The little tugboat that could
The legislative session wasn't generous to the environment, especially Puget Sound. But there was one victory of 'dumb doggedness': the rescue tug at Neah Bay, a key to fighting oil spills.
(Page 2 of 2)
Felleman and the Makahs started working on the issue in the late 1990s, as did People for Puget Sound. Congress wouldn't make the federal government, the oil industry, or the shipping industry pay for a tug. Sen. Murray wasn't the only one who tried and failed. Sen. Maria Cantwell introduced legislation that went nowhere, too.That has left it up to the state, but environmental activists and regulators worried for years that the state couldn't act, because the federal government might preeempt the field. (This wasn't just paranoia. In 2000, the U.S.Supreme Court threw out Washington spill prevention rules that dealt, among other things, with the training and English proficiency of tanker crews, because the federal government had already preempted much of the field.) A Coast Guard rule issued on the last day of 2008 for oil-carrying vessels' salvage and marine firefighting plans got rid of that argument. The rule defines “salvage” as “any act undertaken to assist a vessel in potential or actual danger, to prevent loss of life, damage or destruction of the vessel and release of its contents into the marine environment.” And it says unequivocally “we have determined that these regulations will not interfere with or preempt existing State regulations on the same subject.”
The language was “not [inserted] by accident,” Felleman says. He and the Makahs lobbied Sen. Cantwell's office for words to that effect. Then, Cantwell, who chairs the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee's subcommittee on oceans, atmosphere, fisheries and Coast Guard, “leaned on the Coast Guard on our behalf.”
He doesn't suggest that the new Coast Guard rule was an environmental triumph. Instead, he describes it as the Bush administration's “last gift to the oil industry.” It calls only for planning; it does not require drills; and it makes clear that shippers won't be held responsible for actual performance. The rule was issued on the very last day of 2008. Nevertheless, the new rule opened “a clear legal path” around the threat of preemption, Felleman says.
Once he saw the language in the rule, Felleman and Bowechop started drafting a rough version of the bill. Felleman took it to his own legislator, State Rep. Mary Lou Dickerson. She wouldn't sponsor the bill, but she “got the ball rolling,” Felleman says. Once that happened, Wishart “did the lion's share' of the work getting sponsors and shepherding the bill through the Legislature day-to-day. (This was hardly a new role. “Bruce was involved in the annual bake sale for that tug” as the Legislature scraped money together, year after year.) The Department of Ecology supported the legislation, as did the oil industry, which saw a chance to spread the cost over the whole shipping industry.
Bowechop says that the tug law represents both the culmination of a long struggle and the beginning of a new effort to make Neah Bay a center for effective spill response. He hopes that eventually tribal members will be trained to crew the tug. And he talks about using the tribal fishing fleet as a key part of the oil spill response system — as the local fishing fleet is already used in Prince William Sound. (“We don't have to re-create the wheel,” Bowechop says.)
Although there's still a long way to go, the Makahs have come a long way already. Felleman “could see the light at the end of the tunnel,” Bowechop says. “He's worked with us for many years, and for some of those years, we couldn't afford to pay him.” Felleman himself takes an ironic view of the long struggle that led up to this year's legislation. “It wasn't dumb luck,” he says. “It was dumb doggedness”
Like what you just read? Support high quality local journalism. Become a member of Crosscut today!
Twitter
Facebook
RSS Feeds
Comments:
Posted Fri, Jun 12, 7:09 a.m. Inappropriate
While I couldn't quibble with the description of events here, certainly we should acknowledge that Rep. Kevin Van De Wege (Sequim)DID sponsor the Neah Bay tug bill in the House. He worked the bill hard in the Ecology & Parks committe and in caucus, moving the bill to the floor and out the door. I have specific knowledge of his efforts in committee and caucus.
Daniel is quite right in describing this effort as a long shot in the last session where fiscal pressure was intense. The success of the effort to save the tug was notable.
Rep. Deb Eddy
Posted Mon, Jun 15, 10:55 a.m. Inappropriate
The Neah Bay tug is a colossal waste of money. It is ridiculous to believe that the tug will be paid for by the shipping industry. It will be paid for by the citizens in the form of higher prices for anything that comes or goes from Washington on a ship or barge. The bill was one of the worst pieces of legislation ever written. Nearly as dumb as funding our State parks with optional donations when you license your car. Maybe we could come up with an optional state agency cutback box on our renewal form, and the citizens could decide which agencies should be reduced to save money, as it seems our current elected officials are unable to make the tough decisions to curb our out of control spending.
Posted Wed, Jun 17, 5:17 p.m. Inappropriate
Bruce Buls, a staff editor at WorkBoat magazine, send the editor the following comment:
First of all, the photo that ran with Chasan's piece about the Neah Bay rescue tug is identifiable by its colors (green and white) as a Foss Maritime vessel. Foss used to have the contract for that service, but Crowley Maritime (red and white) had has the contract for several years.
Second, the whole point of view is that of the Makah Tribe and Fred Felleman. While they have their perspective, the industry that will now have to pay for the tug has another, which has some legitimacy. It takes time and an open mind to understand all the complexities of the situation (size of area, nature of currents, drift rates, availability of other vessels to assist in an emergency, improved vessel construction and operation, AIS requirements, etc.), but there are legitimate arguments against spending millions to respond inappropriately to the actual risk.
This certainly isn't to say that tugs don't have a place in spill prevention. Tugs escort inbound and outbound tankers east of Port Angeles, for example, a practice that is not in question.
Sure, in the famously perfect world, we'd have rescue tugs at Neah Bay and in Victoria, even if they're never needed. They could be 10,000 hp and equipped for firefighting. We could even have them in Friday Harbor, Anacortes and Edmonds. But what are the risks and what are the costs?
Thirdly, Chasan must be getting paid by the word. He could take a lesson from Mossback about brevity -- and the ability to see things from different angles. And now that I think about it, Mossback could add a seventh thing you never say in Seattle: "The Neah Bay rescue tug isn't necessary."
--Bruce Buls, Clinton, Washington
Posted Sat, Jun 20, 8:57 p.m. Inappropriate
Thanks Bruce. I even think I might agree were I (sigh) presented with all the facts.
But here's where Chasan rings a bell with me:
"The Partnership didn't have a lot of help. Much of the environmental community is still stuck in an outdated mode of thinking, he says: stop pollutants coming out of the pipes, and make sure the polluter pays. We should focus more on the long-term threats of population growth and climate change, Lombard argues. Audiences to which he speaks seem to grasp that; the environmental community doesn't. “There isn't anyone out there who's willing to take these issues [on?] as their own,” he says."
Bravo citizens for being ahead of the environmental community and to Chasan for noticing. I little whole system thinking would go a long way.
Login or register to add your voice to the conversation.