Whatcom County, the 200,000-person jurisdiction bordering both Canada and the Salish Sea, has taken an unusual, and maybe unprecedented, action to protect its constituents from coal train traffic and crude oil train derailments. Last week, Whatcom's County Council voted to ban all new unrefined fossil fuel export project permits for the next six months.
The six-month moratorium came about during the county's process for setting a 20-year comprehensive plan. Council members feared that if they didn't halt new project permits in the short-term, they wouldn't be able to plan for, and protect, towns and cities sitting along future crude oil and coal routes. (And now that Congress has lifted the 40-year-old ban on crude oil exports, the Pacific Northwest could shape up to be what some environmentalists have called a "speed bump on the fossil fuel highway to Asia.") Last month, the council quickly introduced a motion to set a 60-day moratorium on new permits, and last week, the council voted to extend the moratorium for a much longer period of time.
Like Whatcom, Seattle has also struggled with what to do over the threats posed by crude oil trains and fossil fuel export projects. Last year, the Seattle City Council passed a resolution demanding that BNSF provide worst-case disaster planning and comprehensive insurance plans for the two crude oil trains that pass through and under Seattle each day. The problem with that resolution—as is the problem with all resolutions—is that railroads responsible for shipping crude are regulated by the federal government, not local jurisdictions. Cities, counties, and states can demand all they want from transporters of crude oil, but those companies can claim that they're already abiding by lax federal standards.
It seems, though, that Whatcom has found some sort of loophole to hold crude oil transporters accountable to the communities they traverse.
"We don't know where our authority lies," Whatcom County Council member Carl Weimer said in chambers. "There are probably places where the federal government will probably just laugh at us for trying to stop some of this and there's probably places where we do have authority over health and safety issues."
Earlier this year, the Lummi Nation—located within Whatcom County—successfuly used its sovereign treaty rights to shut down a proposed export facility that would have shipped millions of tons of coal out of Bellingham. Unlike the Lummi, however, Whatcom County does not have the same rights as a sovereign nation to challenge federal authority.
Three hours of passionate public testimony took place before the Council took a vote. Commenters voiced concern over climate change, for their communities in the wake of the Lac-Mégantic crude oil train derailment that killed 47 people in 2013, as well as the environmental threats posed to local ecosystems and the Salish Sea. Several people on the opposing side also expressed fear that banning new project permits would discourage companies from hiring more workers in the area.
Whatcom County Council member Barbara Brenner, the lone "no" vote on the council, said she felt concerned that the moratorium on new permits would limit existing refineries. "It seems to be when we have the best refiners, not only in this country, but probably the whole world, we should be refining stuff here," she said. "I want to see them expand their refineries."
But County Council member Todd Donovan stressed that the council wouldn't be the first to call for fossil fuel project moratoriums. When a unit train derailed in Mosier, Oregon, earlier this year, he said, "We have the governor of Oregon, the governor of Washington calling for a moratorium on these things. We're not alone. We need to come up with tools to deal with this."
It remains to be seen whether this tool will stick with the Feds, or possibly in court. If it does, maybe temporarily banning fossil fuel export projects could be replicated here in Seattle, or potentially on any Washington waterfront.
