CLOSE TO HOME: Toxic cleanup must come
before freight
By PATTY CLARY
Published: Wednesday, May 6, 2009 at 3:00 a.m.
Last Modified: Tuesday, May 5, 2009 at 4:28 p.m.
A recent Close to Home column (“Are freight trains in Sonoma County’s
future?” April 30) which attacked a deputy attorney general who
has threatened legal action if the North Coast Railroad Authority doesn’t
deal with the toxic mess littering its rail lines and yards, was way off
track.
Actually, the attorney general’s worst offense has been to allow
the North Coast Rail Authority to ignore a court-sanctioned decree made
10 years ago to stop the discharge of toxic waste — including waste
left by Southern Pacific that California took on when it bought the rail
corridor in 1991 with funds allocated by voter initiative.
Even at this late date, the attorney general isn’t requiring that
the NCRA stop all discharge of pollutants from the rail corridor, just
that plans agreed upon by the NCRA all those years ago will finally be
made and approved before operations can begin.
Eighty-plus years of neglect and disregard for the drinking water, wildlife
and economy of our region have left their toxic mark on five counties
and dozens of watersheds through which the railroad runs.
The situation is so grave that three state agencies joined together in
1997 to sue the NCRA to stop the discharge of chemicals spilled, burned,
sprayed, dumped and buried throughout the rail corridor.
Despite the passage of years, many areas of the North Coast remain severely
depressed because of the proximity to toxic sites owned — and neglected
— by the NCRA. Now the rail authority, itself an agency of the state,
wants to resume operations without restoring these blighted sites as it
agreed.
What’s more, to avoid living up to the terms of the decree, the
NCRA has pleaded poverty as its limiting factor, an argument that convinced
reluctant state regulators to hold off prosecution and even try to obtain
money for the railroad.
Yet in a recent legal action brought by Novato, railroad authorities told
the court they had never claimed that a shortage of funds has been the
obstacle to dealing with the toxic chemicals despite written evidence
they had made such claims for years.
Then, to add insult to injury, the NCRA settled the Novato lawsuit so
that the original decree was trumped by the new agreement and did so without
consulting the state agencies or the attorney general’s office.
Under terms of the original decree, the NCRA must write plans for dealing
with spills, waste storage, storm water and a dozen other critical concerns.
That’s only the first step. And it’s the only step needed
to start operation of the freight line.
In 10 years, the NCRA has not even begun to write those plans. For the
NCRA or its supporters to cry foul at this point is typical of its history
of obfuscation of the real problems associated with the rail line. Sentimental
visions of the charms of railroads and unsubstantiated claims of being
“green” or good for the economy have, for too long, served
as smoke screens to cover the deeply toxic aspects of its operations,
past and present.
The last year this railroad made money was 1974 — at the end of
the old growth redwood economy — and its future profitability is
doubtful. Where then will the money come from to deal with the toxic burden
the state took on when it formed the NCRA and bought the line?
That’s the real question at the heart of the railroad dispute. Hiding
our heads in the sand and blaming the messenger isn’t going to help
deal with this bitter pill. Some clarity, even just the laying of plans,
would be a start.
Patty Clary is the programs and policy director for Californians for Alternatives
to Toxics, based in Eureka. Clary grew up listening to the train horn
from across a field in Santa Rosa and sometimes was late to school at
St. Rose when the train blocked West 9th Street
News
South Fork Eel River
Total Maximum Daily Loads for
Sediment and Temperature
Report
Prepared by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Turning
Water into Wine, June 1, 2007
an article from the SF Chronicle
with a follow up by David Keller, Friends of the Eel River Bay Area
Director
Massive California
Water Reclamation Scheme Full of Holes
EPA Warns of Unproven Approach, Severe Eco-Effects
and Huge Taxpayer Costs. Read
the News Release here
Thirst: Fighting the Corporate Theft of Our Water
from Wiley imprint Jossey-Bass
RE: Proposed alternatives to Restructured Agreement for
Water Supply, Section 2.4, Potter Valley Project acquisition
SCWA staff and attorneys have provided their first response
to the problems identified in the Restructured Agreement for Water Supply
regarding purchasing the Potter Valley Project, with its financial and
environmental costs and ratepayer risks. Friends of the Eel River has
presented alternative language controlling such risks.
To: Our community of water consumers, Water
Contractors, fisheries supporters and watershed restorers
Back to top
|
