Clean Water Act grants the Coast 

Guard authority to enforce in all no-discharge zones, Coast Guard’s 

regulations exercise enforcement authority only in areas where discharges 

are prohibited by EPA regulations—currently the three federally designated 

zones. EPA and others were not aware of the Coast Guard’s regulatory 

limitation of its enforcement authority. GAO found that states enforced in 

different ways, such as by issuing tickets or inspecting boats. Many states 

place more emphasis on boater education than on penalizing violators. 

Although few data are available to assess the effects of no-discharge zones, a 

number of EPA, state, and local officials believe that water quality and 

environmental stewardship have increased after designation of these zones. 

In addition, officials cite gallons of boat sewage pumped as evidence that nodischarge zones reduce water pollution. 

Pumpout Facilities and Buoy Located in No-Discharge Zones 

Clean Water Act regulations 

generally prohibit boats from 

discharging untreated sewage but 

allow the discharge of treated 

sewage using certified marine 

sanitation devices. The act allows 

states to designate “no-discharge 

zones”—areas in which vessels are 

prohibited from discharging any 

sewage—if the Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA) finds that 

adequate facilities exist in such 

zones for the removal and 

treatment of sewage from vessels. 

In some cases, such as for drinking 

water intake zones, EPA makes the 

designation. As requested, this 

report assesses 1) EPA’s process 

for determining the adequacy of 

facilities to remove and treat 

sewage in proposed no-discharge 

zones; (2) the extent to which EPA 

and the states ensure that adequate 

facilities remain available after 

designation; (3) the extent to which 

the Coast Guard and the states 

enforce discharge prohibitions; and 

(4) various effects of no-discharge 

zones, as identified by EPA, states, 

and localities. 

GAO recommends that EPA better 

ensure that facilities are and 

remain adequate in no-discharge 

zones and that EPA and the Coast 

Guard meet with relevant states to 

review and clarify enforcement 

roles. EPA agreed with the 

recommendations and EPA and the 

Coast Guard provided technical 

comments about the Coast Guard’s 

enforcement role that are 

incorporated in the report. 
Page i GAO-04-613 No-Discharge Zones

Contents

Letter 1

Results in Brief 3

Background 6

EPA’s Process for Determining the Adequacy of Facilities Could Be 

Improved 12

The Clean Water Act Does Not Address EPA Monitoring of Facilities 

After No-Discharge Zones Are Established, and State Monitoring 

Is Limited 18

Inherent Difficulties, Limited Coast Guard Enforcement, and 

Varying State and Locality Approaches Result in Varied 

Enforcement 22

Although Few Data Are Available, EPA, State, and Local Officials 

Report Benefits After Designation of No-Discharge Zones 29

Conclusions 34

Recommendations for Executive Action 35

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 36

Appendixes

Appendix I: EPA- and State-Designated No-Discharge Zones 38

Appendix II: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 41

Appendix III: Overview of Marine Sanitation Devices 43

Appendix IV: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments 45

GAO Contacts 45

Staff Acknowledgments 45

Tables Table 1: No-Discharge Zones 38

Table 2: Marine Sanitation Devices 43

Table 3: Retrofitted Marine Sanitation Devices 44

Figures Figure 1: No-Discharge Zones 8

Figure 2: Pumpout and Dump Station in Channel Islands Harbor, 

California 10

Figure 3: Fish and Wildlife Service Formula for Evaluating the 

Adequacy of Pumpout Facilities in an Area 14

Figure 4: Dye Tablet Used in Avalon Harbor, California 28
Contents

Page ii GAO-04-613 No-Discharge Zones

Abbreviations

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

GAO General Accounting Office

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without further 

permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain copyrighted images or 

other material, permission from the copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to 

reproduce this material separately.
Page 1 GAO-04-613 No-Discharge Zones

United States General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548

A

May 24, 2004 Leter

The Honorable Jim Saxton

House of Representatives

Dear Mr. Saxton:

The number of recreational boats in the United States increased from 

nearly 8 million in 1977 to approximately 13 million in 2002. With the 

increase in boating, there has been a corresponding rise in the potential for 

sewage from boats to damage water quality generally and to harm sensitive 

areas such as shellfish beds and beaches. Waters in sheltered areas where 

boats congregate, such as harbors and marinas, are particularly susceptible 

to sewage accumulation because water in these areas may not circulate as 

freely as in the ocean and other well-circulating waterways. 

Under the Clean Water Act, the discharge of both untreated and treated 

sewage from boats is generally banned in bodies of water that cannot be 

navigated by interstate vessels. In waterways that can support interstate 

vessel traffic—such as the coastlines, the Great Lakes, and many rivers and 

lakes—Clean Water Act regulations prohibit boats from discharging 

untreated sewage within 3 nautical miles of U.S. territory but generally 

allow the discharge of treated sewage that meets EPA treatment standards. 

The act requires that boats with installed toilets be equipped with systems, 

called marine sanitation devices, that either treat and discharge sewage 

into the water or hold untreated sewage until it is removed. EPA has 

established standards of performance for marine sanitation devices, and 

the Clean Water Act generally prohibits states from establishing their own 

standards. It does, however, authorize them to designate “no-discharge 

zones”—areas in which vessels are prohibited from discharging any 

sewage, whether treated or untreated, under certain circumstances.

1 The 

Clean Water Act provides for U.S. Coast Guard and state enforcement of 

the provisions of the act governing marine sanitation devices.

The first no-discharge zones were established in 1975, and currently there 

are 59 no-discharge zones in 23 states (see app. I). The Clean Water Act 

authorizes state-designated no-discharge zones in which states may 

completely prohibit the discharge of sewage from all vessels into certain 

1

The Clean Water Act also allows states to establish more stringent requirements for 

houseboats.
Page 2 GAO-04-613 No-Discharge Zones

state waters if the state determines that the protection and enhancement of 

the quality of those waters require greater environmental protection and 

EPA determines that adequate facilities are reasonably available for the 

safe and sanitary removal and treatment of sewage from all vessels in the 

proposed no-discharge zones. The required facilities include devices that 

remove sewage from holding tanks on boats—known as pumpout 

facilities—and are generally located either on a dock, where boats pull up 

to use them, or on pumpout boats, which travel to boats to empty the 

holding tanks. When the areas to be protected involve drinking water 

intake zones or other “special protection areas,” such as wildlife 

sanctuaries, Clean Water Act regulations require states to apply to EPA for 

the designation but do not require a determination that adequate facilities 

are available. In these cases, EPA rather than the states may officially 

establish the no-discharge zones (federally designated no-discharge zones) 

via a final rule in the Federal Register, while the states establish the zones 

in all other cases (state-designated no-discharge zones). Of the 59 nodischarge zones, only 3 are federally designated. Thus, most of the nodischarge zones are designated by states following determinations by EPA 

that the areas had adequate pumpout facilities. 

Some boaters have raised questions about the condition and availability of 

pumpout facilities in some no-discharge zones, generally those that 

encompass larger areas. In addition, some boaters have questioned the 

need for no-discharge zones, contending that vessel discharges constitute a 

relatively small portion of water pollution and that improved marine 

sanitation devices could treat waste to levels that exceed water quality 

standards. On the other hand, some federal, state, and local officials 

question the performance of marine sanitation devices over the number of 

years they may be used; point out that vessel discharges can concentrate in 

or near shore areas; and say that even minimal amounts of pollution near 

beaches and shellfish beds, for example, can harm sensitive marine life or 

cause disease. 

As agreed with your office, this report (1) evaluates EPA’s process for 

determining whether states have adequate facilities for the safe and 

sanitary removal and treatment of sewage from boats in proposed nodischarge zones, (2) assesses the extent to which EPA and the states 

ensure that adequate pumpout facilities remain available after a nodischarge zone is designated, (3) evaluates the extent to which the Coast 

Guard and the states enforce compliance with the prohibition against 

vessel sewage discharges in no-discharge zones, and (4) identifies the 

effects of no-discharge zones that EPA, states, and localities have reported.
Page 3 GAO-04-613 No-Discharge Zones

Unless otherwise specified, this report focuses on the no-discharge zones 

that the states designate because 56 of the 59 zones as of March 2004 were 

state-designated zones. 2

 We studied 12 of the 23 states that have 

established no-discharge zones: California, Florida, Maryland, 

Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, New Jersey, New York, 

Rhode Island, Texas, and Utah. Our criteria for state selection included that 

states be geographically dispersed; be located in coastal, noncoastal, and 

Great Lakes locations; and have a range of no-discharge zone designation 

dates, among other factors. We reviewed the requirements for designating 

no-discharge zones, pumpout facility monitoring, and enforcement in 

statutes, regulations, and federal guidance, as well as criteria developed by 

EPA regions. We interviewed and obtained documents from officials in 

EPA’s regional offices and agencies in the selected states to evaluate the 

basis of no-discharge zone designations, and we collected pumpout 

monitoring data. We interviewed and collected data from officials at the 

Coast Guard and state law enforcement agencies to determine the extent of 

enforcement for these states. Finally, we identified surveys and interviewed 

EPA, state, and local officials to determine what effects of no-discharge 

zones have been identified in the selected states. Appendix II provides 

additional details on our scope and methodology. We conducted our review 

from July 2003 through May 2004 in accordance with generally accepted 

government auditing standards.

Results in Brief EPA’s process for determining the adequacy of facilities for boat sewage in 

proposed no-discharge zones allows EPA to make general estimates of 

facility needs—such as a general ratio of the number of pumpouts needed 

for the number of boats in the area—but has some limitations. For 

example, EPA requires states to identify in their applications for nodischarge zones the number of pumpout facilities in the proposed zones 

and the number of boats operating there. However, EPA does not require 

other information that could be used to develop site-specific estimates of 

facility needs, such as information on the sizes of boats in the area and the 

number of boats estimated to have holding tanks that require pumpout 

facilities. While EPA guidance states that such information would help the 

agency make informed and balanced decisions, EPA requests but does not 

require this information and thus does not consistently obtain it. Further, 

EPA generally makes its determinations without conducting site visits to 

2

The federally designated no-discharge zones are subject to different application 

requirements than those that are designated by the states.
Page 4 GAO-04-613 No-Discharge Zones

the facilities identified in the applications to ensure, for example, that the 

facilities are accessible and functioning. Finally, while EPA’s determination 

process consistently requires states to provide information on the number 

and location of pumpout facilities to address the sewage disposal needs of 

boaters with installed toilets, it does not consistently require information 

on the number and location of facilities known as dump stations that are 

needed by the many boaters who use on-board portable toilets. 

We found no EPA and limited state oversight of pumpout facilities after the 

no-discharge zones are established. The Clean Water Act does not address 

the monitoring or oversight of pumpout facilities in established nodischarge zones nor does it define a role for EPA after it has determined 

that pumpout facilities are adequate in proposed no-discharge zones. 

