If the Michigan Ballast Water Statute survives a challenge in federal court this week, it will be one of the most significant steps in history against a practice that has degraded the American ecosystem for nearly 400 years. Opponents argue it usurps federal authority and creates an overly complex regulatory system.
Ocean-going vessels have been introducing invasive species to
Likewise, scientists believe that the ballast water dumped by ocean-going ships passing through the
“We spend billions of dollars a year on fighting these things,” said State
Sen. Patty Birkholz,
Municipal water and power companies regularly dispatch divers to remove zebra mussels from intake pipes. The Eurasian milfoil kills plants and fish in the state’s streams and lakes. The newest threat is viral hemorrhagic septicemia, a virus recently discovered in
“There is no line item on your electric bill that says ‘zebra mussel scrape-off,’” said Birkholz, adding that she had “threatened to introduce legislation to do that.”
Birkholz led the formation of the Great Lakes Legislative Caucus and introduced the 2004 bill that became the Michigan Ballast Water Statute. The law requires that ocean-going vessels obtain a Ballast Water Control General Permit from the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality to pass through state waters. To obtain the permit, vessels must agree not to discharge ballast water into the
The law went into effect in January. In March, a coalition of trade associations and shipping and dock companies sued the state in federal court in
“We’re not coming in with impunity and dumping ballast water,” said Stuart Theis, executive director of the
According to Theis, the majority of shippers has complied with the law and obtained permits. Regardless of the law, only a handful of vessels on the
Such an environment is a distinct possibility. Similar laws are under consideration in
In a recent report, the
At the core of the state’s argument is the federal government’s historical weakness in ballast regulation. The EPA refused to act against ships dumping ballast water until a federal court ordered it last year. It will not actively enforce ballast rules until late 2008. There are also federal and international statutes under development that could supersede the
Birkholz, along with nearly a dozen environmental groups and other
Oddly, there appears to be little economic impact of the ballast law. While the technology to treat ballast water could be a significant investment, only a small number of ships may be required to use it. If the ballast law were to somehow completely deter ocean-going vessels from Michigan ports, a Grand Valley State University study last year estimated the economic impact at no more than $6 million — $55 million for the entire Great Lakes system. Ocean freighters account for only 5 percent of the cargo transported on the
At
At one time, Holland-based Louis Padnos Iron and Metal Co. regularly shipped product from
“Still, in the big picture of things, we don’t want to be creating barriers to overseas shipping,” said Mitch Padnos, vice president of marketing. “If you were to just say, ‘No ships,’ a lot of things would go up in price. … But speaking from a strictly environmental standpoint, something has to be resolved here.” LQX