In March, headlines reported good news in the fight against invasive species: no new invasives had been detected in the Great Lakes in a decade. Enthusiasm might be short-lived, however. A recent push in U.S. Congress, backed by the shipping industry, to loosen regulation around ballast water treatment is being condemned by the White House and environmental groups as a step backward in protecting the Great Lakes.
According to the Associated Press, the measure was “tucked into a $602 million defense bill” that was passed in the House mid-May. Sponsored by California Republican Duncan Hunter, the provision would exempt ballast water discharges from regulation under the federal Clean Water Act. In effect, this prevents the Environmental Protection Agency from enforcing standards and leaves the U.S. Coast Guard solely in charge. The two agencies currently share those responsibilities.
Hunter said that the measure would provide an overarching federal rule on ballast water treatment and is “intended to simplify a confusing patchwork of state and federal ballast regulations that is burdensome to shippers and hampers interstate commerce.” Great Lakes shipping and port organizations endorsed Hunter’s amendment.
Environmental advocates responded critically, pointing out that loosening regulation around ballast treatment would be a regressive move.
“The Clean Water Act is the nation’s only comprehensive law that can combat an environmental plague of aquatic invasive species that costs the U.S. economy billions of dollars and touches every single state in the union with its destructive powers,” said Nina Bell, executive director of Northwest Environmental Advocates in Portland, Oregon.
The White House chimed in with a statement condemning the Hunter provision, saying it “undermines the ability to fight the spread of invasive species” and would “irreparably hinder the successful prosecution of unlawful discharges.”
Critics say the issue should be treated separately from the defense bill, and suggest that the amendment was attached to an essential military bill to prevent a presidential veto. Supporters of the bill rebutted by mentioning that the annual defense measure routinely includes maritime provisions because they are important to national defense.
Much of the debate is focused on how stringently ballast water should be treated before it is released. Ballast water is taken on by freighter ships to provide stability in rough waters, but it can contain organisms (plant, animal, virus,) which may be harmful when introduced from one environment to another as the water is released in ports far away. Quagga mussels, zebra mussels, Asian carp, and sea lampreys are examples of invasive species which have wrecked havoc on the Great Lakes.
Current regulation enforces treatment of ballast water to kill off these organisms before they can do damage. In 2012, the U.S. Coast Guard adopted international standards which required ship operators to limit the number of live organisms in ballast water. It also required that ocean-going vessels (‘salties’) exchange their ballast water at sea, or rinse empty tanks with saltwater to kill freshwater creatures. A year later, the EPA followed suit and adopted the same standards.
In October 2015, a federal appeals court ordered the EPA to build on their policy and toughen the rules with treatment methods such as filtration, UV light, and chlorine application. Environmentalists fear that order will be nullified if Hunter’s amendment is passed and strips the EPA and Great Lakes states of their power to enforce investment in improved treatment methods.
In June, the Senate is expected to vote on its own defense bill. If the ballast water provision is not added, it will be among issues the House and the Senate will negotiate to produce a final version.
To see the full story from Associated Press, click here.