Coastal Conservation League sues over port growth
League wants Corps' permits tossed out
League wants Corps' permits tossed out
The Post and Courier
Aerial view of the southern end of the former naval base that is the site of a proposed expansion of State Ports Authority. Photo taken 11/9/2007.
The Coastal Conservation League is again seeking to halt the expansion of the Port of Charleston.
The Charleston-based group this week filed a lawsuit against the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, saying the federal agency failed to adequately examine all of the environmental and traffic-related impacts of a shipping terminal proposed for the former Charleston naval base in North Charleston.
In April, the Corps issued a permit to the State Ports Authority for the project. It also approved an access road that would link the new port to U.S. Interstate 26.
Work on the three-berth, $600 million cargo terminal began in May, and the first phase is expected to open around 2012.
The league's 30-page lawsuit, filed Tuesday in U.S. District Court in Charleston and assigned to Judge Michael Duffy, asks that the court toss out the permits and issue an order stopping all "permitting, land acquisition, site preparation, design, construction or any other action" associated with the terminal and the access road.
The lawsuit alleges that the Corps violated the National Environmental Policy Act by failing to assess all potential environmental effects; "piecemealing" its review of different aspects of the project; not fully considering reasonable alternatives; and not reevaluating the project after new information came to light.
The Corps does not comment on pending litigation, but spokeswoman Connie Gillette said agency officials "feel confident about the decision we have made.
"Throughout this process, we dedicated a tremendous amount of resourcesto ensure all interested parties, especially the public, were actively engaged in the National Environmental Policy Act ... process," she said Friday in a written statement.
The lawsuit alleges the new cargo terminal would diminish water quality in Charleston Harbor and the Cooper River. It also said the increased truck and ship pollution would reduce the state's air quality to levels that would be in violation of federal standards.
Dana Beach, the league's executive director, said Friday that the permit review process for the port and the access road was flawed and should be redone.
"What we know already is enough for the project not to move forward," he said. "If you don't examine the entire project as one unit then you really can't understand the implications for health and traffic congestion."
Much of the lawsuit deals with proposed transportation projects tied to the new terminal. They include a $250 million access road, a bridge across Shipyard Creek and an interchange at I-26, near Exit 217.
The access road would add about 10,000 vehicles a day to I-26, including about 7,000 truck trips, according to the complaint.
The suit also said the Corps' environmental impact study of the project did not take into account the proposed widening of a 5.3-mile stretch of I-26 between Exit 217 and I-526. That widening would "cause segments of I-26 that currently provide acceptable levels of service to reach failing levels of service," the league alleges.
The league also takes aim at the Corps' economic analysis of the project. The suit alleges that because the SPA's terminal proposal relied in part on an economic impact study conducted by fallen economist Al Parish, the project's potential benefits might have been overstated.
Parish has pleaded guilty to federal charges of defrauding investors. The suit says Parish's crime "casts doubt on the accuracy and trustworthiness of the reports and estimates he provided to SPA" and that his "predicted economic benefits of the new terminal were likely greatly overvalued."
The federal government's study of the project also did not examine the possibility that shipping channels would need to be deepened to accommodate larger container vessels calling on the new terminal, the suit alleges.
In addition, the league maintains that the Corps should have reviewed the possibility that other East Coast ports could absorb the additional cargo that the SPA cited as justification for the terminal. The league argues that projected flow of containers could be diverted to Virginia, Savannah or a proposed port site in Jasper County.
The SPA said its plans for the Navy base-terminal were scrutinized for four years by numerous regulatory agencies at a cost of about $5 million.
"Clearly everything that could have been addressed has been addressed," said SPA spokesman Byron Miller.
The SPA also noted that Beach and his group in the past have publicly supported the Navy base expansion.
"This project is exactly what the (league) suggested," Miller said.
The league voiced its support for the North Charleston location during the debate over the Global Gateway terminal on Daniel Island, which the SPA was forced to abandon amid intense opposition.
Beach said Friday that he and his group always have maintained that the Navy base would be a viable port site only if the existing rail lines were used to move some of the cargo and ease the strain on area roads. But the SPA's current plans call for most of the containers to enter or exit the property by truck, he said.
