The Seattle Times recently published an editorial proclaiming an “environmental victory” for Washington following the Department of Ecology’s questionable decision to deny a water quality permit for the Millennium Bulk Terminals project in Longview late last month. This decision, the state even acknowledged, was largely based on factors unrelated to water quality.
The editorial board seemed to have no problem with the state far exceeding its mandate for review in this particular case – largely, we believe, based on the paper’s long-time opposition to energy infrastructure projects in Washington. Yet interesting to anyone that read this editorial, was the paper raising questions about the future implications of an expanded review on other projects. Of particular interest, the paper wrote, “how do we ensure that the Department of Ecology’s expanded reach – incorporating economic and environmental factors beyond its normal scope – avoids morphing into an exuberant, job-killing agency?”
Well, Seattle Times editorial writers, we’d argue, that the ship has already sailed.
The Seattle Times editorial board may be politically predisposed against fossil fuels, but predispositions aren’t a replacement for the facts. To help set the record straight, we have decided to help our readers see the reality behind many of the paper’s claims.