Houseboat companies must clean up their act…

Houseboat companies must clean up their act
Sicamous Eagle Valley News
March 09, 2010

We all know how connected Sicamous is to the houseboat industry and it is no wonder that they want the regional district to help subsidize these businesses. What makes sense here? Here is an industry that makes money polluting a public resource – our lake. There are close to 400 houseboats on Shuswap Lake, as well as hundreds of large boats with bathrooms. That is equivalent to over 400 motels dumping toxins in the water. This is not allowed on land so why allow it in our drinking water?

The commercial houseboat firms are breaking the law and putting their clients and the public’s health at risk rather than arranging for a pump-out facility. They do not appear to be concerned about our lake, the environment, or our residents, and do not deserve any community or government support.
This industry already takes advantage of our tax-payer- funded Shuswap Lake marine parks by filling up every allowable site with houseboats every summer. Now they expect local taxpayers to fund the construction of pump-out stations so they can continue to rake in money. By not enforcing the law against discharge of all types of greywater by all boats, the government is failing to respect its own laws and is failing to protect public health, water quality, the environment, and our communities.

What will it take to force these companies to be good corporate citizens and stop polluting the lake? I would suspect that when the word gets out to potential houseboat customers about this pollution, many will choose to spend their vacation dollars elsewhere. Only then, will houseboat companies act responsibly and clean up their act.

Jim Cooperman, president, Shuswap Environmental Action Society

More rational approach needed on greywater
Sicamous Eagle Valley News
March 16, 2010
Re: Letter, Houseboat companies must clean up their act, published in March 10 EVN.

I would hope that most people who read Mr. Cooperman’s letter and understand it for what it is. This is a letter that is long on emotion and short on facts.
While the issue of greywater on houseboats is indeed something which should, and is being addressed, it is an infinitesimal part of the overall health of the lake system.

The amount of attention being paid to this aspect seems totally out of proportion relative to the effect it has. Perhaps Mr. Cooperman might want to take a look at the septic systems of his neighbours and supporters, before he makes such broad-stroke accusations against houseboat companies.

It is my understanding that houseboat companies make their money from guests who pay to come to our region and enjoy Shuswap Lake. It would be very hard to understand that it would be in their interest to see the main attraction for these paying guests polluted. The houseboat companies pay for their guests to use the marine parks, and these are tourists who come to the area and bring all the benefits that such a large group of visitors has on the region.

Mr. Cooperman certainly comes across as being an elitist, and out of touch, as he appears to suggest that these paying tourists do not have the right to stay at the public facilities set up exactly for this reason. While Mr. Cooperman may have special interests to fund him, or be independently wealthy, many in the region do rely upon tourism for their livelihood.

The Ministry of Environment has recently replied to the charges of the like made by Mr. Cooperman with an approach that is very rational and based upon science. They are representing the interests of all British Columbians, and are in agreement that the houseboat companies have worked very closely with them and that great progress has been made on the greywater issue. It is my understanding that houseboat companies have put considerable resources and efforts into reducing greywater discharge and that those efforts continue.

Apparently Mr. Cooperman feels that there is an endless supply of money that the houseboat companies have to build huge and expensive infrastructure around the lake. Much of this infrastructure is required for others as well (both land- and marine-based), but apparently it is the houseboat industry alone that must support this.

While user pay is great, would it not be more feasible to get the facilities done and then have them paid for by those who use them – all of those who use them? While everyone can agree that the lake needs protection, Mr. Cooperman’s approach seems quite emotional, inflammatory, and indeed lacking in factual information.

Robin Campbell