Nonetheless, the continued adequacy of pumpout facilities in no-discharge 

zones is essential so that boaters can comply with the sewage discharge 

prohibitions. Over time, pumpout facilities may become inadequate if some 

pumpout owners do not keep the existing pumpouts in working order or if 

pumpout facilities do not keep pace with boat populations. Of the 12 states 

we reviewed, we found 2—Michigan and California—that had formally 

reevaluated the adequacy of facilities in no-discharge zones. In both cases, 

the states found a need for more facilities. California found other problems 

as well, such as poorly maintained equipment. While some localities appear 

to provide effective monitoring and oversight of pumpout stations in nodischarge zones, EPA and the states cannot be assured that such 

monitoring is occurring consistently in the absence of effective federal 

and/or state oversight. 

While the Clean Water Act grants the Coast Guard authority to enforce in 

all no-discharge zones, under its regulations the Coast Guard generally 

limits its enforcement of the discharge prohibitions to areas where 

discharges are specifically prohibited by EPA regulations—currently the 

three federally designated no-discharge zones—and does not enforce 

discharge prohibitions in the state-designated zones. EPA and state 

officials were generally not aware of the Coast Guard’s regulatory 

limitation of its enforcement authority. Enforcing discharge prohibitions is 

inherently difficult, but EPA and others agree that some enforcement 

presence is important for encouraging boater compliance. States can 

enforce discharge prohibitions under the Clean Water Act or they can enact 

their own discharge prohibitions for no-discharge zones, and the states we 

reviewed enforce prohibitions against discharge in a variety of ways and to 

varying degrees. Enforcement tools used by states include citations for 

illegal discharges, dye tablets in marine sanitation devices to identify leaks 
Page 5 GAO-04-613 No-Discharge Zones

or illegal discharges, and inspections of marine sanitation devices to ensure 

that they are secured against discharges. In some cases, states place 

greater emphasis on boater education than enforcement. We found that 

local enforcement of the discharge ban, such as by harbormasters and 

marina owners, may also take place.

Although few data are available, EPA, state, and local officials report that 

water quality and environmental stewardship have increased following 

designation of no-discharge zones. States and localities value no-discharge 

zones as a part of comprehensive plans to improve water quality, such as 

the water quality improvement plan for the Chesapeake Bay. However, 

because it can be difficult to link water pollution to specific sources or 

water quality improvements to specific programs, quantifying the effect of 

no-discharge zones versus other pollution control programs is problematic. 

As a result, some state and local officials cite proxy measures, such as the 

number of gallons of sewage pumped from boats through pumpout 

facilities, as evidence that no-discharge zones help protect water quality. 

Along with the water quality benefits, some state and local officials say that 

no-discharge zones have fostered a sense of environmental stewardship 

among boaters and marina owners and have encouraged them to take 

concrete steps to protect sensitive waters. Additional perspectives on the 

effects of no-discharge zones, as well as other issues, may be provided by a 

recent EPA survey of boaters, marina owners, state officials, marine 

sanitation device manufacturers, and laboratories that test marine 

sanitation devices. Results of this survey have not yet been published.

We are making five recommendations to enhance the effectiveness of the 

no-discharge zone program. For example, we are making recommendations 

that would help ensure that EPA consistently collects and verifies 

information to develop site-specific estimates of the pumpout and dump 

station facilities needed and that mechanisms are developed to ensure the 

ongoing adequacy of such facilities. We are further recommending that EPA 

and the Coast Guard (1) meet with relevant states to review enforcement 

roles in the state-designated no-discharge zones, (2) determine whether 

current enforcement is adequate, and (3) clarify the respective 

enforcement roles in EPA and Coast Guard guidance and, if appropriate, 

revise federal regulations.
Page 6 GAO-04-613 No-Discharge Zones

Background As discussed above, for navigable waterways, the Clean Water Act 

generally allows the discharge of treated sewage that meets EPA standards 

but prohibits boats from discharging untreated sewage into waters within 3 

nautical miles of U.S. territory. States wanting to establish no-discharge 

zones in which both treated and untreated sewage is banned generally must 

demonstrate in written applications to EPA that adequate facilities are 

reasonably available for the safe and sanitary removal and treatment of 

sewage from vessels in the potential no-discharge zones. In 1976, EPA 

issued a regulation that established the information requirements for state 

applications to EPA for no-discharge zone determinations. In 1984, the 

authority to make determinations regarding the no-discharge zones in their 

respective regions was delegated to EPA’s 10 regional offices.3

 EPA Region I 

and EPA headquarters developed additional guidance for states and 

localities in 1991 and 1994, respectively.4

 Region I and headquarters 

guidance documents are generally consistent in terms of application 

information requirements; however, Region I’s guidance is more specific in 

some areas and also places greater emphasis on obtaining some additional 

information in support of the applications. 

EPA, in accordance with the Clean Water Act, requires that states certify 

the need for the no-discharge zones being sought. Thus, while EPA 

guidelines request that states provide EPA information in support of the 

need for no-discharge zones, EPA does not make a determination regarding 

the state’s position that the no-discharge zones are needed. EPA’s regional 

offices review state applications to determine whether adequate facilities 

are reasonably available for the safe and sanitary removal and treatment of 

sewage from vessels in the potential no-discharge zones. Before issuing 

final decisions—called determinations—on the adequacy of the pumpout 

facilities, the regional offices generally seek public comments via a notice 

in the Federal Register. The final decision is also published in the Federal 

Register. As discussed above, in most cases, EPA’s determination, based on 

the information provided by the states in their applications, addresses the 

adequacy of the facilities and authorizes the states to establish the 

3

EPA Region 10 is the only EPA region without no-discharge zones. 

4

Region I’s guidance is Guidance for States and Municipalities Seeking No-Discharge Area 

Designations for New England Coastal Waters, June 1991 (Rev. April 1992); EPA’s overall 

guidance is Protecting Coastal Waters from Vessel and Marina Discharges: A Guide for 

State and Local Officials, August 1994.
Page 7 GAO-04-613 No-Discharge Zones

requested no-discharge zones. Eight of the 12 states we reviewed formally 

designated the no-discharge zones with state laws.

Seven of the 23 states with no-discharge zones have statewide no-discharge 

zones, which include most state waters.5

 In the sixteen other states that 

have designated no-discharge zones, only specific bodies of water or parts 

of water bodies are included. As shown in figure 1, the 23 no-discharge 

zone states include:

• all but two of the eastern coastal states 

• one western coastal state 

• four of the eight states bordering the Great Lakes 

• two states with coastal waters on the Gulf of Mexico

• six inland states. 

5

The seven states are Michigan, Missouri, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Rhode Island, 

Wisconsin, and Vermont.
Page 8 GAO-04-613 No-Discharge Zones

Figure 1: No-Discharge Zones

a

With the exception of certain fresh waters into which the overboard discharge of sewage is prohibited 

by EPA regulations (40 CFR 140.3.)

The earliest no-discharge zone applications were approved in 1975 and the 

most recent in 2003. (App. I provides more information on existing nodischarge zones, including the state where the no-discharge zone is located, 

the name of the water body, the type of designation, and the year of EPA’s 

Federal Register notice.) 

State does not have any no-discharge zonesa

State has some no-discharge zones

All or most of state waters are no-discharge zones

AK

HI

WA

OR

CA

NV

NM

AZ

TX

ND

SD

ID

FL

AL GA

SC

NC

VA

WV

PA

OH

NY

OK

TN

IL

UT

MD

DE

NJ

NH

ME

RI

MA

MT

WI

KY

MS

LA

CO

CT

IN

MN

MO

NE

VT

WY

KS

IA

MI

AR

Source: GAO analysis of EPA data.
Page 9 GAO-04-613 No-Discharge Zones

Boats with installed toilets must be equipped with systems, called marine 

sanitation devices, that either treat and discharge sewage into the water or 

hold untreated sewage until it is removed. Under the Clean Water Act, EPA 

is to set standards of performance for marine sanitation devices to prevent 

the discharge of untreated or inadequately treated sewage from vessels into 

navigable waters. The U.S. Coast Guard is to provide certification of design, 

installation, operation, and material of marine sanitation devices. Three 

types of marine sanitation devices are certified by the Coast Guard: Types I 

and II treat sewage, typically through maceration and chlorination, and 

then release it through the hull into the water.6

 Releases can be controlled 

by Y-valves—devices that allow through-hull discharges when in an opened 

position. In no-discharge zones where both treated and untreated sewage is 

prohibited, Y-valves must be closed and secured. The Type III marine 

sanitation devices are holding tanks that store but do not treat sewage. 

Type III devices can also be retrofitted with Y-valves that can permit release 

of untreated sewage through the hull when in an opened position. In 

addition, boats with Type I and Type II devices may also have holding tanks 

installed. The treatment standards for marine sanitation devices were 

promulgated by EPA in 1972 and 1976.

Many boaters, particularly those with smaller recreational vessels, rely on 

portable toilets, which are not installed in the vessel, to store sewage 

onboard. The contents of portable toilets are generally emptied into dump 

stations, which are designed to receive the waste and allow boaters to rinse 

out the portable toilet. Figure 2 shows a photograph of a dump station, in 

the bottom left corner, and a pumpout station, which is to the immediate 

right of the dump station. 

6

Type I marine sanitation devices may be used on recreational boats 65 feet long or less, 

while the more complex Type II devices may be used on any size boat but must be used on 

larger boats equipped with installed toilet facilities. 
Page 10 GAO-04-613 No-Discharge Zones

Figure 2: Pumpout and Dump Station in Channel Islands Harbor, California

Funds for sewage removal facilities in no-discharge zones are not provided 

to states under the Clean Water Act; however, federal funds have been 

available to states under the Clean Vessel Act to construct pumpout 

facilities in many areas, including the no-discharge zones. Specifically, to 

help reduce pollution from vessel sewage discharges, the Clean Vessel Act 

has authorized funding to states for a program for the construction, 

renovation, operation, and maintenance of pumpout and dump station 

facilities. Using grants, this program has funded the construction of more 

than 2,700 pumpout and 1,800 dump station facilities—including many in 

no-discharge zones—according to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, which 

administers the program.7

 The grant recipients—either public or private 

marinas—are required to ensure pumpout and dump station accessibility 

by, for example, making the pumpout facilities and dump stations available 

7

Data from Fish and Wildlife Service covers 1993 through 1999.
Page 11 GAO-04-613 No-Discharge Zones

to all recreational vessels and charging reasonable fees. Under this 

program, the fees charged to boaters for pumpout services cannot exceed 

$5 unless justified before the grant proposal is approved. 

To implement its pumpout grant program, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

has developed guidelines8

 for what constitutes adequacy of facilities for the 

removal and treatment of sewage from vessels that states may use to 

identify facility needs. Among other things, the guidelines provide states 

with technical information on the adequacy of and appropriate types and 

location of pumpout stations and dump stations. The Fish and Wildlife 

Service guidelines addressing the adequacy of facilities are broadly 

applicable and are neither limited to nor directed at no-discharge zones. 

The Fish and Wildlife Service developed its guidance in consultation with 

EPA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the Coast 

Guard, coastal states, local municipalities, boat users, manufacturers of 

pumpout equipment, marina operators, conservation groups, and others, in 

a process that included seeking public comments on draft guidelines. 

