Posted:
July 28, 2011
Debate over ballast water standards continues in the U.S. House of Representatives as an unreasonable patchwork of regulatory requirements threatens Great Lakes shipping. Meanwhile, a federal court has dealt a setback to the drive to establish a uniform U.S. standard for ballast water treatment and discharges under the Vessel General Permit system.
In July, the House debated H.R. 2584, appropriations legislation for the Department of the Interior, including an amendment approved by the House Appropriations Committee that would prevent Great Lakes states from implementing different, and in many cases extreme, ballast water standards. At press time, the legislation remained on the House calendar as unfinished business.
House debate over ballast water standards centered on an amendment submitted by Rep. Steven LaTourette (R-OH) that would strip Great Lakes states of Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) funding if they adopt ballast water requirements that are more stringent than U.S. federal or International Maritime Organization (IMO) standards. The U.S. is expected to enact a uniform federal standard sometime this year.
Debating his amendment with colleagues on the House floor, Rep. LaTourette reiterated his deep concern about invasive species on the Great Lakes, but condemned action by the New York Department of Environmental Conservation to enact ballast water standards "that are 100 times more stringent than the international standard and would have gone to 1,000 times more stringent" the year after they are enacted.
"I take a backseat to no one in this Congress on the issue of invasive species in the Great Lakes," Rep. LaTourette said. "But this particular provision by [New York] would cripple and perhaps eliminate commerce on the Great Lakes."
Following a charged discussion of the issue, Rep. LaTourette and his colleagues agreed to seek a "workable solution" before the bill goes to conference.
Separately, a U.S. federal court has rejected a challenge to the EPA's Vessel General Permit (VGP) system for ballast water regulation.
The Lake Carriers' Association, American Waterways Operators and other industry groups challenged the EPA's regulations, which permit states to enact up to 100 of their own rules. These regulations have created and will perpetuate a confusing and contradictory environment for ship operators, while a uniform federal standard would ease both compliance and enforcement.
The court's ruling is extremely problematic for U.S.-flag shipping because "first: it refuses to stop states and tribal areas from adding ballast water restrictions to the VGP, and second: it recommends changing the Clean Water Act, which most consider as opening Pandora's Box," said American Maritime Officers National Vice President for Government Relations Michael Murphy.
"Ultimately, we need to adopt uniform ballast water regulations similar to those promoted by the IMO, or the current patchwork of restrictive ballast water rules will eventually strangle commerce and possibly result in many mariners being prosecuted for infractions," Murphy said.
Ballast water standards have also been debated in the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee in the House of Representatives. Many members of Congress have argued a federal standard would be the most appropriate measure.
"The current overlapping and contradictory patchwork of ballast water regulations hampers the flow of commerce, threatens international trade, unduly burdens vessel operations in U.S. waters, undermines job creation and hurts our economy," said Rep. Frank LoBiondo (R-NJ) in a prepared statement for a recent hearing held by the House Subcommittees on Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation and on Water Resources and Environment on ballast water standards under the VGP system.
"We have to overcome this mindset that mandating a dozen different, unachievable standards, each more stringent than the next, somehow protects our environment. It does not," Rep. LoBiondo said.
Legal, Congressional action on national ballast water standards
Debate over ballast water standards continues in the U.S. House of Representatives as an unreasonable patchwork of regulatory requirements threatens Great Lakes shipping. Meanwhile, a federal court has dealt a setback to the drive to establish a uniform U.S. standard for ballast water treatment and discharges under the Vessel General Permit system.
In July, the House debated H.R. 2584, appropriations legislation for the Department of the Interior, including an amendment approved by the House Appropriations Committee that would prevent Great Lakes states from implementing different, and in many cases extreme, ballast water standards. At press time, the legislation remained on the House calendar as unfinished business.
House debate over ballast water standards centered on an amendment submitted by Rep. Steven LaTourette (R-OH) that would strip Great Lakes states of Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) funding if they adopt ballast water requirements that are more stringent than U.S. federal or International Maritime Organization (IMO) standards. The U.S. is expected to enact a uniform federal standard sometime this year.
Debating his amendment with colleagues on the House floor, Rep. LaTourette reiterated his deep concern about invasive species on the Great Lakes, but condemned action by the New York Department of Environmental Conservation to enact ballast water standards "that are 100 times more stringent than the international standard and would have gone to 1,000 times more stringent" the year after they are enacted.
"I take a backseat to no one in this Congress on the issue of invasive species in the Great Lakes," Rep. LaTourette said. "But this particular provision by [New York] would cripple and perhaps eliminate commerce on the Great Lakes."
Following a charged discussion of the issue, Rep. LaTourette and his colleagues agreed to seek a "workable solution" before the bill goes to conference.
Separately, a U.S. federal court has rejected a challenge to the EPA's Vessel General Permit (VGP) system for ballast water regulation.
The Lake Carriers' Association, American Waterways Operators and other industry groups challenged the EPA's regulations, which permit states to enact up to 100 of their own rules. These regulations have created and will perpetuate a confusing and contradictory environment for ship operators, while a uniform federal standard would ease both compliance and enforcement.
The court's ruling is extremely problematic for U.S.-flag shipping because "first: it refuses to stop states and tribal areas from adding ballast water restrictions to the VGP, and second: it recommends changing the Clean Water Act, which most consider as opening Pandora's Box," said American Maritime Officers National Vice President for Government Relations Michael Murphy.
"Ultimately, we need to adopt uniform ballast water regulations similar to those promoted by the IMO, or the current patchwork of restrictive ballast water rules will eventually strangle commerce and possibly result in many mariners being prosecuted for infractions," Murphy said.
Ballast water standards have also been debated in the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee in the House of Representatives. Many members of Congress have argued a federal standard would be the most appropriate measure.
"The current overlapping and contradictory patchwork of ballast water regulations hampers the flow of commerce, threatens international trade, unduly burdens vessel operations in U.S. waters, undermines job creation and hurts our economy," said Rep. Frank LoBiondo (R-NJ) in a prepared statement for a recent hearing held by the House Subcommittees on Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation and on Water Resources and Environment on ballast water standards under the VGP system.
"We have to overcome this mindset that mandating a dozen different, unachievable standards, each more stringent than the next, somehow protects our environment. It does not," Rep. LoBiondo said.