S.770: National Aquatic Invasive Species Act of 2005
February 28, 2006
S.770 is the “comprehensive” bill over which the Greens have been drooling. More than $150M will fund “Invasive Species” (“IS”) projects we have seen before: monitoring, “rapid response” and management plans, “research” as precursors to regulation, native ecosystems, databases, impossible “screening” models, partnering with international NGOs, ad nauseam. "IS" and other definitions in S.770 give the Greens and bureaucracies free rein.
S.770 is Bad News - all 130 pages of it - but this and other "Aquatics IS" bills contain details that make each unique.
1. The recent entry of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) onto the “IS” scene is of ominous significance. Those who know the horrors of Sec. 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) testify to the importance of this. The EPA has been maneuvering behind the scenes to gain primacy over the “IS” agenda. What better way than to use its already court-sanctioned authority over “water” than to assume regulatory control over “Aquatics?” Within Green and bureaucratic circles, “biological pollution” has been a synonym for “IS” for some time. Recent court cases/adjudications in California and Wisconsin have “confirmed” this power -- having done so without benefit of “IS” legislation. If S.770, with authorities granted to the EPA and accompanying embedded definitions, becomes U.S. law, it’s “Katie, bar the door!”
2. “Aquatic Ecosystems,” as defined, include wetlands. “Aquatics” is not just about e. coli, fish and zebra mussels in the Great Lakes. It is also about seasonal potholes, creeks, sloughs (“fens” to the Greens), riparian areas, maybe even cisterns. Think Sec 404 CWA. Think EPA. Think Wayne Hage. Think 9th Circuit. Then think how S.770 would affect your farm, ranch or rural property.
3. S.770 renders oversight impossible. What committee will oversee the combined shenanigans of the EPA, Fish & Wildlife Service, Coast Guard, Corps of Engineers, Homeland Security, and NOAA? Though not all are named in the bill, the 20-plus Federal agencies with their fingers in the “IS” pie would become further empowered.
4. S.770 differs from the Transportation Bill in that, although its regulations would eventually affect every American, the pork-barrel aspect is weighted toward NGOs operating in favored States, primarily the vote-rich Great Lakes States.
5. S.770 embodies the Precautionary Principle. Under its “screening” sections, all living "nonnative organisms" must be “proven” to not cause harm. To the Greens, “environmental harm” means the mere presence of "nonnative" species. S.770 tightens the garrote by adding “structure and functions of ecosystems” and “public welfare” to the criteria for “harm.”
6. S.770 is touted as a bill to regulate “Invasive Species” originating outside the U.S., but its definitions provide for regulation of domestic transfer of species from one “ecosystem” to another.
7. S.770 establishes an “Emergency Rapid Response Fund” within the U.S. Treasury.
8. S.770 creates Federal, State and Regional Rapid Response Teams.
9. Grants are established for “systematics and taxonomic” research to satisfy government “needs to identify 'Invasive Species.’”
10. S.770 essentially requires States to duplicate or mimic Federal "Invasive Species" programs through Federal funding.
11. S.770 requires coordination with International organizations such as the Global Invasive Species Programme (GISP). GISP was created by initiatives at the UN, the World Conservation Union (IUCN), the Convention on Biological Diversity and other Green organizations.
12. Among S.770's many fiscal abominations, $30M is authorized annually for “IS” grants.
S.770 is quite possibly “the next ESA.”
S.363: The Ballast Water Management Act of 2005
February 28, 2006
Senate Bill S.363, by title and at first glance, appears to be legislation with a legitimate practical purpose, i.e., one designed to improve water quality, especially in the Great Lakes (GL). If it were addressing a known procedural problem like dumping excessive bacteria and chemicals into the Great Lakes, which was previously un- or under-regulated, arguments against it would be difficult.
However, from the preface of the bill (“Findings”), it is clear that this is another “Invasive Species” (“IS”) bill with all the known ramifications of that "native ecosystem" agenda. It is not just about e. coli or harmful microbes – It is also about plants, fish and animals.
S.363 is notably a stand-alone version of sections in the comprehensive “Aquatics Invasive Species” bill, S.770. The Greens, bureaucrats and special interests far prefer S.770 to S.363, because S.770 is all-encompassing, grants vast powers (especially to the EPA), targets the entire country, and has ten times the annual funding of S.363. Nevertheless, S.363 codifies “IS.”
This is the No. 1 reason to oppose all bills containing even a mention of “IS.”
As with the “Aquatics IS” bill, S.363 not only codifies “IS,” it also partially codifies the EPA’s rise to power in the world of “IS” regulation. The National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) is also empowered to determine which interlopers cause “harm to the environment.” We know from seven years of experience that the “IS” crowd considers any "nonnative species" to cause “harm to the environment” by its mere presence. The powers given to these two agencies become virtually unlimited through “adverse impact” clauses and the authority to “designate additional regulated areas,” which won’t stop at the Great Lakes.
From the Devil’s Details Department comes the fact that, despite the bill’s title, non-ballast water factors are to be included in future standards and procedures. Think mission creep. Think boat hulls, wading boots, trailers, etc.
There are other concerns about S.363: its impact on commercial shipping, commerce, jobs, commercial sport fishing, existing authorities, etc. With 50 years of ballast exchanges since opening the St. Lawrence Seaway, any net benefits to stricter, more costly ballast regulations are highly questionable. This begs the question: If ships have been dumping critters from the Black Sea into the Port of Milwaukee for 50 years, what further “damage” can be done?
This report will leave the commerce aspects to those interests who could be harmed by S.363. For our purposes, the introduction of “IS” into U.S. law – and the ascension of the EPA into “IS” regulation – are cause enough for alarm.