Because of their broad applicability, the Fish and Wildlife Service 

guidelines represent a resource upon which the states and EPA may choose 

to refer in addressing and evaluating the adequacy of facilities in nodischarge zones. For example, the guidelines identify key factors that 

impact the demand for pumpout and dump stations that can be helpful to 

EPA and the states in considering the need for facilities in proposed nodischarge zones. EPA acknowledges the relevance of this guidance to the 

no-discharge program by citing it in its 1994 guidance.

The Oceans Act of 2000 established a 16-member U.S. Commission on 

Ocean Policy for the purpose of assessing U.S. ocean policy and making 

recommendations for a new, comprehensive national policy. The 

commission’s preliminary report, which was issued in April 2004, includes 

recommendations related to the approval of no-discharge zones, pumpout 

facility supply and maintenance, and marine sanitation device standards. 

The final report will be issued after the commission considers comments 

from the nation’s governors and other interested parties.

8

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service published the guidelines in the Federal Register, Clean Vessel 

Act: Pumpout Station and Dump Station Technical Guidelines, 59 Fed. Reg. 11,290 (1994) 

(codified at 50 C.F.R. pt. 85).
Page 12 GAO-04-613 No-Discharge Zones

EPA’s Process for 

Determining the 

Adequacy of Facilities 

Could Be Improved

EPA’s process for determining the adequacy of facilities for boat sewage in 

proposed no-discharge zones has some limitations. First, the information 

that EPA requires states to provide in their no-discharge zone applications 

supports general but not site-specific estimates of pumpout facility needs; 

additional information needed for more meaningful site-specific estimates 

is optional. Second, EPA generally makes its determinations without 

conducting site visits to the facilities identified in the applications. Finally, 

EPA does not request information on the number of boats with portable 

toilets, which need dump station facilities; the agency requests, but does 

not require, information on the number and location of dump station 

facilities in proposed no-discharge zones.

EPA Requires States to 

Provide Information That 

Supports General Estimates 

of Pumpout Facility Needs

EPA’s regulation implementing the no-discharge zone provisions of the 

Clean Water Act, issued in 1976,9

 provides that state applications for nodischarge zones must meet the following seven minimum requirements—

most of which relate to pumpout facilities:

• a certification that the protection and enhancement of the waters 

described in the application require greater environmental protection 

than the applicable federal standard,

• a map showing the location of commercial and recreational pumpout 

facilities,

• a description of the location of the pumpouts,

• the general schedule of operating hours of the pumpout facilities,

• the draught requirements on vessels that may be excluded because of 

insufficient water depth adjacent to the facility,10

• information indicating that treatment of waste from pumpout facilities 

is in conformance with federal law, and

• information on vessel population and vessel usage of the subject waters.

9

The regulation was amended in 1995, 1998, and 2002.

10Draught, also spelled draft, refers to the depth to which a boat is immersed in the water.
Page 13 GAO-04-613 No-Discharge Zones

In 1994 guidance that augments the regulation, EPA clarified these 

requirements. For example, the guidance specifies that applications must 

state the number and type of pumpout facilities (e.g., stationary or mobile). 

The guidance also indicates that the information to be provided on vessel 

population should reflect the peak occupancy rate—that is, the percentage 

of the population expected to be in use on peak holiday weekends. EPA 

further clarifies that the boat population identified is to include boats that 

are moored in the area as well as transient boats that traverse the area. 

With regard to the treatment of waste from pumpout facilities, EPA 

identifies the treatment options that are acceptable and further identifies 

the two options it prefers. 

With these clarifications, the elements related to pumpout facilities that 

states must include in their applications can provide EPA with information 

sufficient to assess pumpout facility adequacy in broad terms—using a 

general ratio of the number of pumpouts needed for the number of boats in 

the area. For example, the information is generally sufficient for EPA to 

determine whether there is at least one pumpout station for every 300 to 

600 boats in the proposed no-discharge zone—the general criterion that the 

Fish and Wildlife Service provides in its guidance on pumpout adequacy.11 

While EPA does not directly endorse this broad estimate in its regulation or 

its 1994 guidance on no-discharge zones, it does refer states and localities 

to the Fish and Wildlife Service guidance for use as a resource in preparing 

no-discharge zone applications. Further, in our review of 30 applications 

for no-discharge zones,12 we found that most of them demonstrated ratios 

that fell within the Fish and Wildlife Service’s broad general guide of one 

pumpout facility per 300 to 600 boats.

Information That Would 

Support Site-Specific 

Estimates Is Generally 

Optional

Although the number of pumpout facilities in a majority of state 

applications fell within the broad guide, the broad guide does not ensure 

that pumpout facilities will be adequate in every case because adequacy 

depends in part on site-specific conditions. As such, the Fish and Wildlife 

Service indicates in its general guidance on pumpout adequacy that its 

broad guide for pumpout adequacy is not a definitive rule, but should be 

11As discussed further below, the Fish and Wildlife Service guidance also directly addresses 

the number of dump stations that are available, while EPA does not.

12Eighteen of the 48 applications for the twelve states included in our review date back to 

the 1970s and were no longer available. Further, 8 of the 30 applications we reviewed were 

submitted before the EPA and Fish and Wildlife Service guidance documents were available.
Page 14 GAO-04-613 No-Discharge Zones

modified to reflect varying circumstances for each area. Further, the Fish 

and Wildlife Service provides a formula that may be used to develop more 

site-specific estimates of the number of pumpout facilities needed to 

service vessels in a given area (see fig. 3). One key variable included in the 

formula is the size of boats in the area. Generally, the larger the boat, the 

more likely it is to have a holding tank. Because boats with holding tanks 

use pumpout facilities, the size of boats in a proposed no-discharge zone is 

a pertinent factor in estimating pumpout needs. 

Figure 3: Fish and Wildlife Service Formula for Evaluating the Adequacy of Pumpout 

Facilities in an Area

Note: The formula contained in the Fish and Wildlife Service guidelines assumes that 50 percent of 

boats from 26 to 40 feet and all boats over 40 feet have holding tanks and need access to pumpout 

facilities. These assumptions are derived from a 1981 EPA assessment of boat size and use of marine 

sanitation devices. Federal officials with whom we spoke were unaware of any current national 

estimates on the number of marine sanitation devices. The formula can be adapted to varying 

estimates regarding the number or percent of boats needing pumpout facilities, the number of boats 

that can be serviced per hour, and the number or percent of boats at peak occupancy.

Thus, to the extent that states provide information on the numbers of boats 

in size categories and other information needed for the formula, EPA can 

use, or adapt, the formula to develop a more site-specific estimate of 

pumpout needs. While EPA’s 1994 guidance refers to the Fish and Wildlife 

Service’s formula as a method to determine adequacy of pumpout facilities 

in no-discharge zones, EPA does not require state no-discharge zone 

applications to include all the information necessary to use the formula. 

Instead, some of the information that may be provided to EPA optionally by 

the state is needed for the formula. 

Specifically, EPA suggests, but does not require, states to submit 

information such as

• estimates of the number of boats in various size categories that would 

travel in the proposed no-discharge zones, 

• the estimated number or percentage of boats with holding tanks, and 

Number

of boats

26’--40’

Number with 

holding tanks

Number

of boats

> 40’

Peak

occupancy

rate

Boats requiring

pumpout facilities

Boats served

per pumpout

Boats served

per hour

Number of hours of

operation per weekend

Pumpout

stations

required

Source: Fish and Wildlife Service.
Page 15 GAO-04-613 No-Discharge Zones

• the operating capacity, which can be measured as the number of boats 

that can be served by each pumpout facility per hour.

We note that EPA’s guidance states that the additional information that is 

requested, but not required, would enable EPA to make “an informed and 

balanced decision” about the adequacy of the pumpout facilities. Many of 

the state applications we reviewed included some of the optional 

information, but not always in a form that could be used in the Fish and 

Wildlife Service formula.13 For example, some states provided information 

about boat sizes, but categorized the information in ranges that were 

incompatible with the ranges used in the formula. In terms of pumpout 

operating capacity, some states noted the storage capacity of the pumpout 

facility, which is only one factor in determining operating capacity. We note 

that the EPA guidance also provides general estimated values that can be 

used as defaults if site-specific information is not available for some of the 

elements of the formula. However, the use of default values can diminish 

the assurance that the estimate of pumpout facilities needed will be 

adequate for the specific area being evaluated. 

EPA Region I acknowledges the importance of site-specific determinations 

of adequacy of pumpout facilities in guidance it provides to applicants for 

no-discharge zones. That is, while providing a broad general guide on 

adequacy, the guidance also states that there is no set ratio or formula to 

determine the exact number of pumpout facilities necessary to serve a 

given population of boats. Further, the guidance recommends varying 

numbers of pumpout facilities depending on certain site-specific 

circumstances. For example, while the Region I guidance states that a ratio 

of one pumpout facility per 450 boats with holding tanks should be 

sufficient to meet the demand for pumpout services in most areas, it 

recommends a minimum of one pumpout per 300 boats with holding tanks 

be provided in areas where a larger percentage of boats are 25 feet in length 

and over because these boats are more likely to have holding tanks. 

Accordingly, Region I requires applicants to provide the actual or estimated 

number or percentage of boats with holding tanks. Region I indicates in its 

guidance that the estimates of adequacy provided are based on their best 

professional judgment and on the experiences of regulatory officials in 

other parts of the country where no-discharge standards are in effect. 

13GAO obtained copies of no-discharge zone applications from 10 of the 12 states identified 

for this report. GAO was unable to obtain (1) each application submitted by these 10 states 

and (2) any applications from 2 states; the applications were considered in the 1970s. 
Page 16 GAO-04-613 No-Discharge Zones

Further, the guidance states that the region will maintain flexibility on the 

issue of adequacy, reviewing all applications on a case-by-case basis.

Aside from ensuring that facilities function and exist, it is also important to 

assess factors that are likely to limit boaters’ use of and access to pumpout 

stations. Two such factors are fees charged for pumpout facility use and 

whether private facilities restrict the public’s access to pumpouts. For 

example, expensive pumpout services raise the concern that boaters would 

illegally discharge sewage into the water instead of paying a high pumpout 

fee. The Clean Vessel Act regulations recognize that fees are an important 

part of pumpout usage and limit the fees charged at facilities funded by the 

grant program generally to $5. EPA, however, has not consistently obtained 

information about fees in evaluating the adequacy of pumpout stations. 

Specifically, EPA’s guidance requests but does not require the states to 

provide information on pumpout fees in the applications. Several of the nodischarge zone applications that we examined either did not identify the 

fees or included incomplete information about the pumpout facility fees. 

For those no-discharge zones that included this information, the fees for 

pumpout facilities ranged from no charge to $25. At the time of the 

application, six of the nine pumpout facilities in one no-discharge zone cost 

$15 for service, and several facilities were free only to marina tenants. 

EPA Generally Does Not 

Conduct Site Visits to 

Facilities Identified in 

Applications 

Ensuring the existence and availability of adequate pumpout facilities is 

important because (1) EPA only reviews pumpout adequacy at the time of 

states’ applications for no-discharge zones and (2) once EPA has 

determined pumpout adequacy, the states may establish no-discharge 

zones that are essentially permanent designations. Complaints about the 

lack of adequate pumpout facilities even in newly established no-discharge 

zones further underscore the importance of site visits to verify the 

information provided on pumpout stations in the state applications. For 

example, some boaters raised concerns that pumpout facilities malfunction 

or are otherwise unavailable in some no-discharge zones. One boater with 

whom we spoke believes that EPA “rubber stamps” no-discharge zone 

applications and stated that the agency routinely approves applications 

without confirming the availability of pumpout facilities. 

