In Our View: Public Outcry Gets Results

While critics might consider it a matter of too little, too late — and while the vote is only symbolic — a decision last week by the Port of Vancouver commissioners serves as a statement about the power of public involvement.

Commissioners unanimously voted to support federal oil train safety legislation introduced by Sen. Maria Cantwell, D-Wash. The Crude-by-Rail Safety Act would institute an immediate ban on the use of unsafe tank cars and would require railroads to prepare comprehensive spill response plans. The need for such action might appear obvious, but it is growing public concern that has led to growing legislative attention both at the federal and the state levels.

Locally, a 2013 agreement reached by port commissioners to build the nation’s largest oil-by-rail terminal has spurred interest in the issue. Commissioners approved a deal with Tesoro Corp. and Savage Cos. — now working collectively on the project as Vancouver Energy — to build a terminal that could handle up to 360,000 barrels of crude per day. The proposal is undergoing review by the state Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council, which will forward its findings to Gov. Jay Inslee for approval or rejection of the facility.

Along the way, the situation has awakened the public to the dangers involved with the transport of crude oil by rail. Several derailments, explosions and fires throughout North America have heightened awareness and generated questions about whether greatly expanding the number of trains traveling through Clark County is in the best interests of citizens. The Columbian has written editorially that the proposal should be rejected. The proper vision of a vibrant, economically successful, environmentally friendly region is one that does not invite an unfettered stream of oil trains.

While the issue has generated discussion on both sides, with proponents suggesting that the terminal would create jobs and increase the region’s tax base, opponents of the plan have been more vociferous. They point to a derailment and explosion in 2013 in Lac Mégantic, Quebec, that killed 47 residents and destroyed much of the town. They point to other devastating oil train explosions. And they suggest that a terminal would be misguided at a time when smart economies are embracing alternative energies.

Whether or not those drawbacks outweigh the benefits of a terminal — we believe they do — Port of Vancouver commissioners have demonstrated scant awareness of their importance. Until now.

The port makes “safety our No. 1 goal,” said Commissioner Jerry Oliver as officials expressed support for Cantwell’s bill. That assertion seems disingenuous for a board that approved the terminal in the first place, yet it does place the commissioners more in line with the public that elects them.

That being said, support for the bill is merely symbolic. It is doubtful that Congress will pay much heed to the wishes of a local board of commissioners, and it is doubtful that Congress will pay much heed to Cantwell’s proposal. GovTrack.us gives the bill — which has been referred to committee — a 3 percent chance of being enacted. Still, the bill has helped boost awareness that continues to grow. On Tuesday, U.S. Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz told a Senate panel that the federal government will undertake a two-year study of how crude oil volatility affect’s the commodity’s behavior in derailments.

Many members of the public have been asking such questions for years. Elected officials — as reflected by the Port of Vancouver commissioners — finally are seeking some answers.