Collectively, these and other aquatic species transported in  ballast water have caused billions of dollars in damage to our economy  and unmeasured damage to the environment. History of Ballast Water Management

The federal government has been taking steps to address the introduction  of potentially invasive species via the ballast water in ships for well over a  decade. Congress recognized ballast water as a serious problem in 1990  with the passage of the Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and  Control Act, legislation intended to help reduce the number of species  introduced into U.S. waters, focusing on the Great Lakes. In addition to these domestic developments, members of the  United Nation’s International Maritime Organization have adopted a  convention on ballast water management that, if ratified by a sufficient  number of countries, could affect the global fleet. This law was a  response to the introduction of the zebra mussel in the Great Lakes and  findings that the discharge of ballast water results in unintentional  introductions of nonindigenous species. NANPCA required the task force and the Secretary to  cooperate in conducting a number of studies within 18 months of  enactment of the act on such issues as:    The environmental effects of ballast water exchange on native species in    Alternate areas, if any, where ballast water exchange does not pose a  threat of infestation or spread of aquatic invasive species in the Great  Lakes and other U.S. waters;    The need for controls on ships entering U.S. waters other than the Great  Lakes to minimize the risk of unintentional introduction and dispersal of  aquatic invasive species in those waters; and,    Whether aquatic invasive species threaten the ecological characteristics  and economic uses of U.S. waters other than the Great Lakes. Major Issues with Current Ballast Water Management Program

The federal government has continued to take steps to strengthen controls  over ballast water as a conduit for potentially harmful organisms. Since  1998, Coast Guard data show that compliance with conducting ballast  water exchange, when required, has generally been high. However, key  agencies and stakeholders recognize that the recently adopted mandatory  national program for ballast water exchange is not a viable long-term  approach to minimizing the risks posed by ballast water discharges. In addition, the ANSTF has not recommended  alternate areas for ballast water exchange and thus, the Coast Guard has  not established alternate discharge zones that could be used by ships. And  lastly, ballast water exchange is not always effective at removing or killing  potentially harmful species. Many Ships with Potentially Harmful Organisms in Their Ballast Water Are Not Required to Conduct Ballast Water Exchange or Retain Their Ballast Water

Although the Coast Guard believes that compliance with ballast water  management regulations is high, U.S. waters may still not be adequately  protected because many ships are not required to conduct ballast water  exchange even though they may discharge ballast water in U.S. waters. The  effectiveness of this process, however, has not been demonstrated. Technologies Are Being Developed to Treat Ballast Water, but Challenges Remain Before They Can Be Used

Developers are pursuing technologies for use in treating ballast water,  some of which show promise that a technical solution can be used to  provide more reliable removal of potentially invasive species. However,  the development of such technologies and their eventual use to meet  regulatory requirements face many challenges, including the daunting  technological challenges posed by the need for shipboard treatment  systems and the lack of a discharge standard that would provide a target  for developers to aim for in terms of treatment efficiency. States Are Moving Forward With Programs Because of Frustration with Lack of Federal Progress

As we reported in 2002, some states have expressed frustration with the  federal government’s progress on establishing a more protective federal  program for managing the risks associated with ballast water discharges.
Why GAO Did This Study

Numerous invasive species have been introduced into U.S. waters via ballast water discharged from ships and have caused serious economic and ecologic damage. GAO reported in 2002 that at least 160 nonnative aquatic species had become established in the Great Lakes since the 1800s--one-third of which were introduced in the past 30 years by ballast water and other sources. The effects of such species are not trivial; the zebra mussel alone is estimated to have caused $750 million to $1 billion in costs between 1989 and 2000. Species introductions via ballast water are not confined to the Great Lakes, however. The environment and economy of the Chesapeake Bay, San Francisco Bay, Puget Sound, and other U.S. waters have also been adversely affected. The federal government has been taking steps since 1990 to implement programs to prevent the introduction of invasive species from ships' ballast water discharges. However, species introductions are continuing. This testimony discusses the legislative and regulatory history of ballast water management and identifies some of the issues that pose challenges for the federal government's program for preventing the introduction of invasive species via ships' ballast water.

What GAO Found

Congress recognized ballast water as a serious problem in 1990 with passage of the Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act, legislation intended to help reduce the number of species introductions in the Great Lakes. A reauthorization of this law in 1996, the National Invasive Species Act, elevated ballast water management to a national level. As directed by the legislation, the federal government has promulgated several regulations requiring certain ships to take steps, such as exchanging their ballast water in the open ocean to flush it of potentially harmful organisms, to reduce the likelihood of species invasions via ballast water. Initially these regulations applied only to certain ships entering the Great Lakes; now they apply to certain ships entering all U.S. ports. In addition to these domestic developments, the United Nation's International Maritime Organization has recently adopted a convention on ballast water management that could affect the global fleet. Since 1998, Coast Guard data show that compliance with existing ballast water exchange requirements has generally been high. However, key agencies and stakeholders recognize that the current ballast water exchange program is not a viable long-term approach to minimizing the risks posed by ballast water discharges. The primary reasons for this are that: (1) many ships are exempt from current ballast water exchange requirements, (2) the Coast Guard has not established alternate discharge zones that could be used by ships unable to conduct ballast water exchange for various reasons, and (3) ballast water exchange is not always effective at removing or killing potentially invasive species. Developers are pursuing technologies to provide more reliable alternatives to ballast water exchange, some of which show promise. However, development of such technologies and their eventual use to meet ballast water regulatory requirements face many challenges including the daunting technological task of developing large scale water treatment systems that ships can accommodate, and the lack of a federal discharge standard that would provide a target for developers to aim for in terms of treatment efficiency. As a result, ballast water exchange is still the only approved method for treating ballast water despite the concerns with this method's effectiveness. Consequently, U.S. waters remain vulnerable to the introduction of invasive species via ships' ballast water. State governments and others have expressed frustration over the seemingly slow progress the federal government has made on more effectively protecting U.S. waters from future species invasions via ballast water. As a result, several states have passed legislation that authorizes procedures for managing ballast water that are stricter than federal regulations.