Site visits would provide the most accurate method of verification of the 

pumpout facilities and the related treatment facilities. In addition to 

confirming their existence and location, site visits permit evaluations of the 

condition of the facilities and the boater access to them—factors that 

phone calls to pumpout owners, for example, could not confirm. However, 
Page 17 GAO-04-613 No-Discharge Zones

according to EPA regional office officials, the agency generally does not 

verify in person either the availability or the accessibility of pumpout 

facilities described in no-discharge zone applications. Specifically, of the 

nine EPA regions that have processed no-discharge zone applications, four 

regions have verified some information about the pumpout facilities 

through site visits. One of these regions has received only one application 

for a no-discharge zone. Of the remaining three regions that have 

conducted site visits, only one region visited a majority of the proposed nodischarge zones.14

An official at a region that has consistently verified the availability of 

pumpout facilities in person explained that the visits help “ground truth” 

the information submitted in no-discharge zone applications. Along these 

lines, the Preliminary Report of the U. S. Commission on Ocean Policy, 

issued for public comment by the nation’s governors and other interested 

parties in April 2004, recommends that EPA conduct a thorough 

assessment, including field inspections, to verify the availability and 

accessibility of functioning pumpout facilities in existing no-discharge 

zones and prior to the approval of any new no-discharge zones.

Some EPA officials who did not verify any or most of the application 

information through site visits attributed this decision to lack of authority, 

inadequate resources, or an EPA presence in the area that precluded the 

need to visit. In terms of authority, however, the EPA guidance states that 

officials may contact owners of pumpout facilities to verify information. 

EPA’s Determination 

Process Does Not 

Consistently Consider the 

Needs of Boaters with OnBoard Portable Toilets

We also found that EPA does not consistently address the adequacy of 

dump stations in its determinations of adequacy of the sewage facilities in 

proposed no-discharge zones. As discussed in the background section, 

many recreational boaters rely on portable toilets and require dump 

stations to dispose of sewage. Fish and Wildlife Service guidelines state 

that more dump stations than pumpout facilities would be desirable in an 

area that has a majority of boats less than 26 feet in length because the 

smaller boats would be more likely to have portable toilets that require 

dump stations. Similar to the formula for estimating the demand for 

pumpout facilities in a given area, the Fish and Wildlife Service provides a 

formula to estimate the demand for dump stations using site-specific 

14Three EPA regional offices could not confirm whether the agency had verified the 

application information. Most of these designations had been made in the 1970s.
Page 18 GAO-04-613 No-Discharge Zones

information. The Fish and Wildlife Service estimates that 20 percent of the 

boats between 16 and 26 feet in length have portable toilets. Although the 

need for dump stations will vary in the proposed no-discharge zones, EPA 

requests but generally does not require information on the number and 

location of dump station facilities in proposed no-discharge zones. Further, 

EPA does not request information on the number of boats with portable 

toilets that would need dump station, rather than pumpout, facilities. 

The Clean Water Act 

Does Not Address EPA 

Monitoring of Facilities 

After No-Discharge 

Zones Are Established, 

and State Monitoring Is 

Limited

The continued adequacy of pumpout facilities in no-discharge zones is 

essential so that boaters can comply with the prohibitions of any sewage 

discharges from boats. Over time, pumpout facilities may become 

inadequate, but we found no EPA and limited state oversight of pumpout 

facilities after no-discharge zones are established. The Clean Water Act 

does not address monitoring or oversight of pumpout facilities in 

established no-discharge zones nor does it define an ongoing role for EPA 

after the establishment of such zones. However, studies by two states of the 

adequacy of pumpout and dump station facilities in long-standing nodischarge zones identified problems—including facility shortages—that 

support the need for such oversight. While higher-level oversight is 

minimal, we found that some localities appear to provide effective 

monitoring and oversight. 

Pumpout Needs Are Likely 

to Change over Time

Continued adequacy of pumpout facilities is a critical component of an 

effective no-discharge zone because such facilities both allow and 

encourage compliance with the no-discharge prohibitions. Along these 

lines, guidelines issued by the Fish and Wildlife Service on pumpout and 

dump stations encourage the states to conduct periodic surveys to ensure 

an adequate number of both pumpout and dump stations. According to the 

Fish and Wildlife Service guidance, patterns of use identified by such 

surveys will indicate where and if additional pumpout and dump stations 

are needed. Pumpout needs can increase for several reasons. First, some 

pumpout owners may not maintain their pumpout stations in working 

order or may close the facilities. Second, high use of pumpouts and dump 

stations has been related to aggressive management practices, active 

enforcement in no-discharge zones, and good maintenance. That is, as 

boaters are encouraged to use pumpout services and the pumpout facilities 

become more convenient and widespread, demand for such services can 

increase. The operator of a pumpout boat in one no-discharge zone said 

that he has observed that boaters are using larger holding tanks since the 
Page 19 GAO-04-613 No-Discharge Zones

town began providing pumpout services, moving away from 5-gallon 

holding tanks to 20-, 30-, or 50-gallon tanks. 

Third, the capacity of pumpout facilities may not keep pace with increases 

in the boat populations. For example, while Michigan designated all of its 

waterways as a no-discharge zone in 1976, the number of registered boats 

in that state doubled from 535,000 in 1974 to 1 million in 2002—with most 

of the growth occurring after the no-discharge zone was designated. In 

addition, some boating groups believe that initial determinations of 

adequacy of facilities, which are based on a number of assumptions, may 

result in an inaccurate assessment of the need for pumpout services. We 

believe that periodic reevaluations based on actual use and needs would be 

appropriate. Along these lines, in its April 2004 draft report, the U.S. 

Commission on Ocean Policy recommends that EPA conduct a thorough 

assessment, including field inspections, to verify the availability and 

accessibility of functioning pumpout facilities in existing no-discharge 

zones because of inadequate pumpout facilities in some coastal areas.

After No-Discharge Zones 

Are Established, Federal 

and State Monitoring Is 

Limited

Under the Clean Water Act, once EPA has determined that proposed nodischarge zones have adequate pumpout facilities, the areas remain statedesignated no-discharge zones essentially in perpetuity. We found that little 

or no monitoring of pumpout facilities is done at the federal and state 

levels. First, in part because the act does not address monitoring or 

oversight of the pumpout facilities by EPA after states establish nodischarge zones, EPA does not periodically inspect or recertify its initial 

determinations that the facilities are adequate. Similarly, the act does not 

specify any subsequent requirements for the states to ensure the continued 

adequacy of the pumpout facilities. Thus, the states each determine how 

and to what extent they will monitor the maintenance and availability of 

pumpouts in no-discharge zones and determine if they will periodically 

evaluate whether the existing pumpout facilities remain sufficient.

We found that some states have laws that could help ensure that pumpout 

facilities are maintained in working order, if implemented effectively. For 

example, Texas requires that pumpout facilities, wherever they are located, 

be certified annually and that inspections “may be required of pumpout 

facilities prior to certification.” To the extent inspections take place, this 

requirement would give the state some assurance that pumpouts in nodischarge zones and other areas are being maintained and are available to 

boaters. However, according to an official with the Texas Commission on 

Environmental Quality, currently inspections are not being done at the 
Page 20 GAO-04-613 No-Discharge Zones

state level because of funding constraints. In addition, we found that a 1994 

Maryland law requires most marinas to have pumpouts available but does 

not provide for their systematic monitoring. We also found that a Michigan 

law generally requires that all docking facilities provide pumpout facilities 

that are approved by the Department of Health and that inland marinas are 

required to have an operating permit that is renewed every 3 years. For the 

permit renewal, the marina must continue to meet the requirements 

governing marinas, including the provision requiring pumpout stations. 

However, an official in Michigan could not confirm whether inspections of 

pumpouts are occurring as part of this recertification process. 

Further, of the 12 states we reviewed, we found that 2—Michigan and 

California—had formally reevaluated the adequacy of pumpouts in nodischarge zones. In both cases, they identified a need for more facilities. 

Michigan, which has had a statewide no-discharge zone since 1976, 

conducted a comprehensive study in the mid-1990s that identified the need 

for 96 additional pumpout and 169 dump station facilities. Similarly, in 

2003, a California regional water board conducted a review of the pumpout 

and dump stations in 2 of the state’s 12 individual no-discharge zones.15 

The California regional water board concluded that the pumpout and dump 

stations in the 2 no-discharge zones, which had been established in 1976, 

were not adequate and requested that the state water board require 

additional pumpout and dump stations in these no-discharge zones. 

Further, in one of the no-discharge zones, the water board found that three 

out of the four pumpout stations were inoperable. The water board also 

found a number of problems that could undermine the effectiveness of 

these no-discharge zones including

• limited or no access to pumpout stations;

• pumpout hoses lying on the boat slips, which could result in spillage of 

sewage;

• broken valves, hoses repaired by duct tape, and a lack of required 

meters to determine usage;

15Under California law, regional water board staff are to inspect pumpouts at least annually; 

the water boards may determine the need for additional pumpout facilities at any time and 

request the state board to require specified marine terminals to install and operate pumpout 

facilities where necessary to protect water quality.
Page 21 GAO-04-613 No-Discharge Zones

• lack of a current phone number to report an inoperable pumpout;

• lack of signs on how to operate pumpout stations;

• lack of signs indicating that the harbor is a no-discharge zone; and

• lack of maps showing pumpout locations.

The regional board made recommendations to address these deficiencies 

to the state board and issued a compliance schedule for the actions to be 

taken. In addition, a California official said that the state water board is 

developing a pumpout and dump station monitoring plan for the entire 

state, based on regional pilot projects, that will include standards for 

pumpout and dump station monitoring, operation, and maintenance.

Localities Sometimes 

Monitor Facilities

As noted in the Fish and Wildlife Service guidelines, pumpout monitoring is 

best done by those closest to the area, such as marina personnel. We found 

that effective local monitoring does occur in some of the no-discharge 

zones. Local leadership and support appears to be an important factor that 

can make no-discharge zones successful by ensuring that the proper 

facilities are available when needed. Local leadership can be provided by a 

proactive harbormaster responsible for the facilities or a watchdog group 

in the area. For example, the harbormaster in a long-term (1979) nodischarge zone in California—Avalon Bay Harbor—has few problems with 

the operations and maintenance of the pumpout facilities. The 

harbormaster, who has worked in the harbor throughout the life of the nodischarge zone, is employed by the city of Avalon, which also pays for the 

operation and maintenance of the pumpouts. The city replaced the 

pumpouts in 1995 using Clean Vessel Act funds, relocating them away from 

a dock that shared a ramp with a ferry and had caused some boat 

congestion. The harbormaster said this change has reduced congestion. 

The harbor also has a pumpout boat funded by the city that can service 

boats away from the dock.

