The Observer, March 2005

return to this edition

Has the time come for citizen oversight in Puget Sound?

Marilyn Leland, deputy director of the Prince William Sound Regional Citizens’ Advisory Council, testified in favor of citizen oil-spill oversight at two Feb. 8 committee hearings in the Washington state legislature.

Lawmakers there are considering legislation to establish an “oil spill monitoring and oversight council” for their state. It would be similar in many ways, though not all, to the existing citizens’ councils for Cook Inlet and Prince William Sound. The idea of citizen oversight gained momentum in Washington after a mystery crude oil spill in Dalco Passage, near Tacoma. The Coast Guard later identified the source of the oil as the Polar Texas, a ConocoPhillips tanker from Valdez, though the company has said it does not believe its vessel was responsible.

In her testimony to committees of the Washington House and Senate, Leland outlined the history, structure, and operations of the Prince William Sound council. Among her points:

•The council is often regarded as an environmental organization, but it is not one in the same sense as Greenpeace and the Sierra Club. Rather, it focuses on the social and economic harm from oil spills, as well as environmental damage.

•The council is most effective when it avoids confrontation and works in partnership with companies and regulators. As examples, Leland cited the tanker escort system in Prince William Sound and the iceberg-detection radar system now operating near the site of the Exxon Valdez grounding.

•Information is the most valuable thing the council can provide. “To make a real difference, we must produce credible technical information on why a given protective measure is needed, and why the option we favor is better than the alternatives,” Leland told the Washington legislators.

•Independence is vital, and it rests on two main pillars. One is the ability of the council’s member organizations to choose their own representatives to the board rather than having them appointed by state or federal officials. The other pillar is guaranteed funding adequate to pay for the research and other costly activities required to produce credible information.

•The council should be judged by its effectiveness in helping prevent another disaster like the Exxon Valdez spill. Industry and regulators deserve much credit for this safety record, Leland noted, but so does the citizens’ council. Among its contributions, according to Leland, were its work to improve oil-spill contingency plans for the Valdez trade; the introduction of Geographic Response Strategies and nearshore response plans; securing double-hull requirements in federal law; creation of the tanker escort system and the ice-detection radar; production of a guidebook for communities facing oil spills and other man-made disasters; work on the problem of invasive marine species; and the incorporation of fishing vessels in oil-spill response planning.

Leland also noted the importance of continuity in the council’s work. While many company and agency personnel have moved since 1989, many citizens with firsthand experience of the Exxon spill are still around, and still involved with the council. “Consequently,” Leland said, “it now often falls to the council to provide the institutional memory needed to make sure the lessons of the Exxon Valdez figure into today’s decisions.”

Leland reminded lawmakers that it took the Exxon Valdez spill to bring about citizens’ councils in Alaska. “I just hope that you are luckier and wiser than we were, and that it won’t take a disaster to convince you of the importance of citizen oversight,” she said.

Leland appeared at the hearings by invitation of People for Puget Sound, a Seattle-based citizens’ conservation group.