Only donate if we've informed you about important Michigan issues
See what new members are saying about why they donated to Bridge Michigan:
- “In order for this information to be accurate and unbiased it must be underwritten by its readers, not by special interests.” - Larry S.
- “Not many other media sources report on the topics Bridge does.” - Susan B.
- “Your journalism is outstanding and rare these days.” - Mark S.
If you want to ensure the future of nonpartisan, nonprofit Michigan journalism, please become a member today. You, too, will be asked why you donated and maybe we'll feature your quote next time!
Michigan’s ballast water restriction in Great Lakes hasn’t worked
Share this:
I was disappointed to see Bridge Magazine mischaracterize the effort to fix Michigan’s broken ballast water regulations. The recent op-ed from Phil Power relies on hysteria, not facts, and the record deserves to be corrected on this issue given its importance to Michigan’s economy.
MORE COVERAGE: Michigan GOP to invasive species: Welcome to the Great Lakes
Michigan’s ballast water restrictions – the most stringent in place in the Great Lakes – were well-intentioned when they were passed more than a decade ago. Leaders from both parties supported the measure based on the promise that if Michigan led the way, other states and provinces would follow.
That simply hasn’t happened, and it doesn’t seem likely anytime soon.
It’s been a dozen years, and no state or Canadian province has joined Michigan. As a result, our restriction is totally meaningless when it comes to protecting the Great Lakes against invasive species.
During House and Senate hearings on House Bill 5095, which would align our policy with other states and the U.S. Coast Guard, the only argument from environmental groups and the state Department of Environmental Quality was that Michigan should continue to wait, fingers crossed, and hope for others to follow.
These same stakeholders said the same thing when the bill was approved in 2005. They’ve said it over the years whenever policymakers rightly ask why no progress is being made. They said it again this month.
The fact is, other states aren’t coming along. As long as Michigan chooses to stand alone, the only real impact on our state is economic harm.
Right now, ships bypass our state altogether and take their business to other Great Lakes ports like the Port of Toledo, Port of Indiana or Thunder Bay. Vessel transportation is off the table as an option for industries like agriculture – unless products are trucked to an out-of-state port, adding to shipping costs. Meanwhile, Michigan port communities are shut off from a key economic opportunity.
House Bill 5095 will put Michigan back on the map as a viable destination for oceangoing vessels for export, expanding options for agriculture and other industries, and sparking economic development in Michigan port communities.
It will have no detrimental impact on the Great Lakes, because the current policy is totally meaningless from an invasive species perspective because other states and provinces allow ballast water discharge.
This was a well-intentioned policy that hasn’t worked. Rather than rely on hyperbole and hope, lawmakers need to take a hard look at the lost economic opportunity resulting from our ballast water policy, do the right thing, and get it fixed.
Related
Bridge welcomes guest columns from a diverse range of people on issues relating to Michigan and its future. The views and assertions of these writers do not necessarily reflect those of Bridge or The Center for Michigan. Bridge does not endorse any individual guest commentary submission. If you are interested in submitting a guest commentary, email your submission or idea to guestcommentary@bridgemi.com. Click here for details and submission guidelines.