Another no-discharge zone that appears to be benefiting from local 

monitoring is Key West, Florida. The city of Key West maintains all the 

pumpout facilities in its citywide no-discharge zone, using mooring fees to 

offset costs. A spokesperson for an environmental organization said that 

the city is very proactive in making sure that pumpouts are available. For 

example, they said the city’s pumpout boats are very active and responsive 

to requests for pumpouts at all hours. Further, under a city ordinance, the 
Page 22 GAO-04-613 No-Discharge Zones

city requires both marinas and boaters to keep pumpout logs. Pumpout 

facilities may be monitored by meters that record the quantity of sewage 

pumped. Pumpout records from meters can serve multiple purposes, such 

as tracking the use of pumpouts over time and identifying the quantity of 

sewage not being discharged into the water.

Inherent Difficulties, 

Limited Coast Guard 

Enforcement, and 

Varying State and 

Locality Approaches 

Result in Varied 

Enforcement

Despite the inherent difficulties in enforcing discharge prohibitions, EPA 

and others believe an enforcement presence is important because it 

encourages boater compliance. Under its regulations, the Coast Guard 

generally limits its enforcement of the no-discharge prohibitions to the 

three federally designated no-discharge zones. Accordingly, the Coast 

Guard does not enforce the prohibitions in the vast majority of nodischarge zones, which are designated by states. States can also enforce 

discharge prohibitions under the Clean Water Act or they can enact their 

own discharge prohibitions for no-discharge zones, and the states we 

reviewed enforced prohibitions against discharge in a variety of ways and 

to varying degrees. 

Illegal Discharges from 

Boats are Inherently 

Difficult to Detect

Practical considerations make enforcement of the discharge prohibitions in 

no-discharge zones a difficult task. Illegal discharges from boats may be 

made underwater—through the hull, as with Type I and II marine sanitation 

devices and Type III holding tanks retrofitted with Y-valves—making it 

difficult to link evidence of sewage discharges to the violators. Moreover, 

sewage discharges may rapidly dissipate in the water before evidence of 

violations can be obtained. 

In light of the practical enforcement challenges, officials have relied on 

various methods to enforce the ban against discharges in no-discharge 

zones. The enforcement methods include (1) inspecting boat equipment to 

ensure that Y-valves have been closed to prevent sewage discharges, (2) 

placing dye tablets in boat toilets, and (3) patrolling waterways and issuing 

citations for identified illegal discharges. The penalties for illegal 

discharges in the areas we reviewed included fines and prohibiting 

violators from boating in the no-discharge zone.

EPA guidance on no-discharge zones concludes that while enforcement 

methods can encourage compliance, education and outreach are necessary 

to “complement and supplement enforcement efforts.” Similarly, an official 

overseeing a no-discharge zone stated that he has focused compliance 
Page 23 GAO-04-613 No-Discharge Zones

efforts on preventing discharges from occurring rather than catching 

violators. Along these lines, many officials identified tasks such as 

education and outreach as effective methods to achieve compliance with 

the discharge ban.

The Coast Guard Does Not 

Enforce Discharge 

Prohibitions in Most of the 

No-Discharge Zones

The Clean Water Act states that the Coast Guard shall enforce the marine 

sanitation device provisions of the act, which include the provisions 

allowing for the establishment of no-discharge zones. In addition, the act 

specifies that the Coast Guard may develop agreements with other federal 

or state agencies to provide enforcement of the marine sanitation device 

provisions. According to Coast Guard officials, although the agency has not 

specifically delegated enforcement authority to enforce no-discharge zones 

to any other entity, various regional agreements are in place that delegate 

law enforcement authority to some state agencies for enforcing federal 

boating standards and associated equipment on recreational and 

uninspected small passenger vessels. Irrespective of any agreements with 

the Coast Guard, the Clean Water Act authorizes states to enforce all of the 

marine sanitation device provisions, including discharge prohibitions 

established under those provisions. 

While the Clean Water Act grants the Coast Guard general authority to 

enforce all no-discharge zones, the Coast Guard’s implementing regulations 

only exercise authority to enforce no-discharge zones in those areas where 

EPA has specifically prohibited discharges under its implementing 

regulations. The EPA regulations that the Coast Guard’s regulations cite 

prohibit the discharge of treated and untreated sewage into three named, 

federally designated no-discharge zones and into fresh waters which do not 

allow ingress or egress and rivers not capable of navigation by interstate 

vessel traffic. EPA’s regulations also allow states to establish no-discharge 

zones but do not identify the state-designated zones that have been 

established. As a result, the Coast Guard enforces the discharge 

prohibitions only in the three federally designated zones, which include 

drinking water intake zones and areas of particular environmental 

importance.16 

16Coast Guard officials said that enforcement in waterways that are not navigable generally 

fall within state jurisdiction. EPA’s regulations cite three federally designated no-discharge 

zones that cover five distinct locations.
Page 24 GAO-04-613 No-Discharge Zones

EPA and many state officials were not aware of the limitation in 

enforcement authority in the Coast Guard’s regulations. EPA headquarters 

and many regional officials with whom we spoke said they believed that the 

Coast Guard had the authority to enforce the discharge ban in both statedesignated and federally designated no-discharge zones. Further, EPA’s 

Web site on vessel sewage discharges states that the Coast Guard and the 

state in which the no-discharge zone has been designated “have 

enforcement authority of the no-discharge zones for vessel sewage.” In 

addition, state officials we spoke with believed that the Coast Guard had 

enforcement responsibility for all of the no-discharge zones, whether they 

were state-designated or federally designated. 

Despite the common belief that the Coast Guard has enforcement authority 

in all no-discharge zones under the Clean Water Act, EPA and state officials 

also said that enforcement at the local level can provide the most effective 

enforcement. And we found that, in practice, local communities typically 

serve as the primary enforcement authority in no-discharge zones. Further, 

state officials believe that other priorities limit the Coast Guard’s ability to 

enforce the ban against discharges in no-discharge zones. Resource 

constraints have also been cited by the EPA as a reason for limited Coast 

Guard enforcement under the Clean Water Act in the past. For example, the 

no-discharge zone guidance developed by EPA Region I in 1991 states that 

resource constraints have limited the ability of the Coast Guard to 

effectively enforce the marine sanitation standards for recreational and 

small commercial vessels. The guidance notes that to compensate for the 

lack of enforcement, the Coast Guard has entered into an agreement with 

the New England states to share enforcement responsibilities for federal 

boating safety standards and associated equipment. The EPA guidance 

states that although it “does not state so explicitly,” the Coast Guard’s 

intent under the agreement is that the state may also assume responsibility 

for enforcement of marine sanitation device and vessel sewage discharge 

regulations in this region. 

States Vary in the Manner 

and Extent to Which They 

Ensure Compliance

The extent to which states ensure compliance with the discharge ban in nodischarge zones varies in part because states can enforce discharge 

provisions under the Clean Water Act or enact their own no-discharge 

prohibitions. Of the states that we studied, eight states have enacted 

legislation to make the ban against sewage discharges in their no-discharge 

zones effective. Two of the states have not enacted legislation but have 

instead relied on either interagency agreements or local ordinances to 

make the prohibition against sewage discharges effective. Officials in the 
Page 25 GAO-04-613 No-Discharge Zones

two remaining states identified state laws that prohibit the release of any 

pollutants as the legal basis for enforcement of the sewage discharge ban in 

no-discharge zones. 

There is variety in the extent to which agencies ensure compliance even 

among the states that have enacted no-discharge zone laws. Officials in the 

12 states we reviewed identified boater education as a tool to encourage 

compliance, but not all of these states may have effective mechanisms to 

penalize violators. For example, the Maryland Department of the 

Environment has primary enforcement responsibility for the state’s two nodischarge zones but does not patrol waterways to monitor the no-discharge 

zones for violations. According to one of the state’s no-discharge zone 

applications, the environmental agency relies primarily on violations being 

reported to it from sources such as the Natural Resources Police, local 

health agencies, marina owners, and boaters. Discussing this situation with 

Maryland officials, including two officers with Maryland’s Natural 

Resource Police, we were told that Natural Resources Police officers patrol 

the state waterways and can check for improper installation of marine 

sanitation devices during courtesy boat inspections. However, a Natural 

Resource Police officer said that if an officer witnessed a discharge 

violation, the Natural Resources Police would need an authorization from 

the state Department of the Environment to issue any penalties because the 

state has not established any policies or procedures allowing the Natural 

Resources Police to do so directly.

Some states are enforcing the nodischarge prohibitions

Natural resource or law enforcement agencies in several of the states that 

we considered conduct some enforcement of no-discharge zones at the 

state level by inspecting vessel equipment or issuing tickets. For example, 

the Michigan Department of Natural Resources enforces the statewide nodischarge zone in part by conducting vessel inspections to ensure that 

marine sanitation systems are sealed shut and thus rendered incapable of 

overboard discharge. Michigan natural resource officers can inspect boats 

under the following circumstances: (1) in response to a complaint that 

discharges occurred or for any other violation of a state law, (2) with 

probable cause, or (3) with permission of the boater. Michigan law 

enforcement officers place stickers with dates on the exterior of vessels to 

indicate that the systems were sealed. 

Some states have used dye tablets as part of inspections to detect leaks in 

the marine sanitation systems on vessels in no-discharge zones. Officials 

place a dye tablet in a boat’s toilet and identify any leaks in the marine 

sanitation system by observing whether the dye is released into the water. 
Page 26 GAO-04-613 No-Discharge Zones

Monetary penalties for illegal discharges can potentially range from several 

hundred dollars in some states to several thousand dollars in others.17 

State law enforcement officials pointed out the challenge of issuing tickets 

for illegal discharges because of the difficulties in detecting violations. We 

found that at least one state has issued tickets with monetary penalties to 

boaters for violating the sewage discharge ban in a no-discharge zone.18 

However, reliable data that would indicate the frequency of tickets issued 

for illegal sewage discharges in no-discharge zones were not available in 

many of the states that we considered. Further, one state official explained 

that such data might not identify all sewage discharge citations because in 

some cases local authorities can also issue tickets. 

Other states emphasize 

education over enforcement

We found that many states have encouraged compliance by educating 

boaters about the ban on sewage discharges rather than penalizing 

violators. For example, one official at the Minnesota Pollution Control 

Agency periodically visits marinas and explains the sewage discharge ban 

to boaters. This official has not issued tickets, but relies on these 

interactions to encourage compliance with the discharge ban in nodischarge zones. Also, Maryland has sought to encourage compliance with 

the discharge ban in no-discharge zones by educating boaters about the ban 

on discharges, proper installation of marine sanitation equipment, and the 

location and operation of pumpout facilities. State officials believe that 

these outreach efforts influence boater attitudes and enhance compliance 

with the discharge restrictions.

Enforcement may occur at the 

local level

Irrespective of state enforcement efforts, enforcement may occur at the 

local level. For example, we found that marina owners and town 

harbormasters may rely on vessel equipment inspections, water patrols, 

tickets, or dye tablet programs to help enforce the ban against discharges 

in no-discharge zones.19 Further, some localities have enacted ordinances 

to authorize local enforcement of the discharge prohibitions. 

