Northern New York Newspapers
Watertown
Ogdensburg
Massena-Potsdam
Lowville
Carthage
Malone
NNY Business
NNY Living
NNY Ads
Sun., Nov. 23
ADVERTISE SUBSCRIBE
Serving the communities of Jefferson, St. Lawrence and Lewis counties, New York
In print daily. Online always.
Related Stories

EPA’s regulations do not protect our river

PREV
NEXT
ARTICLE OPTIONS
A A
print this article
e-mail this article

Save The River has long been a proponent of stringent ballast water regulations for all ships entering or transiting the St. Lawrence River and Great Lakes as the only means of stopping the introduction and spread of aquatic invasive species.

Since 1959, when the St. Lawrence Seaway opened the river and lakes to direct ocean-going shipping, 65 percent of species discovered have been attributed to ballast water release. River communities know the serious impact aquatic invasive species have on the health of the St. Lawrence River and our local economy.

The cost of zebra and quagga mussel control alone is estimated at $500 million per year over the next five years, and the impact on indigenous species such as bass from invaders like the round goby cannot yet be calculated.

While we have applauded incremental steps to clean up ballast water in the past, such as the Seaway’s requiring saltwater flushes of ocean-going vessels, we have steadfastly maintained that the goal must be zero discharges of non-native species in ballast water. The Environmental Protection Agency had an opportunity to make significant progress toward that goal. Instead it finalized regulations that limit, but do not eliminate, the number of organisms that can be dumped into our river.

It is disappointing that, almost 40 years after the enactment of the Clean Water Act, it took a lawsuit to force the EPA to act to protect the nation’s waterways at all and that, when it did act, it did so in such a weak manner. Significantly the EPA regulations set out:

n A weak standard. The EPA accepted the industry-endorsed International Maritime Organization standard, which from our perspective (and that of the state of California, with a standard 100 times more protective) represents the bare minimum for regulation and is not protective of the river, with no requirements on ships that only transit the lakes.

n A weak timeline. The EPA expects all ships to be compliant by 2018, but with no apparent recourse if ships do not meet that deadline.

nNo mechanism to strengthen standards or improve technology. Our concerns come straight from an industry spokesman, who stated, “EPA’s final rules now end the debate over ballast water regulation.”

No one should be lulled into a sense that our river and the economy that depends on it are safe with these standards. The next destructive invasive species may be only a ballast discharge away.

Lee Willbanks

Clayton

The writer is executive director of Save the River.

Commenting rules:
  1. Stick to the topic of the article/letter/editorial.
  2. When responding to issues raised by other commenters, do not engage in personal attacks or name-calling.
  3. Comments that include profanity/obscenities or are libelous in nature will be removed without warning.
Violators' commenting privileges may be revoked indefinitely. By commenting you agree to our full Terms of Use.
Giveaway
Syracuse Football Tickets Giveaway
Connect with Us
WDT News FeedsWDT on FacebookWDT on TwitterWDT on InstagramWDT for iOS: iPad, iPhone, and iPod touchWDT for Android
Showcase of Homes
Showcase of Homes