Ballast Dumping Battle Continues Between Lawmakers and the Cargo Industry

The battle over the discharge of ballast water continues between the shipping industry and the court system. The battle is actually two-fold and becomes rather confusing when navigating between conflicting state and federal laws. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulations initiated in 2008 regulate ballast discharge practices.

Approximately 12 states have additional laws pertaining to ballast dumping, some of which are tougher than existing federal regulations. Cargo shipping companies challenged the disparity in court, stating complying with conflicting regulations is virtually impossible while traveling along waterways which run through multiple states.

Shippers often use ballast water comprised of bacteria sediment, fish, guagga and zebra mussels as a weight stabilizer while traversing rough ocean water when the ship is empty. Once a ship reaches port, millions of gallons of ballast are dumped into the water. When the ballast water is poured into the Great Lakes and U.S. Coastal waterways invasive species are spread upsetting the existing ecological balance and reducing the food available for native species. Zebra mussels are blamed for billions of dollars of damage and economic loss to local fisherman each year.

The ballast battle was heard in the U.S. District Court this week. The federal appeals court ruled that states were entitled to create regulations which were "tougher" on ballast discharge than existing EPA federal regulations. The group of shipping companies and port operators who brought the suit wanted state specific regulations governing ballast discharge removed. The group's argument centered around the inability to navigate through a "hodgepodge" of rules which widely vary from region to region. The court cited the federal Clean Water Act, which allows states to determine the mandates necessary for protecting waterways within their boundaries.

Legislation pending in the United States House of Representatives may add yet another twist to the battle between maintaining clean waterways and the need to transport goods. If the bill passes EPA funds will not be awarded to states which create ballast regulations which are more stringent than current federal standards.

Lawmakers from the Great Lakes area are highly invested in the argument due to the need to ship grain, coal and limestone through the waterway. Representative Steven LaTourette feels the conflicting federal and state regulations inhibit the ability to transports cargo which provide electric power, automotive manufacturing materials and steel to the region. LaTourette also told local media he is concerned about invalidating existing shipping treaties with Canada.

Some of the state laws predate federal regulations due to the number of years it took for the EPA to address the ballast dumping issue. State mandates in New York are among the most stringent. State live organism limits are "100 times" more tougher for existing cargo ships than the original Coast Guard regulations.

In Michigan cargo vessels discharging ballast must use legally approved sterilization methods. The shipping industry is already working on the technology necessary to sterilize the bacteria and living organisms in ballast, but is requesting additional time to retrofit cargo vessels.