17The penalties in some states are linked to statutes that generally prohibit the discharge of 

pollutants, not just sewage, into waterways.

18Other state officials reported that they have issued tickets for illegal sewage discharges, 

but could not confirm the number of citations issued for illegal discharges in no-discharge 

zones. Also, local officials reported that they have issued tickets for illegal sewage 

discharges in no-discharge zones.

19We interviewed representatives of local entities in 14 of the 48 no-discharge zones 

reviewed in this study.
Page 27 GAO-04-613 No-Discharge Zones

Local law enforcement officers have inspected recreational vessels to 

ensure that equipment is securely closed to prevent sewage discharges into 

the water. Inspections are typically voluntary. Some localities direct 

officers to patrol harbor areas in vessels and observe boating activity. In 

one of those localities, the patrol officers do not screen the area for illegal 

discharges but rather monitor compliance with all boating laws. Local law 

enforcement officials acknowledge that such surveillance is unlikely to 

catch all illegal discharges. 

Dye tablets have helped officials detect illegal discharges and prosecute 

violators in some areas. For example, Avalon Harbor, a no-discharge zone 

off Catalina Island, California, uses a dye tablet program to enforce the ban 

against vessel sewage discharges. Avalon harbormaster officials place a 

dye tablet in each toilet of every boat that enters the harbor. The tablet dyes 

the waste in the holding tank, producing a lime green color. If a boater 

discharges the tank contents into the water, the bright green dye appears in 

the water and clearly marks the identity and location of the illegal 

discharge. The dye plume remains visible in the water for approximately 15 

to 20 minutes. According to an Avalon Harbor official, they have identified 

about 450 violators since the program’s inception in 1988. He said that the 

city of Avalon has authority to assess monetary penalties of up to $500 for 

sewage discharges but typically assesses penalties of less than $300. He 

said they have also prohibited violators from using the harbor for one year, 

noting that the possibility of being barred from the harbor is actually a 

greater deterrent than fines. The photograph in figure 4 shows in the lower 

left corner a dye plume, which was released by a dye tablet in Avalon 

Harbor, California. 
Page 28 GAO-04-613 No-Discharge Zones

Figure 4: Dye Tablet Used in Avalon Harbor, California

While dye tablets can help officials link violators to illegal discharges, they 

are a resource-intensive method. The dye tablets themselves are 

inexpensive, but the locality must have officers to distribute them and then 

monitor the waters for dye releases. Furthermore, other localities point out 

that dye tablets would not be effective in all waterways because in some 

areas the dye would not show up well or would dissipate too quickly to be 

effective. 

Source: GAO.
Page 29 GAO-04-613 No-Discharge Zones

The city of Key West, Florida, provides an example of how municipalities 

can use ordinances to help enforce the ban on sewage discharges. 

Specifically, the city has enacted an ordinance to recognize the discharge 

ban and implement compliance requirements. The ordinance requires all 

marinas with pumpout facilities and each vessel to maintain logs that track 

sewage pumpout activities. These records allow the city to monitor 

pumpout activity. The city also has a dedicated marine unit that actively 

enforces the discharge ban in the no-discharge zone, in conjunction with 

the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. 

Representatives of local entities also have cited other informal or indirect 

methods that promote compliance with the discharge prohibitions, such as 

peer pressure and marina lease agreements. For example, one local 

representative said that boaters often encourage each other to refrain from 

discharging. Other representatives of local entities stated that boaters 

report suspected violators to harbor officials. In addition, some noted that 

marinas also often include discharge bans in lease agreements as 

conditions for slip rentals. 

Finally, we note that a lack of effective coordination among authorized 

enforcement agencies can impede compliance efforts. For example, a 

Texas marine protection official explained that multiple entities—including 

municipalities, a county sheriff’s department, a state natural resources 

agency, health districts, and the Coast Guard—have authority to enforce 

the discharge ban, yet none of the entities have actively done so. This 

official reported that enforcement did not occur for the following reasons: 

(1) the agencies did not know how to screen for violations, (2) a desire to 

avoid jurisdiction conflicts, (3) concerns that fining boaters would be 

perceived as an attempt to obtain extra funds, and (4) the belief of each 

agency that another agency was enforcing the discharge ban. 

Although Few Data Are 

Available, EPA, State, 

and Local Officials 

Report Benefits After 

Designation of NoDischarge Zones 

A number of EPA, state, and local officials believe that water quality and 

environmental stewardship have increased following designation of nodischarge zones. While it is difficult to measure the specific effect of nodischarge zones on overall water quality, officials cite various reasons for 

believing that the zones help protect water quality, and states and localities 

often include no-discharge zones in comprehensive water quality 

improvement plans. Further, state and local officials told us that nodischarge zones result in a sense of increased environmental stewardship 

among boaters and marina owners. In 2003 EPA hired a contractor to 

conduct a series of surveys to assess various no-discharge zone issues. As 
Page 30 GAO-04-613 No-Discharge Zones

of April 15, 2004, EPA had not received the contractor’s report. This 

information may offer additional perspectives on the effects of nodischarge zones. 

Water Quality 

Improvements Reported

Because it is difficult to distinguish boat discharges from other sources of 

water pollution or to link water quality improvements to specific programs, 

measuring the specific effect of no-discharge zones as opposed to other 

pollution programs on overall water quality is problematic, and few data 

are available on the effect of no-discharge zones. However, some officials 

report that water quality has improved following the establishment of nodischarge zones. For example, 3 years after Great Salt Pond in Rhode 

Island was designated a no-discharge zone in 1993, shellfish beds were 

reopened for harvesting. The shellfish beds had been closed since 1983 

because of increases in fecal coliform bacteria concentrations during 

increased boating activity in the summer. According to a state official, a 

decrease in nutrients from sewage discharges has also resulted in fewer 

algae blooms. EPA and Rhode Island officials attribute these changes to the 

designation of Great Salt Pond as a no-discharge zone, along with an 

increase in the number of pumpout facilities and better boater education. 

Officials also cite good water testing results as at least partially attributable 

to no-discharge zones. For example, California law requires water quality 

testing for waters adjacent to public beaches for microbiological 

contaminations, including total coliform, fecal coliform, and enterococci 

bacteria, to monitor potential human health risks. The harbormaster in 

Channel Islands Harbor, a no-discharge zone in California, said that 

quarterly water quality testing results there consistently show good water 

quality, even though the harbor is large, with more than 2,600 slips, and 

about 5,000 visiting boats per year, plus 100 permanent and 40 to 50 

transient commercial fishing boats. Another official also said a measure of 

the success of the no-discharge zone in his area is that while the boating 

population has increased greatly, the level of water quality, while it has not 

improved, has not declined. 

Some no-discharge zone officials also measure improvements to waters in 

no-discharge zones using proxy measures such as the quantity of sewage 

that was prevented from polluting the water because it was pumped out of 

boats by pumpout facilities. For example, according to the Nantucket 

harbormaster, 110,000 to 120,000 gallons of sewage are pumped annually 

from boats in the Nantucket Harbor no-discharge zone in Massachusetts. 

Rhode Island, which has a statewide no-discharge zone, tracks data on the 
Page 31 GAO-04-613 No-Discharge Zones

number of gallons of sewage pumped for marinas throughout the state. 

According to a state official, gallons pumped from boats statewide grew 

from 254,500 in 2000 to 371,000 in 2002, an increase of 46 percent.

By a similar gauge of damage averted, EPA, state and local officials also 

told us that the ban against treated sewage is a valuable pollution 

prevention measure in some areas because marine sanitation devices do 

not fully eliminate pathogens—of particular importance in human bathing 

and shellfish bed areas—nor do they remove nutrients from the discharge. 

Excessive nutrients can be a problem because they encourage the thick 

growth of aquatic plants that contribute to an unhealthy environment, 

including low dissolved oxygen levels, which harm aquatic life, such as fish 

and coral reefs. For example, the Chesapeake Bay has been listed as an 

impaired water body under the Clean Water Act due to low dissolved 

oxygen related to excess nutrients, which has killed fish and other 

organisms. In addition, new coral growth that has been found off Key West 

may be resulting, in part, from the Key West no-discharge zone that 

disallows the release of treated sewage. Although it is difficult to attribute 

water quality and other improvements directly to any one pollution 

prevention program, an environmental organization has related the nodischarge zone and the advanced wastewater treatment system to the new 

coral growth that it states has not been found elsewhere in the Florida 

Keys. 

In addition, states and localities often cite the no-discharge zone 

designation as an important element of comprehensive plans to improve 

water quality for large water areas, including bay and estuary management 

plans. 

• Most of the New England coast is under EPA’s National Estuary 

Program, which was authorized by the Congress to improve the quality 

of estuaries of national importance. No-discharge zones are included in 

these Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plans. Similarly, 

the plan for Barnegat Bay, New Jersey, also included a no-discharge 

zone in order to improve water quality. In 2003, after EPA made a 

determination that the pumpout facilities were adequate, the Barnegat 

Bay no-discharge zone was established. 

• Maryland’s no-discharge zones are part of comprehensive plans to 

improve the water quality in the Chesapeake Bay and in Maryland’s 

coastal bays. The Chesapeake Bay Agreement—signed by EPA, the 

Chesapeake Bay Commission, and the states of Virginia, Maryland, 
Page 32 GAO-04-613 No-Discharge Zones

Pennsylvania, and the District of Columbia—identified no-discharge 

zones as a tool for improving water quality in the bay. Similarly, the 

Maryland Coastal Bays Conservation and Management Plan, developed 

in 1995 under the National Estuary Program, included an action item for 

no-discharge zone designation. In 2002, EPA determined that Herring 

Bay in the Chesapeake Bay and Northern Coastal Bays had adequate 

pumpout facilities and these became no-discharge zones.

• In New York State, proposed no-discharge zones have been included as 

components of a federally approved Coastal Zone Management Program 

to advance coastal policies related to the protection of sensitive areas. 

To identify sensitive areas for possible designation as no-discharge 

zones, New York did a comprehensive assessment of the state’s coastal 

areas, including those affected by the introduction of nitrogen or 

chemicals from marine sanitation devices, such as shellfish beds. New 

York determined that part of the Hudson River should be designated a 

no-discharge zone, but the area had an inadequate number of pumpout 

facilities. Using Clean Vessel Act funding, pumpout facilities were added 

and this area was established as a no-discharge zone in 2003.

• An advisory committee recommended no-discharge zone designation as 

one of a number of tools to minimize sewage being discharged into Lake 

Powell, located in Utah and Arizona. The advisory committee included 

representatives from state government, the National Park Service, two 

universities, and the Navajo Nation and was formed to study ways to 

address beach closures resulting from fecal contamination. In 2000, EPA 

determined that Lake Powell had adequate facilities to establish a nodischarge zone.

Finally, some officials also cited economic benefits related to no-discharge 

zones. For example, a Rhode Island official said that boat sewage is 

incompatible with shellfish health, and thus the statewide no-discharge 

zone benefited the offshore clamming industry. A marina owner in the nodischarge zone in Maryland’s Chesapeake Bay said that the cleaner water 

resulting from the no-discharge zone is beneficial to the marina business. 

