Coal: A Perfect Storm Ingredient?

From Wikipedia: A "perfect storm" is an expression that describes an event where a rare combination of circumstances will aggravate a situation drastically. The term is also used to describe an actual phenomenon that happens to occur in such a confluence, resulting in an event of unusual magnitude.
------------------------------------------------------
An inedible recipe: Skagit River bridge collapse. Coal trains for export. Normal events: commuting, business, EMS, school buses, bike rides, Tulip Festival. Public expense. Private exemption. 
-------------------------------------------------------
The past 10 days has seen me travel I-5 to Seattle twice for medical purposes, during which I also experienced the traffic delays caused by the Skagit River bridge's collapse. That little boo-boo was simply caused by an over sized truck colliding with the bridge structure. Of course, the public will pay for rebuilding the bridge, both in terms of government funding and its own inconvenience - including cumulative loss of business and personal time. That is to be expected. But, the unintended consequences of this accidental event caused me to think about how sensitive we are to compounded problems which radiate from such catastrophes.

For example, the detours required to bypass the I-5 bridge travel through adjacent areas that are unaccustomed and unequipped for the volume of traffic, making these alternatives more dangerous as well as slower. Also, the main detour to the west must cross the Skagit River downstream, in constricted Mt Vernon streets, before having to cross the BNSF mainline -at grade- to return to I-5. That creates other problems that also depend on train traffic. See how things can snowball and escalate to larger proportions? 

Now, let's turn back to the proposed GPT proposal that carries with it the prospect of up to 18 additional 1.5 -mile long coal trains per day. Many of the EIS comments submitted cited the inconvenience, danger, and major capital funding necessary to alleviate these problems. Guess what, unexpected events like the Skagit River bridge collapse would/will greatly compound the problem of dealing with many more trains! It is this compounding effect that must be anticipated and dealt with effectively and up-front.

Similar thinking was involved with restarting the Olympic Pipe Line after the disaster that occurred back in 1999.
The concept of applied 'Process Safety Management' was required of the owner/operator before permission was granted to rebuild/restart the pipeline. That took 18 months to satisfy, but the result was a much safer operation that takes into account most of the events -or sequence of events- that could lead to another leak and explosion. I believe the wait was well-worth the additional safety and public confidence.

Because we are an integrated society, it is fitting that public infrastructure be the responsibility of government, which in turn gains its authority and funding through the public - including private enterprise. However, if private enterprise demands higher privileges regarding infrastructure than it is willing to pay for, then additional considerations must be extracted from it. In the case of coal trains, that should include the costs of grade-separated crossings wherever feasible. Why not include these costs as part of the cost of shipping? 
You know, those who benefit, pay.

Floyd McKay has contributed two more articles on Crosscut, called the Tale of Two Cities. The first deals with the City of Ferndale, which seems to see the proposed GPT Coal Terminal through mostly rose-colored glasses; the second deals with the City of Burlington, which sees some real problems with GPT, without rose glasses.

The Skagit River bridge collapse provides a lens through which we can see real life scenarios that are with us now. It doesn't take much imagination to see how much 18 additional coal trains per day would grossly compound such problems, does it? Let's cut out the wishful thinking on GPT and get on with anticipating real problems and their solutions instead.

Water Supply: Searching For Certainty In Uncertain Times

This two-day Symposium [May 30&31] was timely and pretty well attended - at least by those folks who believe the topic is important enough to pay attention.
Here is the link to the announcement, agenda and speakers.
And, here is John Stark's article that appeared afterward in the Bellingham Herald

The discussions covered primary uses, including Agricultural; Industrial; Rural; Urban; and the big unknown, the In-Stream Flows, necessary to ensure fish can live and propagate.
It was on this last 'unknown' that the most interesting development was again revealed, in no uncertain terms; both the Lummi and Nooksack tribes have appealed -two years ago- to the Federal Government to clarify and quantify their most senior water rights. Who can blame them?

As today's Gristle pointed out, only the Feds have jurisdiction over such tribal matters, not the State of Washington; but it is critically important that WRIA-1 water rights be apportioned fairly, not only to ensure adequate In-Stream Flows, but to quantify those rights under jurisdiction of the WA State Dept of Ecology. Largely left out is the groundwater existing in aquifers, which are technically connected by hydraulic continuity, but difficult to completely quantify with the data currently available.

In mathematical terms; X - Y = Z, where X is the total amount of water available, Y is the total necessary In-Stream Flow, and Z is the amount of water available for all other uses. No one seems to know these quantities with any accuracy, or at least are not willing to share that information. But, a large amount of data have already been collected over the 7 years that the $4.5 million WRIA-1 program was fully underway, that could approximate at least the overall range of total water available -by season- in this large drainage.

Much of the uncertainty in the Symposium's title relates directly to this question of quantity, and the various sub-divisions of this quantity necessary to describe the various uses listed above. It is in the divvying up process that major conflicts will come to light, some to the detriment of those who have become accustomed to claiming water rights that either don't belong to them, or don't exist at all.
But, regardless of winners and losers, it is important to resolve this water rights problem sooner rather than later, because it will just get worse as time passes, thus creating more conflict and uncertainty.