Beach added that much has changed since the Global Gateway controversy several years ago. For instance, Jasper County has recently emerged as a more viable alternative for a new port now that Georgia and South Carolina leaders seem willing to cooperate on a joint terminal there, he said.
The league is represented in its lawsuit by the Southern Environmental Law Center. Blan Holman, one of the attorneys who filed the suit, said Beach's group raised all of its concerns during the review process but to no avail.
"The reluctance to grapple with these problems and their solutions led the league to conclude that litigation is necessary to reduce air pollution health risks in Charleston and compel a hard look at freight rail to keep I-26 functioning," Holman said.
The league previously appealed a decision by state regulators to issue permits for the Navy base project but its request was denied in September.
Reach Ron Menchaca at rmenchaca@postandcourier.com or 937-5724.
E-mail this story
Printer-friendly version
Comments
Inapastlife (anonymous) says...
Was it not Dana and his group recommending that the port be placed at the old navy base?
Maybe he needs to move on to Virginia, Savannah or Jasper County. Is this going to be an island of palms law suit fiasco too? This must be the only way he can raise money by crying wolf all of the time.
I guess he forgot about the terminal up by I-95 that is going to remove the 7000 trucks a day from the interstate. I know he will be against it too, only when he need to raise more money.
November 24, 2007 at 1:54 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
beespencer (anonymous) says...
With the warehouse projects in Jedburg/Summerville and Santee, some of the traffic isn't going to occur because of the existing rail in the respective areas. Mr Beach is the same person that ok the development in West Ashly recently, re-drawing the urban lines for the county...interesting
November 24, 2007 at 2:12 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Neponset (anonymous) says...
Geechie
My feelings also.
November 24, 2007 at 6:48 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Neponset (anonymous) says...
Doug
I didn't take German in school - had enough trouble with English. Give us a translation.
November 24, 2007 at 7:16 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
gencon1 (anonymous) says...
Dana's group singlehandedly can take credit for the high cost of housing in the area. people can't afford to live here because houses cost so much. Why do they cost so much? Because of zoning regulations put in place by municipalities pressured by the coastal conservation league. They are nothing but socialists. They have no regard for property rights.
Their big play is to ask for more "studies" of a project. These studies cost a lot and take years. It ends up being a big inconvenience to the corps, but it can squash a project by a private developer.
How many studies do you need? We have ports all over the place. Just look at their effect on the harbor and there is your study.
Look at all of the money spent on impact studies for the new cooper river bridge. What a waste of money! We already had two bridges in place for decades. What new information did we learn for all of those studies? Nothing!
The coastal Conservation League abuses the legal system to further thier agenda. Last time I looked, every one of the staff there lived in a house, in a developed neighborhood, had electricity, and drove a car, etc...
November 24, 2007 at 7:57 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
now_ready1 (anonymous) says...
I wonder if the Coastal Conservation League leaders are close friends and relatives with major developers in Charleston.
The Coastal Conservation League is 1st cousin to the ACLU. Like all good socialists everywhere they decide whats the best for you and yours because you're too stupid.
Ever watch the interstate cameras during the day after the morning rush into City of Charleston (6:50am-8:50am) and the Afternoon rush out of the City of Charleston (3:30pm-5:30pm), you realize quickly that traffic drops to 1/4 - 1/3 the volume. During the night when you and I normally sleep its almost empty.
Dana, your argument seems to be just another bunch of B/S.
November 24, 2007 at 9:03 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
wegwam (anonymous) says...
we need the port to continue economic growth in the tri county area. numerous industries cite the port for locating business here. many jobs WILL be created by the port.
i didnt know it was the spa's fault that there are mexican laborers in our country. whats wrong with benefiting trucking companies?
who is more credible, the corps or the ccl? who has an agenda here? not the corps. but the ccl definitely has an agenda.
and to those who say build in jasper but not here; they are going to build in jasper regardless of what happens here. its not an one or the other deal. its both.
charleston is competing with savannah and norfolk and we are losing bc weve been doing study after study for years.
but hey lets do another study and waste millions of tax dollars on it.
November 24, 2007 at 9:12 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Neponset (anonymous) says...
Doug
Yes, we need civic-cooperation. The problem is, we have powerful groups that want their way and don't give a damn about the consequences. I think in this environment it is good to have a few tree huggers asking differcult questions/challenging these proposed changes.