Officials in Newport Bay, a California no-discharge zone, said there was a 

“huge” economic value in having clean water in the bay. They said that 

increases in boat discharges would result in property values decreasing and 

a drop in tourism and in sport and commercial fishing because the visitors 

would go elsewhere if the water were dirty. 
Page 33 GAO-04-613 No-Discharge Zones

Increases in Environmental 

Stewardship Reported

Along with the water quality benefits, a number of EPA, state, and local 

officials told us that no-discharge zones have fostered a sense of 

environmental stewardship or responsibility among boaters and marina 

owners and have encouraged them to take concrete steps to protect 

sensitive waters. One marina owner said that the presence of a nodischarge zone “drives new environmental programs.” Another oftenmentioned feature of environmental stewardship that is cited is the 

phenomenon of peer pressure, or boaters monitoring other boaters to 

prevent them from discharging. 

Recent EPA Surveys May 

Provide Additional 

Perspectives

A national assessment of no-discharge zones was conducted by a 

contractor for EPA in the fall of 2003 in the form of surveys of groups that 

are relevant to no-discharge zones, such as boaters and marina owners. 

One of EPA’s goals was to use the survey data to evaluate the effectiveness 

of no-discharge zones and of marine sanitation devices. EPA officials said 

the marine sanitation device standards have been in place for a long time 

and do not incorporate current limits for water pollution, such as for 

nutrients and enterococcus. EPA is also concerned about how well marine 

sanitation devices perform over time because there are no requirements to 

determine whether these devices continue to function after initial 

certification.20

The set of surveys was tailored to obtain information from specific groups 

involved with no-discharge zones, as follows:

• to survey boat owners and operators about boating activity, pumpout 

station usage, reasons for using or declining to use pumpout stations, 

volume of boat waste generated, and effectiveness of no-discharge 

zones;

• to obtain information from states about enforcement and water quality 

for specific no-discharge zones, such as changes in the frequency of 

beach closures and changes in shellfish bed contamination after nodischarge zone designation; and 

20The Preliminary Report of the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy includes a 

recommendation that EPA revise its regulations to require that new marine sanitation 

devices meet significantly more stringent pathogen-reduction standards and that the U. S. 

Coast Guard should require manufacturers to provide warranties that the devices meet 

these new standards for a specified period of time.
Page 34 GAO-04-613 No-Discharge Zones

• to assess marina owners’ and operators’ knowledge of no-discharge 

zones and pumpout stations. 

EPA also surveyed marine sanitation device manufacturers and 

laboratories that certify marine sanitation devices on how these devices 

treat bacteria and pathogens. EPA estimates that there are about 30 to 40 

marine sanitation device manufacturers in the U.S. and approximately 60 

worldwide. As of April 15, 2004, EPA had not yet received the draft report 

on the surveys’ results from the contractor. However, an EPA official said 

that information provided by the contractor to date was consistent with the 

issues we have identified. 

Conclusions The success of no-discharge zones in improving water quality depends in 

large measure on the ongoing availability of accessible and affordable 

pumpout and dump station facilities that encourage and allow all boaters to 

comply with the discharge restrictions. EPA has developed a workable 

framework for determining the initial adequacy of pumpout facilities in 

proposed no-discharge zones, although this determination process could 

be enhanced and better supported. Some of the key information needed to 

develop site-specific estimates of pumpout facility needs is optional, and 

EPA would be better able to make informed, balanced determinations if it 

consistently received this information. Also, EPA’s determinations of 

adequacy would be better supported if the agency conducted site 

inspections of the facilities identified in the applications, as recommended 

in the April 2004 Preliminary Report of the U.S. Commission on Ocean 

Policy. In addition, we believe that EPA’s determination process would be 

more comprehensive if it also covered the adequacy of dump stations, 

which it does not currently address. 

Given that no-discharge zones are established in perpetuity, some 

monitoring is warranted to ensure the ongoing adequacy of pumpout and 

dump station facilities in these zones. For no-discharge zones to be 

effective, pumpout facilities need to be adequate not only when the nodischarge zones are designated but also over time. Pumpout facilities may 

not remain available for various reasons, including inadequate 

maintenance; and increases in the use of pumpout facilities and the number 

of boats in no-discharge zones may require additional facilities in order to 

help boaters comply with the discharge prohibitions. While the Clean Water 

Act does not specify a continuing EPA role, we believe that EPA needs to 

develop a mechanism to address the continued adequacy of the pumpout 

and dump station facilities over time, such as requiring periodic 
Page 35 GAO-04-613 No-Discharge Zones

recertifications. Such a mechanism would be consistent with the 

recommendation contained in the April 2004 Preliminary Report of the 

U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy that EPA reevaluate the adequacy of 

facilities in existing no-discharge zones.

We recognize that enforcing discharge prohibitions is inherently difficult 

and requires resources that may also be needed for other activities such as, 

in the case of the Coast Guard, rescue operations and homeland security. In 

our view, states and localities may reasonably be expected to provide the 

primary enforcement of the discharge prohibitions in their no-discharge 

zones. However, the Coast Guard could enhance compliance with the 

discharge bans by providing some level of enforcement in state-designated 

no-discharge zones. While the states should not look to the Coast Guard to 

take the lead in such enforcement, it is not clear why the Coast Guard does 

not exercise its statutory authority to enforce the restrictions in nodischarge zones in which the Coast Guard operates, such as in coastal 

areas. In any event, the Coast Guard and EPA should work with the 

relevant states to ensure that all parties understand and agree on their 

respective enforcement roles. Clarity is needed so that EPA and the states 

can ensure that appropriate enforcement efforts are made in no-discharge 

zones. 

Recommendations for 

Executive Action

To enable EPA regions to consistently develop site-specific estimates of the 

need for pumpout facilities and thereby better assess the adequacy of the 

pumpout services in reviewing applications for no-discharge zones, we 

recommend that the Administrator of EPA 

• require EPA regions to obtain and consider all information needed to 

develop site-specific estimates of pumpout facilities to adequately 

support proposed no-discharge zones, such as information on pumpout 

fees and estimates of the number of boats in various size categories 

and/or those with holding tanks; and

• require EPA regions to conduct site inspections to verify that the 

pumpout facilities identified in proposed no-discharge zone applications 

are available, in good working order, and accessible to boaters. 

To better ensure that the boaters using on-board portable toilets in nodischarge zones have adequate facilities for the safe and sanitary removal 

and treatment of sewage from their boats, we recommend that the 

Administrator of EPA require EPA’s regions to also evaluate the adequacy 
Page 36 GAO-04-613 No-Discharge Zones

of dump station facilities when determining whether adequate facilities for 

the safe and sanitary removal and treatment of sewage from all boats are 

reasonably available.

To ensure that pumpout and dump station facilities remain available in 

existing no-discharge zones, we recommend that the Administrator of EPA 

develop a mechanism or mechanisms to help ensure that facilities in 

established no-discharge zones remain adequate and available over time, 

seeking additional authority, if needed, to require periodic recertifications 

in which the adequacy and availability of facilities would be reevaluated by 

EPA or by reviewing periodic state assessments of the adequacy and 

availability of facilities in existing no-discharge zones. 

Because of the current confusion about the Coast Guard’s enforcement role 

for no-discharge zones, we recommend that the Coast Guard and EPA (1) 

meet with the relevant states to review the enforcement roles in the statedesignated no-discharge zones, (2) determine whether current 

enforcement is adequate, and (3) clarify the respective enforcement roles 

in EPA and Coast Guard guidance and, if appropriate, revise federal 

regulations.

Agency Comments and 

Our Evaluation

We provided copies of a draft of this report to EPA and the Coast Guard. 

The chief of EPA’s Marine Pollution Control Branch said that the agency 

generally agreed with the findings and recommendations in the draft 

report. In addition, both EPA and the Coast Guard provided some technical 

suggestions that we incorporated into the final report. EPA and the Coast 

Guard also met to discuss the enforcement recommendation in the draft 

report that called for EPA and the Coast Guard to review the interplay 

between their respective regulations implementing the no-discharge zone 

provisions of the Clean Water Act and determine and clarify the Coast 

Guard’s role in enforcing the restrictions in state-designated no-discharge 

zones. At the meeting, EPA and the Coast Guard agreed that the Clean 

Water Act provides the Coast Guard with authority to enforce discharges in 

no-discharge zones and that the Coast Guard had limited this authority in 

its implementing regulations. Because the confusion over the Coast 

Guard’s role extended beyond EPA to the states and localities that were 

also not aware of the limited enforcement authority by the Coast Guard in 

the majority of the no-discharge zones (the 56 state-designated zones), we 

revised the recommendation in the report to ensure that EPA, the Coast 

Guard, and relevant states review enforcement roles, determine the 

adequacy of enforcement, and for EPA and the Coast Guard to revise their 
Page 37 GAO-04-613 No-Discharge Zones

guidance to clarify the respective enforcement roles of the states and the 

Coast Guard in all no-discharge zones. 

As agreed with your office, unless you publicly announce the contents of 

this report earlier, we will plan no further distribution until 30 days after its 

issue date. At that time, we will send copies of this report to other 

interested congressional committees, the Administrator of the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, and the Secretary of Homeland Security. 

We will make copies available to others upon request. In addition, the 

report will be available at no charge on GAO’s Web site at 

http://www.gao.gov.

If you or your staff have any questions, please call me at (202) 512-3841. 

Key contributors to this report are listed in appendix IV.

Sincerely yours, 

John B. Stephenson, Director

Natural Resources and Environment
Page 38 GAO-04-613 No-Discharge Zones

Appendix I

EPA- and State-Designated No-Discharge Apendxies

Zones ApendxiI

A total of 59 no-discharge zones have been designated by either the EPA or 

states in 23 states since 1975. The following table provides information on 

no-discharge zones that have been designated as of March 31, 2004, and 

includes the type of designation; the state or states where the no-discharge 

zone is located; the name of the body of water designated; and the year that 

EPA’s rule establishing an EPA-designated no-discharge zone was published 

in the Federal Register or that EPA made a determination that adequate 

pumpout facilities were available in a proposed no-discharge zone.