One point deserves emphasis, while water law seems complicated, the concept of usufruct applies;  that means folks have the right to use the water, not own it. There is a finite amount of water that exists on this planet, and way less than 1% is potable. Our government consists of duly elected officials, whose duty is to face difficult problems like water rights - and resolve them in a fair, transparent public process!
So, be careful of who you support for elected office. It does matter that they be held accountable!

An earlier blog is worth revisiting, at this URL.

Washington State Water Law

Last Wednesday, May 22, the Bellingham City Club speaker was Tom McDonald, an experienced expert, who spoke on the subject of Washington State Water Law: Whose Water Is It Anyway? And Who Decides? And When? And Will It Be There When I Turn On The Tap? 

This was a timely presentation since water law will impact upcoming decisions on who has rights to water in the 14 river-sheds in Western Washington. Water is essential for human life and is becoming more scarce and polluted as our population grows. Water will limit growth before our land supply will.

(The presentation outline is reproduced below) 

Coming up next Thursday & Friday at the Hampton Inn: Water Supply: Searching for Certainty in Uncertain Times will discuss What is at risk if water issues are not resolved? 

This two day symposium will focus on water supply issues including the factors influencing availability for in-stream and out-of-stream uses as well as the current status of the water supply in Whatcom County.

GPT: A Response to April 13 Bellingham Herald Article

As promised yesterday, here is my response to the following article, published in the April 13, 2013 Bellingham Herald: Terminal's family-wage jobs, taxes would aid Whatcom County(Authors: Brent Goodrich - Ferndale City Council and Bonnie Onyon - Blaine City Council)
-----------------

Article 1 of our Constitution ensures every citizen's right to free speech, including all manner of political or commercial speech that does not unduly malign either the public or other individuals.

Since both Mr Goodrich and Ms Onyon are not only citizens, but elected governmental representatives, what they have written doesn't appear to break any laws, except maybe those of good judgement and balanced accuracy. No, they are likely just expressing their opinions [wishes] while using their public status to influence others to support GPT, despite any drawbacks that plan may be found to have. 

I do find it interesting that the authors have admittedly reached their decision of unqualified support in advance - a priori - of completing the EIS evaluation; but maybe they think they know more than the rest of us, scientists and all? Maybe they do, but that seems highly unlikely.

As a retired Chemical Engineer and former elected member of the Bellingham City Council, I also have reviewed the GPT proposal in detail, and found enough insufficiently addressed or unanswered questions to cause major concerns for me as well as many others in Whatcom County and elsewhere.  A summary of 32 of these identified concerns can be found on the GPT EIS website listed under my name, for those interested.

The authors' un-equivocated acceptance of the most optimistic projections of job and revenue generation, happening immediately, also deserve much closer scrutiny! Perhaps, this factor alone explains their enthusiastic support for GPT, since no heavy lifting on their part is required for their respective municipalities to inherit large windfalls of heretofore unanticipated revenues.

Of course, these most optimistic projections are all predicated upon GPT being permitted, built and actually operated for decades; each of these steps are problematic at best. Even more important are the time delays implicit in the GPT timeline; the best projections will require 20 or more years before they might even be approached! Until that time, significantly less revenues would accrue to the Ferndale and Blaine entities expected (by the authors) to benefit the most from GPT. 

But, the other troubling aspect - entirely dismissed by the authors - is the lack of benefits accruing to other municipalities and entities that would be impacted by GPT and its related formidable array of supply trains and delivery vessels. That part, alone, is shocking, but don't forget yet another major omission, externalizing (ignoring) the costs of impacts on all municipalities and citizens as well as the local -and global- environment! 

In any business evaluation, a thorough cost/benefit analysis is a prudent, even essential, early step.

It's difficult to understand why the authors -and the proponents- would want to truncate this analysis and accept the additional risks to the public and environment that introduces, unless they consider their anticipated gains dwarf all other considerations. 

It appears the cost/benefit analysis these people propose applies only to the more limited local -and only positive- economics side of the equation, conveniently ignoring the equally important social and ecological considerations. For a truly sustainable venture to succeed, full-cost accounting (triple bottom line) is a necessity. That approach would provide a net benefit to everyone in the long-term, not just a few seeking quick, windfall profits and revenues at the expense of others.

Although the authors claim they've 'done their homework', they have miserably failed both the exam and the course! Did they not know that former WA Governor John Spellman, vetoed an earlier Cherry Point Terminal proposal over 30 years ago, stating that gaining a few jobs while badly degrading the environment was a bad trade-off that simply wasn't acceptable? In a Channel 9 interview on April 16, Spellman said he'd made the right decision then, and even though it did not benefit him politically, he'd make the same decision again - 'because it was the right thing to do'.

