{"id":26760,"date":"2018-11-15T00:51:23","date_gmt":"2018-11-15T00:51:23","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/one.sightlinemg.com\/federaltimes\/uncategorized\/2018\/11\/15\/lawmakers-reach-compromise-on-coast-guard-budget-bill-anti-pollution-measures\/"},"modified":"2026-08-08T19:57:00","modified_gmt":"2026-08-08T19:57:00","slug":"lawmakers-reach-compromise-on-coast-guard-budget-bill-anti-pollution-measures","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/one.sightlinemg.com\/federaltimes\/congress\/2018\/11\/15\/lawmakers-reach-compromise-on-coast-guard-budget-bill-anti-pollution-measures\/","title":{"rendered":"Lawmakers reach compromise on Coast Guard budget bill, anti-pollution measures"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

TRAVERSE CITY, Mich. \u2014 The U.S. Senate approved a compromise policy Wednesday on dumping ship ballast water in coastal ports and the Great Lakes, a practice blamed for spreading invasive species that damage the environment and the economy.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The plan, part of a $10.6 billion Coast Guard budget authorization bill, includes provisions sought by environmentalists as well as the cargo shipping industry. They have battled for years over how to regulate disposal of water stored in tanks that is essential for steadying vessels in rough seas but has brought unwanted mussels, fish and even viruses to U.S. waters.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Under the bill, approved 94-6 and sent to the House for consideration, the Environmental Protection Agency would set national rules for ballast and other water discharges while the Coast Guard would enforce them. An earlier version backed by industry would have put the Coast Guard in charge of regulation and exempted ballast from the Clean Water Act, which environmentalists feared would result in weaker requirements for treating the water before it’s released.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

But in a victory for shippers, states would be prohibited from imposing tougher treatment rules than EPA’s. Presently, 26 states have rules in addition to those on federal level, creating what the industry describes as a confusing regulatory patchwork. Environmentalists contend states should be able to exceed federal standards to safeguard their waterways.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"
Since hitching unsolicited rides in boat ballast water in the late 1980s, invasive quagga mussels, which are native to Ukraine, have caused massive changes to the ecology of the Great Lakes. (NOAA)<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

The bill creates an exception for the Great Lakes, where damages and control costs from quagga mussels<\/a> and other exotic organisms reach $200 million annually. Regional requirements could be imposed there if enough of the eight states that border the lakes want them.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Republican Sen. Rob Portman of Ohio and Democratic Sen. Debbie Stabenow of Michigan, co-chairs of the Senate Great Lakes Task Force,<\/a> said EPA policy required under the bill \u201cwill help prevent pollution and ensure that that ballast water does not transport invasive species from one body of water to another along a vessel\u2019s shipping route, while providing greater regulatory certainty for the shipping industry.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Debate will persist even if the measure is enacted. Federal policy currently limits numbers of live organisms in ballast water before it’s discharged, based on international standards that environmentalists contend are too weak. A federal court has ordered EPA to strengthen the standards, noting the availability of treatment tools such as chlorine, ultraviolet light and filtration. Shippers contend available technology can’t hit the cleanliness targets environmentalists want.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

EPA will grapple with such issues as it develops national rules.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Still, both sides praised the bill. The Lake Carriers’ Association<\/a>, representing Great Lakes cargo shippers, said it strikes a \u201cgood balance,\u201d while an environmentalist coalition said it \u201cupholds many core protections to prevent future invasions.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\t