Table 1: No-Discharge Zones

Type of designation State Waterbody Year

State: Particular 

Environmental 

Importance When 

Adequate Pumpout 

Facilities Are Available

California Mission Bay 1976

California Oceanside Harbor 1976

California Dana Point Harbor 1976

California San Diego Bay (30 ft. deep at Mean Lower Low Watera 1976

California Newport Bays 1976

California Sunset Bay 1976

California Pacific Coast Highway Bridge 1976

California Huntington Harbor 1976

California Channel Islands Harbor 1979

California Avalon Bay Harbor 1979

California Richardson Bay 1987

California/Nevada Lake Tahoe 1977

Connecticut Pawcatuck River, Little Narragansett Bay, portions of Fishers Island Sound 

and Stonington Harbor 

2003

Florida Destin Harbor 1988

Florida City of Key West waters 1999

Maryland Herring Bay 2002

Maryland Northern Coastal Bays 2002

Massachusetts Nantucket Harbor 1992

Massachusetts Wareham Harbor 1992

Massachusetts Westport Harbor 1994

Massachusetts Waquoit Bay 1994

Massachusetts Wellfleet 1995

Massachusetts Stage Harbor Complex 1997

Massachusetts Harwich 1998

Massachusetts Buzzards Bay 2000
Appendix I

EPA- and State-Designated No-Discharge 

Zones

Page 39 GAO-04-613 No-Discharge Zones

Massachusetts Three Bay/Centerville Harbor 2001

Michigan All 1976

Minnesota St. Croix River 1996

Minnesota Mississippi River (part) 1977

Minnesota Minnesota River (part) 1977

Missouri All (except Mississippi River, Missouri River, part of Bull Shoals Lake) 1975

New Hampshire All (except coastal waters) 1975

New Jersey Barnegat Bay 2003

New Jersey Shark River 1998

New Jersey Manasquan River 1998

New Jersey Navesink River 1999

New Jersy Shrewsbury River 2000

New Mexico All 1976

New York Hudson River (Manhattan to Troy, 153 miles) 2003

New York Lake Champlain 1976

New York Lake George 1976

New York Mamaroneck Harbor 1997

New York East Hampton (7 water bodies) 1999

New York Greater Huntington-North Port 2000

New York Port Jefferson Harbor Complex 2001

New York Peconic Estuary 2002

Rhode Island Great Salt Pond, Block Island 1993

Rhode Island All 1998

South 

Carolina/Georgia

Hartwell Lake 1995

South Carolina/North 

Carolina/Georgia

Broad Creek, Lake Keowee, Lake Murray, Lake Thurmond, and Lake 

Wylie

1999

Texas 24 freshwater bodies 1999

Texas Clear Lake 1996b

Utah and Arizona Lake Powell 2000

Vermont All (including parts of Lake Champlain and Lake Memphremagog) 1975

Virginia Smith Mountain Lake 2000

Wisconsin All (except Lake Superior, Mississippi River, part of St. Croix River) 1976

EPA: Particular 

Environmental 

Importance

Florida State waters within the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary 2002

Minnesota Boundary Waters Canoe Area 1977

EPA: Drinking water 

intake zone

New York Hudson River (part) 1995

(Continued From Previous Page)

Type of designation State Waterbody Year
Appendix I

EPA- and State-Designated No-Discharge 

Zones

Page 40 GAO-04-613 No-Discharge Zones

Source: U.S. EPA and GAO.

a

Means Lower Low Water is the average height of the lower of the two low waters of any tidal day over 

a 19-year period.

b

This date is approximate. EPA did not announce the determination of adequate pumpout facilities for 

Clear Lake in the Federal Register, but the applicant estimated that Clear Lake was designated as a 

no-discharge zone in spring 1996. The application was submitted to EPA Region 6 on April 21, 1994. 
Page 41 GAO-04-613 No-Discharge Zones

Appendix II

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology ApendxiI

Our objectives were to (1) evaluate EPA’s process for determining whether 

states have adequate facilities for the safe and sanitary removal and 

treatment of sewage from boats in proposed no-discharge zones, (2) assess 

the extent to which EPA and the states ensure that adequate pumpout 

facilities are available after a no-discharge zone is designated, (3) evaluate 

the extent to which the Coast Guard and the states enforce compliance 

with the prohibition against vessel sewage discharges in no-discharge 

zones, and (4) identify the effects of no-discharge zones that EPA, states, 

and localities have reported.

To achieve our first objective, we reviewed the requirements for 

designation of no-discharge zones in statutes, regulations, and federal 

guidance, as well as additional formal and informal criteria that have been 

developed by EPA regions. We interviewed and obtained documents from 

officials in EPA’s regional offices and state environmental and/or natural 

resource agencies, as appropriate, to assess the basis of no-discharge zone 

approvals for 12 of the 23 states that have received no-discharge zone 

designations: California, Florida, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, 

Minnesota, Missouri, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, Texas, and 

Utah. State selection factors included: geographic dispersion; coastal, 

noncoastal, and Great Lakes locations; a range of no-discharge zone 

designation dates; both partial and total inclusion of state surface waters in 

no-discharge zones; no-discharge zones that include both recreational and 

commercial vessel traffic; and at least one no-discharge zone petition for 

designation that was denied. Also, we evaluated at least one state in each of 

the nine EPA Regions that have no-discharge zones. EPA was unable to 

provide copies of the applications for no-discharge zone determinations 

made prior to 1984. For established no-discharge zones, we were able to 

obtain copies of 30 of the 48 no-discharge zone applications for the 12 

states we reviewed. We were not able to obtain every application submitted 

by 10 of the states nor any applications from 2 states; these applications 

were considered in the 1970s. We also reviewed the Pumpout Station and 

Dump Station Technical Guidelines developed by the Fish and Wildlife 

Service under the Clean Vessel Act.

To assess the extent to which EPA and the states ensure that adequate 

pumpout facilities are available after a no-discharge zone is designated, we 

reviewed statutes and regulations, analyzed federal guidance, and 

interviewed federal and state officials in the nine regions with no-discharge 

zones. We requested and collected available state data on monitoring for 

the 12 states in our review, and we interviewed representatives of local 

entities in 14 of the 48 no discharge zones in the 12 states.
Appendix II

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

Page 42 GAO-04-613 No-Discharge Zones

To assess the extent to which the Coast Guard and the states enforce 

compliance with the prohibition against vessel sewage discharges in nodischarge zones, we analyzed the requirements for enforcement that are 

contained in statutes and regulations and also analyzed federal guidance. 

We interviewed officials at Coast Guard and state and local law 

enforcement agencies to determine the extent of enforcement activities for 

the 12 states we reviewed. We collected and analyzed the available data on 

the enforcement actions in these 12 states. 

To achieve the final objective, we interviewed federal and state officials 

and representatives of local entities to obtain their views and available 

information on the effects of the no-discharge zones in the 12 states we 

reviewed. We reviewed the surveys that EPA was using for its 2003 review 

of no-discharge zones, but the findings were not available as of May 15, 

2004. 
Page 43 GAO-04-613 No-Discharge Zones

Appendix III

Overview of Marine Sanitation Devices ApendxiI

A marine sanitation device includes any equipment for installation on 

board a vessel, which is designed to receive, retain, treat, or discharge 

sewage, and any process to treat such sewage.1

 The following table 

presents information for each type of marine sanitation device, including 

the function, the use and applicability, and effluent limits.

Table 2: Marine Sanitation Devices

Source: U.S. EPA and U.S. Coast Guard (data); GAO (analysis).

a

Vessels 65 feet in length and under with an installed toilet must be equipped with a marine sanitation device.

b

Vessels over 65 feet in length with an installed toilet must be equipped with either a Type II or Type III marine sanitation device.

1

33 U.S.C. §1322(a)(5).

Type of marine 

device

Function Use and applicability Effluent limits

Type I Physical and chemical treatment 

of sewage prior to discharge. 

Type I devices generally macerate 

and chlorinate the waste.

Type I marine sanitation devices are 

acceptable on vessels that are 65 feet in 

length and under.a

Coast Guard reports that most Type I 

devices are found on vessels built before 

1980.

Device must be certified to treat 

waste to a fecal coliform bacteria 

count no greater than 1000/100 

milliliters and with no visible floating 

solids.

Type II Biological or physical and 

chemical treatment of sewage 

prior to discharge. 

Includes biological (aerobic 

digestion) treatment devices and 

devices that macerate and 

chlorinate waste.

Type II marine sanitation devices are 

permitted on all vessels. Type II devices are 

generally installed on vessels that are over 

65 feet in length.b

Commonly used on commercial vessels and 

can treat several hundred to many thousand 

gallons of sewage per day.

Type II devices are larger than Type I 

devices and generally require more power 

to operate.

Device must be certified to treat 

waste to produce effluent having a 

fecal coliform bacteria count no 

greater than 200/100 milliliters and 

suspended solids no greater than 

150 milligrams/liter.

Type III Sewage storage prior to pumpout 

at a pumpout facility.

Used on vessels of any size. 

Commonly include holding tanks, but other 

devices that qualify as Type III are:

vacuum collection systems, incineration 

systems, recirculation systems, and a 

composting system.

Most recreational boats built since the late 

1970s have included holding tanks.

There is no waste effluent standard 

because the device does not treat 

waste. 
Appendix III

Overview of Marine Sanitation Devices

Page 44 GAO-04-613 No-Discharge Zones

Boaters may retrofit, or make modifications to, marine sanitation devices, 

as shown in table 3.

Table 3: Retrofitted Marine Sanitation Devices

Source: U.S. EPA and U.S. Coast Guard (data); GAO (analysis).

Components Function Relevant Standards

Boaters modify (1) Type I or II 

marine sanitation devices so 

they can store waste to be 

pumped out of a holding tank. 

For example, a boater may 

incorporate a holding tank into 

the plumbing system that 

connects to a Type I device, or 

(2) Type III marine sanitation 

devices so that they can treat 

waste with a Type I or II device.

Allows boats to comply with varying discharge restrictions 

when traveling in and out of no-discharge zones.

The retrofitted marine sanitation device is 

not a separate category recognized by EPA 

or Coast Guard regulations. The applicable 

standards will depend on whether the boater 

wants to treat and discharge or store and 

receive a pumpout.
Page 45 GAO-04-613 No-Discharge Zones

Appendix IV

GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments ApendxiIV

GAO Contacts John B. Stephenson, (202) 512-3841

Christine Fishkin, (202) 512-6895

Staff 

Acknowledgments

In addition to those individuals named above, Kate Cardamone, Karen 

Keegan, Cynthia Norris, Ilga Semeiks, and Amy Webbink made key 

contributions to this report.

(360373)
GAO’s Mission The General Accounting Office, the audit, evaluation and investigative arm of 

Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional responsibilities 

and to help improve the performance and accountability of the federal government 

for the American people. GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal 

programs and policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other 

assistance to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding 

decisions. GAO’s commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of 

accountability, integrity, and reliability.

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost is 

through the Internet. GAO’s Web site (www.gao.gov) contains abstracts and fulltext files of current reports and testimony and an expanding archive of older 

products. The Web site features a search engine to help you locate documents 

using key words and phrases. You can print these documents in their entirety, 

including charts and other graphics.

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and 

correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as “Today’s Reports,” on its Web site 

daily. The list contains links to the full-text document files. To have GAO e-mail this 

list to you every afternoon, go to www.gao.gov and select “Subscribe to 

e-mail alerts” under the “Order GAO Products” heading.

Order by Mail or Phone The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 each. A check 

or money order should be made out to the Superintendent of Documents. GAO 

also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or more copies mailed to a single 

address are discounted 25 percent. Orders should be sent to:

U.S. General Accounting Office

441 G Street NW, Room LM

Washington, D.C. 20548

To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000 

TDD: (202) 512-2537 

Fax: (202) 512-6061

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs

Contact:

Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470

Public Affairs Jeff Nelligan, Managing Director, NelliganJ@gao.gov (202) 512-4800

U.S. General Accounting Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, D.C. 20548
United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548-0001

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use $300

Address Service Requested

Presorted Standard

Postage & Fees Paid

GAO

Permit No. GI00