A U.S. District Judge upheld as constitutional a Michigan law requiring oceangoing vessels to sanitize their ballast tanks in order to prevent the spread of certain “invasive species, including round gobies and zebra mussels.”

I won’t pretend to know anything about maritime affairs, the logistics of sanitizing a million gallons of ballast, or commercial law especially with regards to open waterways, etc. I’m also not a specialist in ConLaw, either. But based on my limited understanding of the document and its application, it doesn’t seem like this is an undue restriction of interstate commerce. Although perhaps it is: consider a similar scenario where the State of California outlawed late-model, out-of-state vehicles (which do not meet its emissions standards) from entering the People’s Republic? But I digress.

This headline caught my eye today because, on its face, the case is nearly identical, qualitatively, to Coase’s examination (pp 13) of the farmer and the train, which passes his property on a nearby track, occasionally dropping burning embers which could potentially destroy his crop. (Incidentally, it’s also an examination of Pigou taxes.) Should the railway pay to install preventative measures on the trains? Or is this the farmer’s responsibility? Should the State pay to sanitize these tanks? Or is this the shipping companies’ responsibility?

We learn from Coase is that these problems are far more likely where property rights are poorly defined, and there are perhaps few better examples than the vast, inland seas which comprise the largely “public” waterways of the Great Lakes. Do I think there’s probably a better way to solve these problems than the adversarial manner of escalating court cases and duelling lawyers? Almost certainly. Do I want to propose the solution? Not really. I just think it’s interesting when I come across a real-life example like this.