Judge: EPA must regulate ship water discharge

Environmental

An appeals court Wednesday upheld a ruling ordering the Environmental Protection Agency to regulate the water discharged from ships as a way to protect local ecosystems from invasive species.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said it agreed with the federal judge who in 2005 ruled that the EPA exceeded its authority in exempting certain ship discharges from the pollution control requirements of the 1972 Clean Water Act.

A handful of environmental groups and states sued the EPA to require it to regulate ballast water because of concerns that invasive aquatic species such as mollusks were being pumped into local waters.

Except for sewage, ship discharges are exempt from regulation. Wednesday's court ruling applies to bilge water and non-sewage wastewater from a ships' showers, laundries, galleys and engines.

While the EPA was appealing the judge's decision, it also drafted regulations requiring oceangoing freighters to dump ballast water at least 200 miles from shore and refill their tanks with new seawater to flush and kill invasive freshwater species.

The agency is taking public comments on the regulations, which would take effect Sept. 30.

"We're reviewing the decision to determine next steps," Benjamin H. Grumbles, EPA's assistant administrator for water said in a statement. "It's commonsense and good environmental policy not to require millions of boaters and vessel owners to get federal clean water permits."

The ruling comes as efforts to establish a federal standard for cleaning up ballast water have stalled in Congress. Among other issues, California officials have expressed concerns to lawmakers that the state's stricter standards could be pre-empted by a weaker federal law.

Some environmental groups contend the EPA's plan to block foreign species does little to prevent exotics from slipping into U.S. ports and water bodies.

"It's a good first step," said Nina Bell, executive director of Northwest Environmental Advocates, one of the groups that brought the lawsuit. "But the EPA's got a long way to go when it comes to regulating ballast water."

Numerous invasive species have devastated aquatic ecosystems throughout the country. In the Great Lakes, global hitchhikers such as the quagga mussel and the freshwater ruffe fish out-compete native species for food, spread disease and cost the regional economy billions a year.

Six states, including New York, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania, joined as plaintiffs in the suit. A shipping industry group joined the EPA in fighting the regulations.

Related listings

  • EPA dropped wetlands cases after high court ruling

    EPA dropped wetlands cases after high court ruling

    Environmental 07/08/2008

    The Bush administration didn't pursue hundreds of potential water pollution cases after a 2006 Supreme Court decision that restricted the Environmental Protection Agency's authority to regulate seasonal streams and wetlands.From July 2006 through Dec...

  • Court says no deadline for EPA on global warming

    Court says no deadline for EPA on global warming

    Environmental 06/27/2008

    A federal appeals court refused Thursday to make a resistant Bush administration speed up a decision on whether greenhouse gases and global warming threaten public health and welfare.The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia denied a pet...

  • 3 states head to court to keep control over wolves

    3 states head to court to keep control over wolves

    Environmental 05/07/2008

    Three states are defending their ability to sustain a gray wolf population in the Northern Rockies, asking to be heard in a federal lawsuit that seeks to return the wolves to the endangered species list.The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service decided to r...

Grounds for Divorce in Ohio - Sylkatis Law, LLC

A divorce in Ohio is filed when there is typically “fault” by one of the parties and party not at “fault” seeks to end the marriage. A court in Ohio may grant a divorce for the following reasons:
• Willful absence of the adverse party for one year
• Adultery
• Extreme cruelty
• Fraudulent contract
• Any gross neglect of duty
• Habitual drunkenness
• Imprisonment in a correctional institution at the time of filing the complaint
• Procurement of a divorce outside this state by the other party

Additionally, there are two “no-fault” basis for which a court may grant a divorce:
• When the parties have, without interruption for one year, lived separate and apart without cohabitation
• Incompatibility, unless denied by either party

However, whether or not the the court grants the divorce for “fault” or not, in Ohio the party not at “fault” will not get a bigger slice of the marital property.

Business News

New York & New Jersey Family Law Matters We represent our clients in all types of proceedings that include termination of parental rights. >> read