In Our View: Make Up Mind On Terminal

We would think, after nearly three years of vociferous public debate, that Port of Vancouver Commissioner Brian Wolfe would had formed an opinion on a proposed oil terminal at the port.

In 2013, Wolfe was part of a 3-0 vote from port commissioners to approve the terminal. The deal would allow Tesoro Corp. and Savage Cos. to build and operate the nation’s largest rail-to-marine oil facility — one that would bring about 360,000 barrels of crude oil per day into Vancouver by train for transfer to vessels that would ship it down the Columbia River to the Pacific Ocean.

Since then, the proposal has been the subject of much scrutiny. The state Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council is examining the plan and eventually will make a recommendation to Gov. Jay Inslee, who will have the final say on whether or not the terminal is approved. Throughout the process, the public has weighed in on an unprecedented scale, with some 250,000 comments being sent to state regulators.

In spite of that, Wolfe said last week, “Am I prepared to make a decision on it? No. I honestly don’t know; there are so many variables to consider. It was and will remain a really hard decision between economic development and the environment, in my mind.” Those are, indeed, valid questions. But if Wolfe has not yet made up his mind, he is part of a small minority in Clark County.

While Wolfe originally voted in favor of the terminal, he might have to weigh in once again. The lease states that the deadline for terminal operators to secure “all necessary licenses, permits and approvals” is Aug. 1. But state regulatory hearings on the project are scheduled to last until July 29, meaning the Aug. 1 deadline is unrealistic. While the language of the lease is unclear on the matter, that might require port commissioners to approve an extension in order for the project to move forward.

Board member Jerry Oliver, who also approved the initial proposal, is considered likely to vote in favor of an extension. Eric LaBrant, who joined the commission in January after running for office on an anti-terminal platform, is certain to vote against it. That would leave Wolfe as the swing vote if the issue is placed before commissioners. And that makes his noncommittal statement difficult to fathom.

Therefore, allow us to remind commissioner Wolfe why the oil terminal would be a bad idea for Vancouver and for Clark County and for the Columbia River Gorge. Bringing a seemingly endless string of unit trains containing more than 100 crude-filled tanks through town would present an untenable danger to citizens and to the environment, generating a risk for derailments, explosions and spills.

Equally important is the damage that would be caused by turning Vancouver into an oil town. While jobs and industrial development are essential to the future of the city, the proposed oil terminal is anathema to an appropriate vision for a thriving city. Would citizens or city leaders trumpet the greatness of the area by saying, “We have a behemoth oil terminal”? Would they urge friends to visit by saying, “We have oil trains coming through town at all hours of the day”? Would they urge businesses to relocate near the Columbia River by saying, “And you’ll be in the blast zone should something go wrong”?

Those are the questions Wolfe should have asked himself long ago. Odds are that, deep down, he knows the answers.