November 24, 2007 at 9:14 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
now_ready1 (anonymous) says...
I notice the Coastal Conservation League has little issue with the coal tipple next to this site, or the major expansion of this coal tipple, located in the City of Charleston, than spews dust and other pollutants over surrounding "BLACK" neighborhoods.
I say put the port terminal back on Daniel Island where it belongs. We have already paid for the infrastructure development there thru our taxes, that benefits the City of Charleston.
November 24, 2007 at 9:14 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
coastalconservative (anonymous) says...
Now_ready1 must be confused about socialism. Last time I checked, it involved big brother government owning and running businesses.... Just like the SPA does. It involved government preventing private companies from getting in the market and competing... Just like the SPA did in Jasper County... To paraphrase a friend of mine, Now_ready1 and his buddies have been on socialism so long they think it's capitalism.
November 24, 2007 at 9:20 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
GOP10 (anonymous) says...
The problem with the CCL and other "tree huggers" is that they have no respect whatsoever for individual rights.It is within their own flawed self-agenda to prohibit anything that seeks to better anyone else's economic livelihood. They need to take their liberal bullcrap and go back to the north.
November 24, 2007 at 9:21 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
coastalconservative (anonymous) says...
What exactly does spending more than a billion dollars of taxpayer money on three state-owned berths have to do with "individual rights?" I would like to keep my individual right to spend my hard earned money the way I want to, not the way the state (ie. SPA, DOT, Columbia) tells me to.
November 24, 2007 at 9:27 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
dawhetsell (anonymous) says...
Whetsell Carrier Company proposes to have a container-on-barge service . It could take 1000 containers up to 601 on the Congaree River and over 5000 to Aiken on the Savannah River a day. If the company gets the support from the people of South Carolina. Thats a lot of trucks off the road in Charleston folks.It would save the economy a million dollars a day on freight cost. thats not even counting the social cost.
November 24, 2007 at 9:29 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
GOP10 (anonymous) says...
This is in reply to coastalconservative. What exactly would you do with the money? Are you even qualified to make these kind of decisions? If you are really sure you want that kind of decision-making power, then run for office and change it! Until then, leave it to those who are already in those appointed posts to make those decisions.
November 24, 2007 at 9:51 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
kennyt (anonymous) says...
I know the spa in a whole is a bunch of money, power hungry gw's(goverment workers)who make a lot of money and are set for like with retirement etc so the real workers spa employee who work the ports are over worked underpayed and are treated like slaves. This is coming from a driver who experiences the pratices of the spa 5 days a week. Give the port to the workers and fire all the greedy gw's and start fresh. As for the tree huggers go hug a tree and leave us normal people alone who care more about a human that a tree.
November 24, 2007 at 10:13 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
beespencer (anonymous) says...
My understanding about the port expansion is that next 5-10 years, cargo coming to the east coast is expected to double and Charleston and the rest of the sea ports are trying to expand while there is a grace period with the Panama Canal expansion, which is supposed to be completed in 2012
November 24, 2007 at 11:16 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
mlm (anonymous) says...
In response to GOP10: Our problem is that we are relying on too many "experts" who really don't know much more than most of us. I thought that "central planning" theorists were largely discredited with the fall of communism. Anyway, back to the issue.
The SPA Board (composed largely of people who don't live in the Charleston area) wants to build as big & profitable port facility for as little money as they can get away with. Ultimately, WE, THE PEOPLE, are the stockholders of this state owned corporation known as SPA. We also have to live with their decisions if they are short sighted.
I agree with what N. Chas. Mayor Keith Summey said early on in this review, if you're going to build the new port on the Navy Base site, then build the roads and rail lines in/out of it so it doesn't carve up the city around it. That will be expensive, but in the long run well worth it.
Now that a multi-billion dollar inland port facility is taking shape in Santee (near where I-95 & I-26 cross) wouldn't it make more sense to tie it to the new port with a high speed elevated rail line? Then we could eliminate much of the truck traffic into the center of Charleston that we now have. Santee could be better fitted to handle much greater & centrally located regional truck traffic. The port operations would then be better confined without trucks spilling over into the surrounding city.
November 24, 2007 at 11:34 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
taxicab (anonymous) says...
