EDITORIAL
Cruise industry can't be left to regulate itself

The cruise line industry, which is booming in Hawai'i, prefers self-regulation when it comes to environmental and pollution requirements.

It's a desirable industry, with many undeniable benefits. Hawai'i and Florida have cooperated fully, allowing cruise liners to operate under very similar memoranda of understanding (MOU) that are each entirely voluntary. And so far, it appears the industry is playing strictly by the rules in its agreement here.

The problem is that appearances can be — and have been — deceiving. Hawai'i's memorandum trusts the industry to tell on itself, by reporting all violations. Unfortunately, the industry — at least in past years — has had a track record elsewhere that too often has failed to live up to this level of trust.

Further, the Hawai'i MOU contains no specific sanctions for violations of the rules, either deliberate or accidental. Yes, there are existing environmental laws that carry penalties, but there is no specific sanction mechanism in the MOU.

Hawai'i, with pristine waters as one of its most valuable and irreplaceable assets, needs a much more rigorous system of regulation of cruise ships. There's no need to re-invent the wheel here; the state of Alaska backs up its system with the force of a law that provides:

• A verified program of sampling, testing and reporting of wastewater and air discharges.
• Enforceable standards for what cruise ships may discharge in Alaska waters.
• Payment by the cruise ship industry for the costs of the program.

According to a study by Ross Klein, a Newfoundland environmentalist and scholar, the Alaska laws have had positive results:

• Air emission violations reduced from 39 between 1999 through 2001, to one in each of the past two years.
• Violations of wastewater discharge standards "are almost nil, compared to four in the first two months of its implementation" and serious incidents before the law was passed.

It should be instructive to Hawai'i lawmakers that the cruise industry has put its newest ships, with the most high-tech treatment systems, on their Alaska routes. There's no need to pick a fight with the industry over this issue; it's obvious it finds Alaska a profitable place to cruise, despite its more rigorous pollution laws.

By contrast, the memorandum of understanding approach has proved ineffective in enforcing violations. The cruise industry promised it would voluntarily follow Alaska standards in Washington state waters. When the Norwegian Sun was cited for the illegal discharge of 16,000 gallons of raw sewage in May near Whidbey Island, reports Klein, the company appealed the citation it received from the state on the grounds that the state does not have the power to regulate cruise ships.

State Sen. Cal Kawamoto, chairman of the Senate Committee on Transportation, Military Affairs and Government Operations, vows that no proposal to subject the industry to legal regulation will get through his committee. "Until such time we see them violating the MOU," says Kawamoto, "we're not going to give the cruise ships a hard time by submitting things that are not necessary."

Given the industry's commitment to a "clean and green" operation, we're sure it won't object to thorough, objective reporting. Most of the serious violations discovered elsewhere were unlikely flukes, reported by passengers or other witnesses. Hawai'i has too much to lose from such a system.