For which are we striving?
No one disputes that ballast water, on occasion, may contain deleterious creatures. We only have to look at the problems caused by the inadvertent introduction of zebra mussels into the Great Lakes of North America to recognize the potential damage. On the other hand, the world is fraught with dangers and uncertainties. Persons arriving from foreign countries may be harboring bacteria and viruses that might cause serious illness in those they encounter. The swine flu is a current example, although the disease does not have a high fatality rate. The same cannot be said for the Ebola virus, which causes hemorrhagic fever and has a fatality rate in the range of 75%. The virus was originally discovered in the Democratic Republic of the Congo in 1976. There was a brief outbreak in Reston, Virginia in 1989. We don’t require everyone arriving from central Africa to prove that they do not have Ebola. Why is it that certain states, such as California and Michigan, are imposing ballast water standards that could not be met by some of the municipal drinking water in this country? I concur that standards should exist to reduce the risk of future zebra mussel-type incidents, but as a practical matter the risk cannot be reduced to zero. Also, we know that ballast water is not the only vector for the introduction of non-indigenous species. Consider, for example, the Asian carp that infests the Mississippi River basin, which was brought to the United States for experimental purposes, but escaped into the wild. No one is espousing that all experiments with foreign organisms be prohibited unless the organism is dead. Rather, appropriate standards are developed for such work, so as to keep the risks within reasonable limits. The US Coast Guard is attempting to develop reasonable standards for the discharge of ballast water. Those standards deserve our full support.