Translation of the text below: There is, in Washington, D.C., a lobby in favor of more invasive species in the Great Lakes. It is called the shipping and port lobby.
Bill Undermines Clean Water Act and State Efforts to Curb Aquatic Invasive Species!
A bill has quickly gained momentum that threatens to preempt Michigan’s state bill, exempt pollutants and activities from the Clean Water Act, as well as undermine existing efforts to prevent aquatic invasive species. The Ballast Water Management Act of 2005 (S. 363) would establish treatment standards and timelines for ships to treat ballast to prevent aquatic invasive species. Any good intentions aside, S. 363 contains weaker ballast water standards, and much longer timelines for implementation, than the widely supported, comprehensive National Aquatic Invasive Species Act (S. 770). S. 363 also contains some dangerous provisions that would undermine efforts in the Great Lakes, including:
Preemption of Stronger State Efforts
Frustrated with the lack of federal action, many states nationwide are currently moving forward to require ships to treat their ballast for invasive species. For example, Michigan’s new state legislation requires treatment options for ocean vessels operating within the Great Lakes by 2007. S. 363 would undercut these efforts by preempting the ability of states to take action and delay treatment until S. 363 standards are implemented, for over a decade or more depending upon the pending federal program’s implementation. Without enforcement provisions to ensure deadlines are met, and without a guaranteed source of federal funding, states have little confidence that even the lengthy federal deadlines will be met. The preemption section must be stricken from the bill. (Section 3(r) (1), July 1st 2005 Committee Draft).
Removal of EPA Clean Water Act Authority
S. 363 would exempt the discharge of pollutants- both biological and chemical- from ballast water from regulation under the Clean Water Act (or CWA). Any exemption from the Clean Water Act is a dangerous precedent.
The bill’s timing is poised to undercut a recent court ruling requiring EPA to move forward in regulating discharges under CWA, with the court’s expected order for the agency expected this fall. See, Northwest Environmental Advocates et. al. vs. U.S. EPA, No. C. 03-05760 SI (March 20, 2005). Again frustrated by the lack of federal action, Great Lakes states intervened in this lawsuit. The EPA, with its environmental protection mission and expertise in developing discharge standards, is a critical partner with the Coast Guard in protecting national waters from invasive species. EPA’s role in S. 363 has been relegated to one of merely ‘consultation’ to Coast Guard.
As drafted, S. 363 not only directly usurps the court order requiring EPA to address ballast water discharges under the CWA, but is so loosely drafted that it would additionally remove all federal authority to address pollutants other than invasive species in ballast water, such as polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). Exemption of any pollutants or activities from the CWA is a direct assault on the Act itself and must be stricken from the bill.
Posted by Dave at July 18, 2005 12:32 PM