• Previously: A Clark County Superior Court judge ruled in 2014 that the Port of Vancouver did not violate state environmental laws when it approved a lease for an oil transfer terminal at the port.
• What’s new: The Washington State Court of Appeals Division II upheld the lower court’s ruling in an opinion released Tuesday.
• What’s next: A separate legal challenge to the oil terminal remains unresolved, and the state review of the project continues.
The Port of Vancouver did not violate state environmental laws when it approved a lease for an oil transfer terminal at the port, a three-judge appeals court panel said in a ruling released Tuesday.
• Previously: A Clark County Superior Court judge ruled in 2014 that the Port of Vancouver did not violate state environmental laws when it approved a lease for an oil transfer terminal at the port.
• What's new: The Washington State Court of Appeals Division II upheld the lower court's ruling in an opinion released Tuesday.
• What's next: A separate legal challenge to the oil terminal remains unresolved, and the state review of the project continues.
The ruling upholds an earlier decision by a Clark County Superior Court judge. It also hands a victory to the port in the larger battle over what would be the largest oil-by-rail terminal in the United States.
Environmental groups Columbia Riverkeeper and the Northwest Environmental Defense Center had argued that port commissioners violated the State Environmental Policy Act by entering into a lease agreement with Tesoro Corp. and Savage Companies to build the terminal before it underwent an environmental impact statement.
The project is currently being reviewed by the state Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council. That process will produce a sweeping environmental impact statement, a draft of which is due out in November.
In its ruling, the Washington State Court of Appeals Division II noted that the lease agreement approved unanimously by Port of Vancouver commissioners in 2013 did nothing to limit the scope of EFSEC’s review — or the final decision that will ultimately be made by Washington Gov. Jay Inslee. The court also ruled that the port’s actions were allowed under the state Energy Facility Site Locations Act.
Despite the ruling, Columbia Riverkeeper maintains that the port should have done more vetting of the proposal before it inked a binding agreement with Tesoro and Savage, said Brett VandenHeuvel, Columbia Riverkeeper’s executive director.
“We’re disappointed the port didn’t evaluate the impacts, but we’re confident that EFSEC and the governor are going to take a hard look at what oil-by-rail means to Vancouver,” VandenHeuvel said.
A port representative could not be reached for comment Tuesday.
Another challenge
Tesoro and Savage, doing business together as Vancouver Energy, want to build an oil transfer terminal at the Port of Vancouver capable of handling 360,000 barrels of crude oil per day. Oil would arrive by train before being loaded onto marine vessels bound for other West Coast facilities.
Tuesday’s appeals court ruling doesn’t settle all of the legal challenges against the proposed oil terminal. A separate case alleges that the Port of Vancouver repeatedly violated the state Open Public Meetings Act in the months before the lease was approved. That case remains unresolved.
As for the state review, EFSEC will eventually make a recommendation on whether to approve the project. Final authority rests with the governor. But a decision could be appealed to the state Supreme Court.
