Ballast water has been identified as a major pathway for introduction of ANS. Federal authority to address ballast water concerns in the United States is contained in the Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act of 1990 (NANPCA), as amended by the National Invasive Species Act of 1996 (NISA), and is administered by the U.S. Coast Guard. Today there is wide agreement on the need for stronger measures to control ballast water discharges, but there are differing views on how best to do that. Several states (notably Michigan, California, Minnesota, Oregon, and Washington) have passed or are considering their own ballast water laws, raising concern that separate state programs could create a patchwork of inconsistent regulatory requirements. This concern was part of the rationale for Title V of H.R. 2830 , the Coast Guard Reauthorization Act of 2007, passed by the House on April 24, 2008. It would have amended NANPCA to establish a strengthened national ballast water management program administered by the Coast Guard. However, it was opposed by other advocacy groups, such as the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), and several of the states that have moved forward with their own ballast water programs. Evaluating these differing views is complicated by an Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposal to control ballast water and other discharges incidental to the normal operation of vessels through the mechanism of a Clean Water Act (CWA) permit. EPA finalized this permit in December 2008. At issue was whether the standard-setting, permit, and enforcement authorities of the CWA are better tools for managing ballast water discharges than the approach in H.R. That legislation contained statutory performance standards that were to be implemented by the Coast Guard which would preempt state regulatory programs that are inconsistent or in conflict with the federal law. 2830 , as passed by the House, was supported by the maritime industry and a number of environmental advocacy groups (such as the National Wildlife Federation, see footnote 4 ) who argued, in essence, that a nationally uniform program providing certainty to the regulated community, requiring standards more stringent than existing Coast Guard or international rules, and specifying compliance deadlines is the best approach. 2830 contended that the proposed changes were relatively minor and did not overcome serious deficiencies in the bill, namely that the legislation largely would preempt state efforts, could override CWA authorities, and would have provided a slower and less effective approach to controlling ballast water discharges than that of the CWA. Critics of H.R.
Today there is wide agreement on the need for stronger measures to control ballast water discharges from vessels which are a major pathway for introduction of invasive species into U.S. waters, but there are differing views on how best to do that. Current federal authority to manage ballast water, in the Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act of 1990, as amended (NANPCA), has been criticized as inadequate. Several states (notably Michigan, California, Minnesota, Oregon, and Washington) have passed or are considering their own ballast water laws, creating concern that separate state programs could create a patchwork of inconsistent regulatory requirements.
This concern was part of the rationale for Title V of H.R. 2830, the Coast Guard Reauthorization Act of 2007, passed by the U.S. House of Representatives on April 24, 2008. It would have established a strengthened national ballast water management program administered by the Coast Guard. This legislative approach was supported by many in the maritime industry and by a number of environmental advocacy groups, such as the National Wildlife Foundation. They argued, in essence, that a nationally uniform program providing certainty to the regulated community, requiring standards more stringent than existing Coast Guard or international rules, and specifying compliance deadlines is the best legislative approach.
However, H.R. 2830 was opposed by other advocacy groups, such as the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), and several of the states that have moved forward with their own ballast water programs. They contended that the legislation would largely have preempted state efforts and provide a slower and less effective approach to controlling ballast water discharges than that of the Clean Water Act.
Evaluating these differing views was complicated by an Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposal to control ballast water and other discharges incidental to the normal operation of vessels through the mechanism of a Clean Water Act permit. EPA finalized this permit in December 2008.
At issue was whether the standard-setting, permit, and enforcement authorities of the Clean Water Act (CWA) are better tools for managing ballast water discharges than the approach that was proposed in H.R. 2830. That legislation contained statutory performance standards to be implemented by the Coast Guard which would preempt state regulatory programs that are inconsistent or in conflict with federal law. These issues and the views of proponents and opponents, which could again receive attention in the 111th Congress, are reviewed in this report.