Milwaukee Journal Sentinel:
http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=610359
Editorial: Learn economic impact
Get more facts and put more pressure on Congress. But don't close the St. Lawrence Seaway to oceangoing freighters — yet.
From the Journal Sentinel
Posted: May 24, 2007
While we don't agree that it's time to close the St. Lawrence Seaway to oceangoing freighters, as a coalition of 90 environmental groups called for on Wednesday, we certainly understand the motivation behind the demand. And if the demand for a temporary closing applies enough pressure on Congress so that it finally acts on legislation to regulate ballast water on those "salties," it will have served a useful purpose.
Of course, if Congress continues to fail to meet its responsibility, the case for closing the seaway becomes compelling. And it makes sense to set a deadline for action - perhaps by the end of this year or a year from now - because Congress would only continue to sit on its collective hands without pressure.
What's needed first, however, is a hard look at the economics of keeping oceangoing vessels out of the Great Lakes. There are pretty solid numbers detailing the impact in billions of dollars that invasive species such as zebra mussels have had on the Great Lakes. And there is no doubt that the ballast water in oceangoing freighters has been a major carrier of those species.
What's less well known is the impact that closing of oceangoing traffic would have on ports and industry in the Great Lakes. Proponents of closing argue that oceangoing shipping accounts for only 7% of the cargo moved on the lakes and in the seaway. But Port of Milwaukee Director Eric Reinelt told us last month that the annual percentage for Milwaukee is usually around 11% and has been as high as about 20%. In 2006, the port handled more than 710,000 metric tons of imports and exports through the seaway, up 99% from 2005.
In addition, he said, oceangoing ships provide the best and cheapest way to deliver such freight as steel and wind turbines used in power generation, as well as to move grain from farmers in southeastern Wisconsin to foreign ports. There could be a cost in higher railroad rates if the ports were shut off as a transportation option.
A hard economic study could determine the cumulative effect of those hits and compare them to the economic and environmental hits that invasive species have had and will continue to have.
The bottom line, though, is that Congress needs to act and that representatives and senators from the Great Lakes states - including Wisconsin - need to take the lead on passing that legislation. Where is that leadership?
How should the Great Lakes states deal with invasive species? E-mail jsedit@journalsentinel.com
---
Distributed without profit to those who have expressed an interest in receiving aquatic invasive species information for research and educational purposes
