Sierra Club Sues to Stop Stockton Rail Expansion

By Mark Edward Nero

Environmental organization the Sierra Club is suing to stop the Port of Stockton from moving forward with a $7.4 million rail expansion project that would double the port’s freight capacity. Weeks after the port’s May 4 approval of a contract, the Sierra Club has filed a lawsuit against the deal in San Joaquin County Superior Court in Central California. Earthjustice, a nonprofit law group in San Francisco, is representing the Sierra Club in the legal action.

The contract was awarded to engineering and construction company Industrial Railways to build 22,000 feet of new track - enough to allow the port to double its capacity from six bulk unit trains per week to 12.

The port says the increased capacity is needed because the port’s rail operations are so busy that they’re operating at 120 percent of capacity. The port says it saw about 97,000 rail cars in 2014, an average of more than 265 a day.

The lawsuit states that rail shipments of coal and emissions of coal dust from the open-topped freight cars could cause “impaired lung function, cardiovascular disease and developmental disorders.” The suit requests that a full state environmental review be conducted.

The port, however, has maintained that a full review isn’t required because the project consists primarily of replacing existing rail and California’s environmental rules provide exemptions for repair or maintenance of existing facilities.

The Sierra Club maintains that exemptions don’t apply in this case, since the project would add new rail lines and associated infrastructure, thereby expanding the port’s rail capacity and increasing the scale of the port’s operations.

Port of Vancouver Wins Terminal Lawsuit

By Mark Edward Nero

A Superior Court Judge on Jan. 10 ruled against three environmental groups that have been trying to stop the Port of Vancouver, Washington from moving forward with a proposed 42-acre oil-handling terminal.

The three groups – Columbia Riverkeeper, the Northwest Environmental Defense Center and the Sierra Club – sued in October 2013 to stop the project, maintaining that its 10-year, $45 million lease was approved before an environmental study had been conducted.

Judge David Gregerson dismissed the claim, but also said the environmental groups are still allowed to continue pursuing a separate complaint, which alleges that the port violated the Washington state open meetings laws by conducting a “secret” meeting to discuss the lease last July 22.

Gregerson’s decision against the environmental groups is eligible to be appealed, but on the day of the ruling, Columbia Riverkeeper Executive Director Brett VandenHeuvel would not comment on whether the groups would appeal the decision. The port’s legal representative, however, said Vancouver intends to adhere to the stipulation regarding the July 22 executive session conducted by the Commission.

“We understand the court’s desire to allow the plaintiffs time to pursue limited additional evidence,” port attorney Lawson Fite of the Markowitz, Herbold, Glade & Mehlhaf firm, said. “We intend to work with the plaintiffs to provide the necessary information in an efficient manner.”

The project in question is a joint proposal by petroleum products company Tesoro Corp. and supply chain solutions business Savage Companies, a to develop and operate a new 120,000 barrel-per-day (bpd) crude-by-rail unloading and marine loading facility at the Port of Vancouver.

The Tesoro-Savage joint venture would own the crude unloading and marine loading facilities and enter into a land lease agreement with the port for an initial 10-year period. Savage would oversee and manage the design, construction and operation of the facility on the joint venture’s behalf.

The deal, which was approved by the Port of Vancouver Board of Commissioners last October, is still subject to approval by state regulatory agencies.

“The port will continue to work collaboratively with the environmental community and other stakeholders as the Tesoro-Savage project is reviewed,” port Executive Director Todd Coleman said in a statement.

Judge Rules Against Coos Bay in Documents Case

A Coos County Circuit Court judge has issued a ruling against the Port of Coos Bay in a public records fee case against the Sierra Club. Judge Paula Bechtold ruled Jan. 25 that the port violated both the law and the Sierra Club’s constitutional rights by failing to grant the group a multi-thousand dollar fee waiver.

The issue before the court was whether the port or the Sierra Club should pay the costs of a far-reaching records request by the environmental group. In this case, Judge Bechtold ruled that the port must waive the fees and bear the costs of responding to the request and that the port violated the Sierra Club’s constitutional rights by requesting documentation to support the group’s claims that granting it a fee waiver was in the public interest.

Oregon law allows public agencies to charge reasonable fees for making public records available upon request, specifically stating that the port’s fees may include “the cost of time spent by an attorney for the public body in reviewing the public records, redacting material from the public records or segregating the public records into exempt and nonexempt records.”

The bulk of the estimated fee quoted to the Sierra Club was for the expected costs associated with legal review, redaction and segregation of records.

“I am particularly troubled by the court’s finding that the port’s handling of this matter somehow violated the Constitution,” port CEO David Koch said in a statement after the judge’s ruling. “That was certainly not the port’s intention, and we are committed to reviewing the port’s public records policies and procedures with outside legal counsel and forwarding any recommended changes to the Port Commission.”