PAGE 4
THE DEEPENING
ARROGANCE. APOLOGY & SATISFACTION
I really think that optimists have been deluded I'm sorry.
They will probably feel a little foolish as they finally realize that
this channel deepening is a seriously destructive proposal It's
not just the fishermen and the scientists and the conservationists
and the residents of the estuary wrio know that this project
would devastate the environment; the project has run into five
denials when sponsors approached state or federal agencies for
approval This is a problem because those agencies are generally
subject to political influence The project has got to be pretty bad
for natural resource agencies to buck the will of the politicians
vtfio fund them.
Right now those .¿io sincerely care about the Columbia
River are winning this dredging debate Watch The proponents
of dredging are going to pretend to care about vtfiat we have to
say — as if the hundreds of pages of comments and suggestions
we have offered over the past years were lost or overlooked They
want a short list. List?! The states gave them lists, the federal
resource agencies gave them lists, and the lawsuits gave them
lists. Honestly take care of all these concerns and I. to repeat
a commitment I've made, will pilot the dredge.
The reality, to me the "realist," is that deepening the
Columbia River navigation channel is very unlikely to find a path
in the coming decades. The current attempt to mediate scientific
controversy is inherently doomed to failure by its very structure.
Sustainable Ecosystems Institute has been hired to help the
Corps of Engineers to talk nice with the National Manne Fisheries
Service and U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. The idea is to convince
the Corps to change the "Biological Assessment" portion of their
deepening plan in ways that might appease the endangered
species concerns of other federal agencies. The incontrovertible
problem wth the approach is that it is an attempt to shoehorn
elements of the existing Corps study into a consent-worthy
state, when it is actually the base study that needs to be done.
(But please don't pass this on; let them waste another couple
of years.) The best good hope of the project is to restructure
Congress so that the applicable environmental laws will be
repealed; then wait for judges to retire and be replaced with
magistrates who wll acquiesce to the demolition of the Columbia
River Estuary
Oregon and Washington are being asked to contribute
$28 million apiece to the channel deepening project.This is utterly
ridiculous No project exists at this time. The permits have been
denied NMFS and U.S. Fish & Wildlife are not expected to issue
new biological opinions until a year from this summer. There will
still be Clean Water Act issues outstanding Then there are the
lawsuits in federal court. The states wjuld be setting aside money
that would probably never be spent. I'll wager that every legislator
could think of a better use for these millions.
STAN MACK
BY PETER HUHTALA
I could call them optimists, I suppose, these people
who seem to believe that the Columbia River channel deepening
could proceed in a way that would not radically damage the
estuary I think many of them are sincere in their belief; and in
my view, sincerity should be required for optimism.
There are others. I call them illusionists, who spin the
tales that the optimists wsh to believe The illusionists do not
require sincerity; they either possess a vested interest or are
being paid to promote the interests of their employer. Illusionists
who work, say, for the chemical industry, argue that the river is
big and generous, quite willing to accept more of the toxic waste
that triggers cancer Employees seek approval from their bosses
(Though I hear that scientists and professors often resist the
process of thought control; and I think there are others like fisher
men and loggers, for sure.)
Realistic That's how I'm starting to think of myself —
at least as regards channel deepening Lately I've seen some
outreach Apologetic emissaries of those who previously
neglected the points of view of the people of the estuary are
reaching out Now they want a list — a list of concerns They're
looking for a short list of concessions that will make most of the
resistance go away For a moment I bask in a hitherto unknown
realm What they're asking for is a list of demands from me
Ahhhh....
Ten years, it's over ten years, and now it's over $7million
spent, trying to find a way to legally allow the deepening. Now
they're asking me I feel oddly qualified to answer, though I am
but a carpenter/wnter/musician-Finn wth but a century-long
family connection to the river Maybe I shouldn't tell them, I think
Let them try to figure it out for themselves; they could read the
sloppy 2000 page document dozens of people have complained
about in over 700 pages of comments Now I can be arrogant.
They lost They can't even get permits from the states that
supposedly want the federal dollars!
