October 2002 Issues Online June 2007 April 2007 February 2007 December 2006 October 2006 August 2006 June 2006 April 2006 February 2006 December 2005 October 2005 August 2005 June 2005 April 2005 February 2005 December 2004 October 2004 August 2004 June 2004 April 2004 February 2004 December 2003 October 2003 August 2003 June 2003 April 2003 February 2003 December 2002 October 2002 August 2002 June 2002 April 2002 February 2002 December 2001 October 2001 August 2001 June 2001 April 2001 February 2001 December 2000 October 2000 August 2000 June 2000 April 2000 February 2000 December 1999 October 1999 August 1999 June 1999 April 1999 February 1999 December 1998 October 1998 August 1998 June 1998 April 1998 February 1998 December 1997 October 1997 August 1997 June 1997 April 1997 February 1997 December 1996 October 1996 August 1996 June 1996 April 1996 February 1996 December 1995 October 1995 August 1995 June 1995 April 1995 February 1995 December 1994 October 1994 August 1994 June 1994 April 1994 February 1994 December 1993 October 1993 August 1993 Select any issue from the menu in this bar.

Suit Tossed

Port of Oakland officials are jubilant that a lawsuit that could have delayed their 50-foot dredging and expansion projects has been thrown out of court. The suit, filed in 1999 by WaterKeepers Northern California and the Center for Marine Conservation, alleged that the projects' environmental documents didn't adequately examine the threat posed to the Bay from invasive species introduced by ships using the Port.

Environmentalists charged the projects would increase the risks because a greater number of larger ships would be able to use the Port. They also said that more ships would use Oakland as a first port of call-arriving here directly from foreign countries-so they would be more likely to discharge invasive species-laden ballast water into the Bay. The Port contends that the risks are actually decreased because newer ships discharge less ballast water than older ones do. The suit was filed against the Army Corps, U.S. Fish & Wildlife, and the National Marine Fisheries Service, the agencies responsible for approving the projects.

U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilkins dismissed the suit "on its merits," essentially rejecting all of the environmentalists' arguments. Port officials say that the ruling confirms their contention that the documents complied with both NEPA and the Endangered Species Act. The Port's Marilyn Sandifur says that if the lawsuit had moved ahead, both the dredging and the much-anticipated expansion of Berths 55-59 could have been delayed. "The judge's ruling means we can move ahead with these important projects that benefit the public both environmentally and economically," says Sandifur.

"We're considering our options for an appeal," says WaterKeeper's Leo O'Brien. "We're very disappointed with the judge's ruling, and believe that our claims were valid." O'B

«To @@(newsletter_title)@@ Index

[ ABAG HOME | SFEP HOME ]

Copyright © 2002, San Francisco Estuary Project