Coastal "Conservation" League = A fraud upon the populace
It must be time for another fundraising drive.
They league has been succesful in little more than scare tactics and lawsuits. Sometimes the result has even led to the death of more citizens. Look at what they did on US Highway 17 and how many deaths have taken place since the league stopped the widening years ago.
It is a shame that the league has the support of folks like Sanford, Campsen, and Jimmy Merrill. Politicians looking out for their own good.
The argument about moving new port operations to the port in Jasper County will not work. The league will make sure, by filing lawsuit after lawsuit, that never comes to fruition.
November 24, 2007 at 12:09 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
angryinjun (anonymous) says...
Looks like more environmental racketeering. If the Corps of Engineers wins this case, will Coastal Conservation League have to pay the COE's legal costs for fighting this lawsuit? As a taxpayer, I think CCL should.
November 24, 2007 at 3:54 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Inapastlife (anonymous) says...
Taxicab is right, Dana can't sell it he only can make you scare of it
November 24, 2007 at 7 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Inapastlife (anonymous) says...
joesmuck Do you know this to be fact. I know the state did the recuriting and Rozier jest took the Credit.
We all took the misconception dad was the man, only to find out he is jest another politician. He hired unqualified fiends and made campaign promises he blind sided county council with tiring fulfill, sparking audits, budget confusion and finely being told council run the county not him. Also Dan Davis has not stopped the recruiting.
November 24, 2007 at 7:16 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Inapastlife (anonymous) says...
joesmuck not to take anything away for rozier he was far better sellsman than politican i do know first hand what i write is only fact because inapastlife i was there. You are on the right track keep on it the change will come
November 25, 2007 at 5:48 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Walt (anonymous) says...
Isn't Dana Beach and his CCL the same bunch of hypocrits that endorses Mayor Joe's latest plan to build 3,000 more homes in Long Savannah, move the UGB and dump 30,000 more vehicle trips per day on Savannah Highway?
Find out who's passing the fattest checks to the Dana Beach, and you'll find out who's behind the CCL - Riley's good-old-boy real-estate developers!
November 25, 2007 at 10:03 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
misfit (anonymous) says...
We should find a way to use the biggest natural resource in the tri-county area, the port. Maybe we can disallow receiving or discharging trucks from the terminal during rush hour. Maybe we can add roads. Maybe we can use rail. But, it is a no-brainer to use your largest natural resource to the best of your ability.
November 26, 2007 at 1:34 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
icbmman (anonymous) says...
Heh, big surprise. The CCL continues to live up to its reputation as a foolish, intellectually incompetant organization obsessed with environmentalism, with hints of socialism around it. All of you have made some good points about Beach and the CCL.
The US 17 widening has been under constant fire, but I think the state is finally getting the widening underway. However, the CCL tried to obstruct it as well, EVEN AFTER the numerous deaths that occurred on that stretch of road! It really is sickening and maddening, to say the least. I'm tired of Beach strangling my hometown and the surrounding area with his idiotic tripe!
November 27, 2007 at 9:37 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
cashiers (anonymous) says...
Dana Beach and his group are nothing more than a parasite on the back of South Carolina. They are professional suers using the backbone of the environment or less priveleged as their moniker to gain press and attention. Their goal is not to help the environment or downtrodden but to elicit fundraising through doom and gloom propaganda and frivolous lawsuits. This organization needs to be exposed and eradicated for its misleading and extortionilist agenda to minorities, industry, government, capitalism and the USA!!!
March 13, 2008 at 12:34 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Postandcourier.com is pleased to offer readers the enhanced ability to comment on stories. We expect our readers to engage in lively, yet civil discourse. Postandcourier.com does not edit user submitted statements and we cannot promise that readers will not occasionally find offensive or inaccurate comments posted in the comments area. Responsibility for the statements posted lies with the person submitting the comment, not postandcourier.com. If you find a comment that is objectionable, please click "report abuse" and we will review it for possible removal. Please be reminded, however, that in accordance with our Terms of Use and federal law, we are under no obligation to remove any third party comments posted on our website.
Users can now build user-to-user connections, follow friends' recent posts, add an avatar that fits their personality, and more. If you have posted here before you'll need to sign up again, or if you've never posted before, start now by signing up!
Full terms and conditions can be read here.