Occasionally, I have tended to be parochial in my column. This will be one of those times, as I will be writing about the cruise industry.
The topic of this column is the general permit for wastewater discharge by cruise ships recently published by the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC). The general permit was issued to meet the requirements of the cruise ship initiative adopted by the voters in 2006.
At the time the initiative passed, those ships discharging treated wastewater into Alaska’s waters were meeting the highest standards set anywhere in the world. These ships were also far exceeding the government standards set for the communities the ships visit, particularly for fecal coliforms, matter in the discharge most likely to cause disease.
Both the Coast Guard and ADEC oversee the program. The ships systems are independently tested twice a month to assure they are meeting those agencies’ requirements. So, it was certainly arguable that a permitting system was not necessary.
However, the proponents of the initiative wanted one. But they claimed that, “Hey, this is no big deal. All the cruise ships have to do is get a permit, just like everybody else.” Statements similar to this were found in the proponents’ explanation of the initiative in the state voter information pamphlet and in other written material.
Now for the “hocus-pocus” part. Once the initiative passed the proponents sang a much different song. It wasn’t a permit “just like everyone else’s” that they wanted, but a permit that no community these ships visit could come close to meeting in their own wastewater discharge systems.
In fact the permit the proponents wanted was so strict that it would disallow the drinking water from communities such as Juneau and Ketchikan to be discharged as wastewater. But, it is not the job of the writers of initiatives to write permits. In this case that responsibility belongs to ADEC with some assistance from the Department of Law.
In the summer of 2007, ADEC made public their draft proposal for a permit. Much to the surprise of the cruise industry, the permit contained standards that were stricter than those found in some communities’ drinking water. There were many other problems with the permit, but the driving principle behind the problems with the draft was that it did not provide for any dilution factor for metals content.
All land-based wastewater treatment systems are given dilution factors (or mixing zones), but cruise ships - with the cleanest treated wastewater in the state - were not allowed the same conditions. ADEC and the Department of Law had listened to the sponsors of the initiative who maintained the cruise ships could have a discharge permit “just like everyone else’s” except that there would be no consideration given for the dilution that was obviously taking place.
The industry prepared a detailed response to the draft in the hopes ADEC would understand that dilution needed to be included in the standards in order for the ships to comply with the permit, not because of the much-feared fecal coliform counts, but because of the trace minerals which were coming on board in water used for drinking and bathing and then being discharged as treated wastewater.
Given that much of the discharge takes place when the ships are underway, the dilution is much more effective than what happens with land-based facilities. Even the Anchorage Daily News in an editorial suggested that ADEC take a more rational approach to the permit.
Recently, ADEC released the final permit. In a Solomonesque attempt to “cut the baby in half,” ADEC gave the industry some relief from the original standards for two years. However, the permits last for five years, and for the final three years the industry is once again put in the position of having standards that cannot be met.
I am not sure what the cruise industry will do next. What I do know is that, if the current provisions of the permit are not changed, the real losers will be some of the communities in Southeast and the state itself.
Some communities will lose because the ships will be forced to go outside state waters to discharge, thus either reducing time spent in port or eliminating some port calls altogether. Less time in communities will clearly have a negative economic impact. The state will lose because some taxes on the industry are based either on port time or time in state waters.
If there is any good news, it is that the proponents may have reduced the industry’s tax burden, something also created by the initiative. That these same people have created a situation that is totally unreasonable is, of course, no concern of theirs, nor is the negative impacts that will accrue to others.
There is a lesson here for all of us concerned about the anti-mining initiatives. The lesson is that proponents will say anything to voters to get an initiative adopted. They will downplay any negative effects until the initiative passes. Then – watch out; it will be time for hocus-pocus!
Editor’s Note: John Shively wrote this column before taking on his new responsibilities as Chief Executive Officer with the Pebble Partnership.
Return to newsletter headlines
