The Problem With Ballast Water
On April 25th 1959, the Great Lakes were forever changed. This day marked the opening of the St. Lawrence Seaway, allowing deep ocean vessels to travel into the heart of the world’s largest freshwater system. This was a watershed moment for the problem of invasive species in the Great Lakes, shaping the ecological landscape of this vital ecosystem for the next four decades. History There had always been a natural barrier between the atlantic ocean and the Great Lakes that ships could not cross. With the creation of this canal system now known as the St. Lawrence Seaway, ships with ballast water incubating foreign species had a route into new environments. Ballast water is taken in by ships before leaving port. It provides stability during transit and is discharged at the next port. The ocean shippers carry millions of gallons of ballast water that is dumped into the Great Lakes at the end of their journey. In the past 50 years, ballast water discharge has introduced over 60% of species invasions into the Great Lakes. Beyond the St. Lawrence Seaway, there have been other developments that have exacerbated problems relating to ballast water. A 30 feet deep channel was created in Lake St. Clair, a lake between Lake Huron and Lake Erie, to allow for navigation from the east coast to Milwaukee. The channel is shallow enough to force many passing ships to dump out ballast water. In the Great Lakes, the ballast water problem often means either taking in organisms from one lake and releasing them in another, or releasing organisms from an ocean environment into the freshwater system. The impact that invasive species have had on the great lakes is significant. Foreign invaders have deciminated native fish populations with no existing predators. Furthermore, many of these invasive species have contributed to large seaweed patches, and been linked as contributors to toxic algae outbreaks. Recent Developments The EPA was tasked with regulating ballast water under the Clean Water Act of 1972. However, the Clean Water Act gave the EPA little power to enforce the regulations. The situation was in regulatory paralysis until 2006 when a federal judge ruled that foreign freighters must decontaminate their ballast water before dumping it into the great lakes. Before this, many conservation groups had criticized the EPA’s regulation of ballast water as very lax. In 2013, conservation groups scored another victory when the EPA issued water treatment requirements for the shipping industry. These developments have been further complicated with the 2015 US Circuit Court Ruling that has sent the EPA back to the drawing board over its 2013 mandates. Presently, the EPA is looking for ways to create and enforce stronger regulations for not only foreign ships but ‘lakers’ or ships beginning and ending within the great lakes area. At the same time, Florida senator Marco Rubio has introduced legislation to take the power to regulate ballast water and shipping away from states and the EPA and give it to the U.S. Coast Guard. This would exempt the entire shipping industry from the Clean Water Act. For their part, the shipping industry has said that state and federal policies are not only unnecessary but “technologically impossible”. Together, it can be seen that the current situation is very complicated but more importantly, a situation that needs to be solved sooner rather than later. Power Dynamics The power in this situation rests, ultimately, in the hands of the EPA. However, they haven't been regulating the release of water and they've been sued in court by environmental groups to do their job and enforce the laws. Many conservation groups seek to create more regulations and give more power to the EPA to enforce these new rules. For example, one of these groups, the National Wildlife Federation, supports regulations that require screening of animals imports by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Since the EPA isn't enforcing the release of ballast water, the ships and the shipping industry, themselves have a lot of power to do what they want. The protesting environmental groups have the least power, because all they can do is report the ships who break the rules - they can't do anything about it. As mentioned before, congress also has the power to overrule and pass laws that apply to shippers, the EPA, and the states. These power dynamics have recently been changed by the courts, forcing the EPA to take control where they otherwise wouldn't have. Perspectives and Ethical Issues As in every issue of today, there are two sides to this argument. The major shipping industries don’t want to have to spend time to dump their ballast water in appropriate location or spend a ton of money on treatment of the ballast water that they took from other bodies of water. The nature conservationists want to have regulations on the water and a specific place that ships can dump in the water. Between the years of 2009-2020, it is estimated that $30 billion will be spent on ballast water treatment. This is a lot of money that companies would rather not spend on an issue that they don’t care about. The nature conservationists want to have stricter regulations on ballast water because it will help to protect the environment from the introduction of invasive species. Overall, this issue is between the time and money that the shipping industries will have to spend and the overall well being of the environment. Conclusion There has always been a conflict between the conservation of the environment and the human advancement. The problem of ballast water is just another example of the struggle of finding a balance between protection and economic opportunity. As the situation becomes more critical finding a solution that works becomes increasingly more likely. Humans have always found a way to overcome the next challenge, and ballast water doesn’t stand a chance. References Anderson, T. (2011, November). U.S. House passes bill stripping states of authority to regulate ballast water discharges. Retrieved from http://www.csgmidwest.org/policyresearch/1111ballastwater.aspx Egan, D. (2014, July 26). How invasive species changed the Great Lakes forever. Retrieved from http://www.jsonline.com/news/wisconsin/how-invasive-species-changed-the-great-lakes-forever-b99297128z1-267010971.html Egan, D. (2015, October 10). Alewife Crash on Lake Michigan Raises Concerns for Salmon. Retrieved from http://www.jsonline.com/news/wisconsin/alewife-crash-on-lake-michigan-raises-concerns-for-salmon-fishing-b99592228z1-331900031.html Great Lakes Initiative. (2013, May). Status of Ballast Water Discharge Regulations in the Great Lakes Region [PDF]. Great Ships Initiative. Thomas, D. (2014, August 25). 10 Important Points to Comply With Ballast Water Convention. Retrieved from http://www.marineinsight.com/misc/maritime-law/comply-with-ballast-water-convention/ |
|