OPINION

Purge bill of ballast water provision

Green Bay Press-Gazette Editorial Board

A provision tucked away in the $602 billion federal defense budget could have a big impact on the health of the Great Lakes.

A freighter is silhouetted on Lake Superior in July 199 near Whitefish Point, Mich. A plan gaining support in Congress and backed by the cargo shipping industry would establish a nationwide policy for treating ballast water dumped from cargo ships into U.S. waterways.  Environmental groups say that would open the door to more invasive species like zebra and quagga mussels, which have wreaked havoc from the Great Lakes to the West Coast.

It’s called the Vessel Incidental Discharge Act. If it’s added to the U.S. Senate version of the defense bill, it would make the Great Lakes vulnerable to more aquatic invasive species.

The act would exempt ballast water discharges from the federal Clean Water Act. The Coast Guard, which now shares oversight with the Environmental Protection Agency, would be in charge.

The Vessel Incidental Discharge Act also would prevent states from adopting new laws to restrict ballast water discharges and enforcing current laws without approval from the Coast Guard, and exempts ships that travel exclusively within the Great Lakes.

This could have a disastrous effect on the health of our Great Lakes.

Ballast water refers to the tens of millions of gallons of water that can be carried in tanks of cargo ships to make them more stable on rough seas or when their loads are light. The water, however, can carry fish, plants, bacteria and viruses that are then discharged when the ship is loaded.

It’s believed that a ballast water discharge from an oceangoing ship introduced zebra mussels to the Great Lakes.

Currently, ships are required to exchange ballast water far from port in order to prevent the spread of invasive hitchhikers.

In 2013, the EPA limited the number of live organisms that could be in ballast water and required oceangoing ships to exchange their ballast water at sea. A federal appeals court last fall ordered on-board water treatment to further reduce the risk. The Vessel Incidental Discharge Act would render that ruling meaningless.

The health of our Great Lakes is at stake.

Since zebra mussels first entered the Great Lakes, they have gained a foothold not only in Lake Michigan and Green Bay, but in inland lakes and the Mississippi River by hitching rides on boat hulls, anchors, docks.

They’re a nuisance, not only for the swimmer who steps on their razor sharp shells, but for the native fish populations and for boaters. They attach to intake pipes and restrict the flow of water for such things as drinking water, and irrigation. They also attach to boat hulls and navigation equipment.

The provision was introduced at the behest of the cargo shipping industry, which has concerns about costs and the confusion about different laws governing it.

It’s a concern we don’t take lightly. Great Lakes shipping has a huge impact on our region. In northeastern Wisconsin, we have ports in Green Bay, Manitowoc, Sturgeon Bay and Marinette. In 2010, the port of Green Bay reported an economic impact of $83 million. The port supported 823 local jobs in 2010.

To their credit, Great Lakes shippers have supported Atlantic Ocean ballast water exchanges and studies of invasive species.

So we understand the concern about spending millions of dollars to add on-board water treatment and dealing with different laws governing ballast water exchanges.

However, we believe the overriding principle should be to not weaken the laws already in place that have done a good job of keeping invasive species at bay.

Opening the door to more invasive species will unlikely hurt international shippers, but it will hurt those of us living next to these magnificent freshwater lakes that bring in millions of dollars in recreation and tourism and that provide drinking water for millions of residents in the Great Lakes states.

If U.S. Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., wants to simplify the laws regarding ballast water discharge, why not make tough, fair, effective environmental laws the standard instead of watered-downed regulations?

Finally, we have consistently objected to adding proposals like this to unrelated bills. The defense bill has nothing to do with ballast water discharges. It’s being done to offer it cover as supporters believe President Barack Obama will be reluctant to veto a defense spending bill.

If supporters want this to pass, they should have the political courage to have this bill stand on its own.

We urge our senators — Ron Johnson and Tammy Baldwin — to ensure this provision doesn’t make it onto the Senate’s defense bill and then to oppose adding it when the House and Senate versions are reconciled.