New Legislation Could Cause "Irreversible Harm" To Nantucket's Marine Life

A draft bill filed in the U.S. House of Representatives by Alaska representative Nick Begich would dramatically weaken the Marine Mammal Protection Act, potentially putting a number of animals at risk. The draft bill has drawn sharp rebukes from local and national conservation organizations.

“The proposed bill will eviscerate the MMPA in favor of private industry, oil interests and large commercial fishing operations,” Pam Murphy, the president of Nantucket’s Marine Mammal Alliance told the Current. “These are hideous proposals that will cause irreversible harm to the balance of our ecosystem and our planet.”

The bill would amend the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) by curtailing its scope and setting a higher standard for the federal government to take action to protect marine mammals. It would also weaken safeguards on commercial fishing meant to protect marine mammals, potentially boosting the economic productivity of the fishing industry. 

Murphy said that the MMPA has been highly successful at protecting marine mammals and revitalizing their populations.

“The MMPA of 1972 is widely considered to be one of the most successful conservation efforts in the United States,” she said. “The MMPA was the first legislation to recognize the importance of a balanced ecosystem and the role that marine mammals play. Our seal populations are just now reaching the levels nature intended...these and other successes have had enormous economic benefits right here on island and elsewhere in the form of whale and seal watches, and raising awareness for ecotourism.”

The draft bill was discussed at the House Natural Resources Subcommittee on Water, Wildlife and Fisheries Tuesday, where Begich defended it as a necessary effort to make the MMPA more fair and transparent, characterizing the current regulatory regime as overly precautionary.

“We've seen essential projects...held up not because of clear science but because of uncertainty and subjective interpretation. This draft aims to bring clarity, objectivity and balance back into the implementation of the MMPA,” he said. “The issues this bill seeks to address aren't partisan, they're practical.”

The bill has a long way to go before it becomes law. Even if it makes it out of committee and navigates the narrowly divided House of Representatives, it will be incredibly difficult for it to pass the Senate.

In the Senate, legislation that cannot be passed through budget reconciliation generally needs 60 votes to break the filibuster and go to the President’s desk. Democrats and Democrat-aligned independents currently control 47 of the chamber’s 100 seats, meaning seven Senate Democrats would need to support the bill, which is extremely unlikely.

But at least one Democrat, Representative Jared Golden of Maine, expressed his support for Begich’s draft bill Tuesday.

“I have serious concerns with the MMPA and I believe that changes need to be made to the law to ensure it does not end up shutting down entire fisheries,” he said, speaking in support of the draft bill. “The federal government should not be in the business of destroying the livelihoods of hardworking Americans based on assumptions that are not firmly grounded in sound data.”

Enacted in 1972, the MMPA passed the House on a 362-10 vote and swept through the Senate with an 88-2 margin. It cleared both chambers with overwhelming bipartisan support and was signed by Republican President Richard Nixon, part of a series of bipartisan environmental protection bills passed in the early 1970s that included the Clean Water Act, the Endangered Species Act, and the Clean Air Act of 1970.

Many of these acts, including the MMPA, have drawn more controversy in recent years as lobbyists and mainly Republican politicians have attempted to roll back environmental regulations, citing their negative impact on industry and reliance on sometimes uncertain science.

A number of fishing industry leaders have expressed their support for the bill, including trade associations such as the New England Fisheries Association and the Massachusetts Lobstermen’s Association.

One of their principal issues with the current MMPA is the so-called “precautionary principle,” which suggests federal agencies should side against any actions that may have adverse impacts if the science is uncertain. Opponents argue that the precautionary principle was never meant to be applied to the MMPA, and Begich’s draft would resolve the ambiguity.

“Success is becoming harder to achieve in an increasingly burdensome regulatory environment. And for the fisheries that compete with large, subsidized foreign fleets, these regulatory challenges create distinct disadvantages that are almost impossible to overcome,” a joint letter from ten fishery associations sent to the Current reads in part. “The Draft Bill would make crystal clear that—as Congress has always intended—MMPA decisions must be based on the best available data without application of the 'precautionary principle,' precautionary assumptions, worst-case scenarios, or any other factors or assumptions that bias the objective application of the best available data.”

On the other side of the debate are a wide array of conservation groups.

“For more than 50 years, the Marine Mammal Protection Act has safeguarded iconic species like whales, dolphins, polar bears, sea otters and manatees from drowning in fishing gear, being run over by boats and being poisoned by oil spills,” Mark Senatore, Senior Vice President of Conservation Programs for Defenders of Wildife, said in a statement. “True to form, the anti-wildlife members of Congress demonstrate interest not in protecting America’s imperiled wildlife, but only in letting species die in favor of private industry handouts. Defenders strongly opposes this bill and will fight to protect our nation’s marine mammals and our flagship conservation laws.”

Other groups, including the International Fund for Animal Welfare, the Orca Conservancy, Greater Good, Oceana, Whale and Dolphin Conservation-North America, and the International Marine Mammal Project have come out against the bill and urged elected representatives to oppose it.