SEATTLE – The Washington Supreme Court threw a major wrench Thursday in plans for a big oil terminal on the coast, saying the proposal must be reviewed under a 1989 state law designed to protect marine life following the Exxon Valdez spill in Alaska.
In the latest of a string of victories for tribal and environmental groups challenging fossil fuel projects in the Northwest, the justices unanimously reversed decisions by a state board and the state Court of Appeals, which held the Ocean Resources Management Act did not cover plans by Houston-based Contanda to ship crude out of Grays Harbor.
Kristen Boyles, an attorney with Earthjustice, which represents groups that challenged the project, called the opinion “vitally important for Washington state coastal protection.”
“The opinion is clear that extra protective measures apply to these kinds of crude oil projects,” Boyles said. “The requirements are such that I don’t believe the terminal will be able to go forward. It’s dead.”
Westway Terminal, recently renamed Contanda, wants to expand its existing methanol facility in Hoquiam to receive up to 17.8 million barrels of oil a year, including from the Bakken region of North Dakota and Montana, for shipping to refineries in California and Puget Sound. The plans include construction of four aboveground storage tanks that would each hold up to 8.4 million gallons, with a trainload of oil arriving every three days.
In an emailed statement, Contanda President G.R. “Jerry” Cardillo said the company disagrees with the ruling but would work to make the project hapen.
“Considering no review criteria have ever been applied to any other project since the law’s enactment, we will work with the city of Hoquiam to determine the path forward,” Cardillo wrote.
In court, Contanda argued – and the city of Hoquiam, state Department of Ecology and Court of Appeals agreed – that the Ocean Resources Management Act did not apply to the proposal because it was an expansion of an existing terminal and because the project would be located onshore, rather than in the water.
The Supreme Court said that reading of the law was far too narrow.
“Because the entire purpose of respondents’ projects is to store and transfer fuel from Washington’s coast to Washington’s waters, the projects fit squarely within ORMA’s broad reach,” Justice Susan Owens wrote.
Among other requirements, such projects cannot be permitted under the law unless applicants show “significant local, state, or national need” for the proposed activity; that there is no reasonable alternative to meet that need; and that there will likely be “no long-term significant adverse impacts to coastal or marine resources.”
The Quinault Indian Nation, Sierra Club and community groups challenged three oil terminal projects initially proposed for Grays Harbor, successfully forcing additional environmental reviews in 2013. Two of the projects have dropped out, leaving only the Contanda proposal.
Subscribe to the Morning Review newsletter
Get the day’s top headlines delivered to your inbox every morning by subscribing to our newsletter.