"What price growth...?" |
Posted by: "Stanley Stahl" email@example.com
Wed Sep 27, 2006 2:40 am (PST)
Re the article in Sept 15, 2006 Olympian "Dioxin taints Budd Inlet":
An important, relevant point that the article fails to mention, is that Environmental Law was designed to prevent what has happened to Budd Inlet as a result of activity such as Cascade Pole
SEPA and NEPA require that environmental impacts related to major projects be identified and assessed prior to approval of those projects.
Had NEPA and SEPA been in effect decades ago -- had today's science been available at that time -- AND had NEPA and SEPA been adhered to -- then adverse impacts of Cascade Pole would have been identified before the projects were ever approved; they would have required immense mitigation measures or they would have been denied entirely.
Either, Port officials are incapable of learning from experience -- or, for them, the impulse to grow at any cost outweighs the risk of supporting yet another major polluting project at the Port avoiding thorough environmental review.
Even now, with piles of evidence related to Dioxin in Budd Inlet in one hand, the Port, with the other hand, expends time, money and energy fighting citizens who are merely and rightfully asking that a thorough environmental review be conducted related to expansion of activity on the Port Peninsula (this is only one of an assortment of multi-faceted components mandating mitigation of noxious impacts connected to a Major industrial expansion, obviously detrimental to environment, people's health, and to the vitality of the retail, office and housing sectors).