As the late Senator Patrick Moynihan once said, 'everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but not their own facts'. Let's be more careful of mixing up opinions with facts, because that practice can lead to very poor decision-making that will adversely impact us for many years to come. We citizens deserve consistently good decisions from our elected officials, based upon as thorough an understanding of facts  as possible, before personal opinions are expressed, and certainly before any permits are granted and potentially harmful applications are approved. 

If Mr Goodrich and Ms Onyon aren't up to this standard, why are they in office? Thank goodness they will not be the final decision-makers!

Passages

An unusually eventful day, this April 16;

• Scott Walker announced he will step away from being a Port of Bellingham Commissioner at the end of this year, his 22nd. This presents an opportunity to support candidates able and willing to step up to this task, something that has become a perennial wish for the last several years.
Know anyone?

• Ken Oplinger announced his resignation as Executive Director of the Bellingham/Whatcom County Chamber of Commerce and member of the Blaine City Council. He has accepted another CofC position in Santa Barbara, CA. Another opportunity to advocate for qualified people who are willing and able. Wonder if Santa Barbara will support a large Coal Export Terminal?

• The day after yet another tragic, terrorist-like event, this one at the Boston Marathon yesterday which killed at least 3 and injured over 170. The details are now emerging, but let's hope the perpetrators are found and punished to the full extent of the law.

• An interesting KCTS TV program with Enrique Cerna, who interviewed 4 former WA Governors; Dan Evans, John Spellman, Mike Lowry and Christine Gregoire. Spellman recalled his decisions to veto both the Northern Tier Pipeline and an earlier version of the CBI Cherry Point Terminal, saying he would do that all over again, because trading a few jobs for major environmental degradation was -and is- a bad idea. How's that for guts? BTW, Spellman is a Republican.

• I've been asked to write a Letter-To-Editor in response to a recent Bellingham Herald editorial authored by Brent Goodrich who serves on the Ferndale City Council and Bonnie Onyon who serves on the Blaine City Council. This will be submitted shortly, so stay tuned.

Coal: GPT Summary Scoping Report

Last Friday, March 29, the GPT MAP Team issued online, its Summary Scoping Report which incorporates the public Scoping Comments submitted during the 4-month period ending January 22, 2013.
This new141-page pdf document is available at this URL:

Earlier, Floyd Mackay published a 3-part series of articles on Crosscut, as shown following.
As usual, he nails what the key issues are and the likely process to occur looking forward.

Part 1.  Coal Wars: Export backers push jobs, try to limit environmental review

Part 2. Coal Wars: Port opponents make big use of access to information

Part 3.  Coal Wars: How voters are shaping their leaders' decisions

An additional Crosscut Article by Lisa Stiffler addresses the Puget Sound Herring decline issue.

Stay tuned for future developments during review of the Summary Scoping Report.
Decision-making could occur around this November according to a reliable source.

Water: White Smoke Over Whatcom County?

Having just watched the joyful ceremonies that confirmed the election of Pope Francis I in Rome, it seems we have also experienced our own 'white smoke' event here in Bellingham.
By all early indications, the election of Pope Francis I is being viewed as a very popular choice that emphasizes humility and the communication of true caring for all humanity.
A very worthy and timely choice, indeed!
-----------------------

Today's Gristle carried this story about the likely Reconveyance vote - before actual results were known.
Last night's County Council meeting was also live-blogged by Riley Sweeney, but, again, terminated before the actual decision was made.
But, this morning The Herald finished the story complete with the final vote.

Who knew that our Whatcom County Council would also tangibly demonstrate its commitment to a higher cause than the politics of division?
Like many others I had faith that the Council would eventually come to the right decision after several years of careful deliberation, but faith is always renewed by good acts that actually come to pass.
And so it was that the long-debated DNR Reconveyance of over 8 thousand acres of forestland around the Lake Whatcom Reservoir came to pass late last night by a recorded final vote of 5 to 2.
Thank goodness for that outcome!

Now, we have added assurance that we are on the right track in preserving a precious natural resource.
And, that future policy is more likely to follow and augment this example of forward-looking leadership, greatly aided and abetted by strong follower-ship by thousands of concerned citizens.
Next, comes a focus on more enlightened land use policies and storm water regulations that support the implicit policy of preservation that underlies last night's Reconveyance decision.

More very difficult decisions will be required to address the severe water degradation challenges identified by DOE's recent TMDL Report.
That means the Lake Whatcom Watershed must be viewed and treated differently than before; no longer to be considered as either an area for affordable housing or luxury mega-home sites for the wealthy, but a place to be respected for its critical importance as our long-term drinking water source.

Fortunately, de-emphasizing development of all sorts fits the idea of allowing this watershed to more closely mimic nature, which is known to be both the most effective and least expensive way to control harmful run-off into the Reservoir. An added benefit could be that additional properties will be made reasonably available for conservation purposes, thereby achieving a further desirable 'tipping point' in public opinion and perception.

I am thankful that the Reconveyance decision has been made, because it helps guide those additional right-minded decisions that must be made in the future.
---------------------------------