From Stark
After receiving thousands of petition signatures urging him to oppose construction of coal export terminals in Washington state, Public Lands Commissioner Lands Commissioner Peter Goldmark has issued a brief statement.
“I have heard from literally tens of thousands of people on the issue of coal exports and appreciate input from all sides of this issue. It is very important for interested parties to participate in all stages of this public review process. Any new terminal to export coal will go through a rigorous environmental review process by the appropriate permitting agencies.
Although the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) is not a permitting agency, we will participate and comment on any potential adverse environmental impacts of the proposal.
Any decision I make will be made after DNR is presented with a comprehensive proposal which addresses all aspects of the project, including information developed through environmental review. We are proceeding carefully and considering all relevant factors as we continue to work closely with local, state and federal regulatory agencies.”
The Sierra Club has been sending out emails urging people to send Goldmark a message at this online site.
The Climate Solutions group also presented DNR with about 40,000 signatures opposing coal exports.
When and if the Gateway Pacific Terminal coal export project at Cherry Point gets approval from Whatcom County, the Department of Ecology and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the spotlight would shift to Goldmark and the Department of Natural Resources. DNR has legal control over most of the state’s “aquatic lands,” meaning lands under the water, and those who use those “lands” must lease them from DNR.
Once SSA Marine has permits in hand for Gateway Pacific, the firm would have to obtain an aquatic lands lease from DNR before it can build.
The area where the coal pier would be built is surrounded by DNR’s Cherry Point Aquatic Reserve. The management plan for that reserve, issued in late 2010, envisions construction of some kind of new pier on SSA’s property off Gulf Road. SSA officials expressed satisfaction with that management plan when it was completed. But the plan also notes the potential harm that such a pier could do to the struggling herring population, among other harmful impacts.
The problem with this review and approval process is that they have divided the approval between too many different agencies. The coal dust is entirely under the oversight of the EPA, so the impact of the coal dust in the water will not be considered by the DNR. DNR will only address the impact of the dock, itself.
It’s the same with the impact of the coal dust from the coal piles on the farms, animals and people who live near the terminal. It will only be addressed through the EPA.
This doesn’t seem right. I would hope that the person who told me this is wrong. I would sure like to know the truth.
‘…Considering all relevant factors.’
Assures Mr. Goldmark.
Relevant is sure a scary word because I’ve never met two people who could decide what it means.
Take a look at pdf Page 58 (document page 52) on the aquatic reserve management plan linked above. It does sound as though DNR will want substantial documentation of environmental issues before granting the lease.
Rubie, that is what I was referring to about the coal dust. The state dept of ecology tells me that they cannot consider it because it is under the oversight of the EPA.
John could you please provide a link to the pdf document? Thanks, because I was told that even the coal dust in the stormwater would not be considered outside of the EPA.
Click on the “management plan” link in the post above
John – Yes, but they are only talking about the environmental impact of the dock, itself and the ships in regard to shadowing, etc. They are not evaluating the impact of the coal dust which will come from the open coal piles on land.
That’s what I meant by dividing the approval process between so many agencies that the overall impact is lessened.
There is no reason for SSA to be using open coal piles in the first place and the only agency that can force them to use a closed system is the EPA. It’s just not likely to happen. So much of the environmental impact could be lessened if they would use a completely closed system like Craig Cole promised.
I could be wrong, but it seems to me that DNR has some pretty broad authority to consider a proposal’s impacts on the adjoining marine reserve when deciding whether to grant the aquatic lands lease. If there is convincing evidence of harm to the aquatic reserve, or of risk to the herring at the pier site itself, why can’t DNR take that into consideration?
Just to be clear: the pier site itself is not in the aquatic reserve. The maps show that there is a cutout from the reserve to accommodate a pier. But there is no lease on that site. The aquatic reserve management plan seems to call for a formidable array of scientific study to assess any new pier’s impacts. Of course, it remains to be seen what all this official language will mean in practice, if this project gets all the other permits it needs and proceeds to DNR to get the lease.
I don’t know about DNR. I didn’t talk to anyone from DNR, just the dept of ecology, but from what I have been told, it the authority is limited to what is specifically stated and the EPA is the only agency that has the authority to monitor the coal dust.
That’s the reason that Goldman Sachs and SSA aren’t proposing a closed coal system to protect the ground water, ecology can’t make them. Only the EPA can require the closed that they close the coal piles.
“Relevant factors”? Railroad and coal campaign contributions.
The revelant factor…
But the framers of our Constitution foresaw this state of things and provided for it by declaring the supremacy not only of itself but of the laws made in pursuance of it. The nullity of any act inconsistent with the Constitution is produced by the declaration that the Constitution is supreme law. The appropriate application of that part of the clause which confers the same supremacy on laws and treaties is to such acts of the state legislatures as do not transcend their powers, but though enacted in the execution of acknowledged state powers, interfere with, or are contrary to, the laws of Congress, made in pursuance of the Constitution or some treaty made under the authority of the United States. In every such case, the act of Congress or the treaty is supreme; and the law of the state, though enacted in the exercise of powers not controverted, must yield to it.
The best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the marketplace of ideas.
http://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=true&doc=24
“Commerce, undoubtedly, is traffic, but it is something more – it is intercourse.”
Mr. Webster for the plaintiffs, the Chief Justice for the Court, and of course, off course the State of New York?
Tories, just like here in the 4th Corner, and General Washington’s favorite holiday, “Evacuation Day!”
Commerce in a Hamster, cage with free spinning wheel to nowhere, also included, complete evap of Mr Justice Mashall’s Intercourse Theory, and complete conception clause for baby hamsters
Liberty,
You’re surely an expert legal wonk,
but really don’t you think environmental law and other state restrictions say on on shorelines use
will ultimately trump any named Constitutional rights pushed by the Feds
like unrestricted interstate commerce?
The rail corridor to the Port of Vancouver terminals has drawn hundreds of millions worth of over passes and other improvements as a condition of use.
Are you saying that as a community we’re less able than a few Canadians?
The overpass was explained long ago rubie,
“It is also not entirely unworthy of observation, that in declaring what shall be the supreme law of the land, the constitution itself is first mentioned; and not the laws of the United States generally, but those only which shall be made in pursuance of the constitution, have that rank.
I suppose United States v. Locke, and another Cherry Point Case, also didn’t explain it clear enough.
Christine 0, United States 9.
The Overpass again?
The State of Washington has enacted legislation in an area where the federal interest has been manifest since the beginning of our Republic and is now well established. The authority of Congress to regulate interstate navigation, without embarrassment from intervention of the separate States and resulting difficulties with foreign nations, was cited in the Federalist Papers as one of the reasons for adopting the Constitution. E.g., The Federalist Nos. 44, 12, 64. In 1789, the First Congress enacted a law by which vessels with a federal certificate were entitled to “the benefits granted by any law of the United States.” Act of Sept. 1, 1789, ch. 11, §1, 1 Stat. 55. The importance of maritime trade and the emergence of maritime transport by steamship resulted in further federal licensing requirements enacted to promote trade and to enhance the safety of crew members and passengers. See Act of July 7, 1838, ch. 191, 5 Stat. 304; Act of Mar. 3, 1843, ch. 94, 5 Stat. 626. In 1871, Congress enacted a comprehensive scheme of regulation for steam powered vessels, including provisions for licensing captains, chief mates, engineers, and pilots. Act of Feb. 28, 1871, ch. 100, 16 Stat. 440.
That’s why steamships register outside the US.
Also, since the Constitution isn’t really the answer to any of your problems
just because you believe it to be so,
I’d suggest that there is tons of room for interpretations on virtually any modern issue.