Did I mention "dollars"? At one time I had to be told to
follow them (the dollars). I took that to mean figuring vtfio would
really benefit if we the people kicked in $20 million vtfiile sacrifi
cing our environment, our health and much of the local fishing
industry I followed the $$$$$ The deepening, it turns out. is
not about anything that will help 90% of the ships calling on the
Columbia River Some small amount over 5% could even use
the deeper channel — according to the Corps of Engineers. But
to that minority, the project means a lot. This is about millions,
eventually billions, in corporate profits. These profits are squared
off wth the aquatic life of the river and the well being of estuary
communities; and for now, multinational corporate profits have
lost
I really, really tried to think up some way that the shipping
channel to Portland could be deepened without making life worse
for salmon and sturgeon and lamprey and smelt and crab — and
the people of the Columbia River estuary I decided to forego my
arrogance just a little longer and repeat once again the obvious
essentials The first non-negotiable essential is to perform the
dredging and blasting only when salmon and other anadromous
residents are not migrating through the estuary Slow down a little,
that's what we've been saying for years, but we've been slapped
aside Many of us are bitter I find the state of bitterness rather
unattractive, so now I resent being made bitter Where does it
end? Nonetheless, the reality is that timing the work around fish
migrations won't be considered — the added expense would ruin
the cost-benefit analysis
Hydraulic effects, habitat destruction, toxic distribution,
ridiculous dumpsites — they've heard it all before. The illusionists
blew it when they refused to listen to the reasoned "realistic"
voices from the mouth of the river Maybe it was our emotional
grammar or our alien-to-the-corporate-world lifestyle? Now they
want us to rescue their dream
Finally acknowledging the fact that this project would
bring destruction, proponents ask where they can pile money to
make up for life They ask: "What are the criteria for restoration
of habitat in the estuary that will compensate for what we need
to destroy and alter? List your pnonties and we'll get the money
Okay’’" For one hundred years the estuary has been trashed year
after year by dredging and dumping. Most of the tidal marshes
are gone The channel deepening study acknowledged these
facts, then went on to claim their plan vzjuld have no significant
impact With their lie exposed, now they want us to show them
how to make it all better Why does this make me uneasy? Why
aren't new solutions being investigated? This is the opportunity to
plan shipping on a regional basis, with ports cooperatively build
ing on their individual strengths rather than wastefully competing
It's time to remove the blinders and move forward with ways to
enhance commerce without destroying the environment and
liquidating the businesses that depend on natural resources.
My arrogance is creeping back. I'd better watch myself
because arrogance is the basis for the failure of the Corps of
Engineers to make their case on behalf of the upriver ports and
their corporate clients I'll be safer to bask in cautious confidence.
This confidence derives, I think, from understanding some funda
mental flaws in the process of developing the channel deepening
plan. These flaws cut to the heart of a law called the National
Environmental Policy Act, a law with which every major federal
project must comply. In the end, the NEPA violations should
take this project down — that is, if sponsors somehow usurp the
Endangered Species Act, the Clean Water Act and the Ocean
Dumping Act I’d almost like to see it go this way because the
NEPA suit could underscore the rude and heavy-handed way the
people of the Columbia River Estuary have been treated It would
expose this gross attempt at environmental injustice. It could
partially vindicate the disenfranchised voices of our communities.
But lawsuits are complicated and the piles of paperwork
might not render real satisfaction. Satisfaction, in this human and
environmental struggle, chums in the heart along the edge of
tension where we resist the intrusion of that which we know is
wrong
Peter Huhtala is executive director of the Columbia
Deepening Opposition group He lives in Astoria and can be
reached at the CDOG offices at 325-8069 or E-mail huhtala@-
teleport.com
Columbia View
Marketplace
A (jarden Qallery
• Antiques <Si Collectibles • Herbal Apothecary
• Garden Accessories • Aromatherapy gar
• Wood Crafts • Local Arts • Herb Plants • Potpourries
1380 COMMERCIAL ST. ASTORIA
7 days a week
y <
9 am-6 pm» 325-1574
r
A
«fl
Terry Hahn
GODFATHER’S BOOKS
AND ESPRESSO BAR
Audio Book Sales & Rentals * Cards * Pastries
Incense * Occult & Metaphysical * Lattes & Literature
1108 Commercial • Astoria, OR 97103
THE AUTO PARTS
Where Your Satisfaction
is Our Biggest Concern!
325-1612
Phone: (503) 325-8143
BRAND NEW LOCATION AT 730 BOND STREET, ASTORIA, OREGON
•T.