FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE             CONTACT:  Katie Chimenti, 281-286-9750

Sunday, June 20, 2004, 4:16:09 PM                                           Nancy Edmonson, 281-471-4567

Deaf, Dumb, and Blind

A Short History of Bayport

Nothing that has transpired during the six-year Bayport fight has made the proposed project any more acceptable to the people living in surrounding communities than it was in 1998, when the specter of the new port first became public.

In theory, the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) commissioned by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers was to air public concerns about the Port of Houston Authority's proposed giant container terminal at Bayport. Thousands of people went to public meetings to identify problems with the plan.

In theory, concerns about air pollution from ships, trucks and trains, effects of noise and light pollution, wetlands losses, and fears about property values would be addressed in the Draft EIS (2001), Final EIS (2002), or project permit (2004).

Note that the public meetings were not expressions of community goodwill by the Port. They were mandated under the National Environmental Policy Act.

In practice, cities, community associations, school boards, individuals, and state and federal conservation agencies have all expressed serious opposition. Yet the numerous public concerns have scarcely made a dent in project plans. Instead, Port manipulation and maneuvering have been the order of the day.

When the Corps issued a Bayport permit (2004), a coalition of cities and environmental groups spearheaded by the Galveston Bay Conservation and Preservation Association filed suit. They sued the Corps of Engineers in federal court for issuing a permit that is illegal on several grounds. The coalition also sued the Texas Council for Environmental Quality in state court for improper certification of that permit.

--  more --

Deaf, Dumb, and Blind, 2 of 2

In the state case, the judge ruled that she lacked jurisdiction over the TCEQ's permit certification process. She dismissed the case, meaning that the public concerns were not heard in state court. (If a state court lacks jurisdiction over a state administrative process, one wonders exactly where indeed that authority might lie?)

In the federal case, the judge upheld the permit and roundly dismissed all the cities' and the citizens' concerns as "quibbles." Given this disparaging judgment, citizens are clearly aware that in this arena, too, their concerns have fallen upon deaf ears and blind eyes. Agencies and politicians who should be allies to the coalition have been rendered dumb by Port politicking.

As a result the coalition is continuing the quest for a fair hearing for the people of Harris County on this proposed major expenditure of property tax dollars, and for a fair hearing of problems for the 10,000 people who live within two miles of the Bayport site. The coalition is appealing both the state and federal cases.

Meanwhile, back on the coastal prairie, the Port has scheduled a groundbreaking ceremony as part of its expensive ongoing public relations campaign to make Harris County voters compliant when the call comes for the next Port bond election to pay the tab for the boondoggle.

--30--

Galveston Bay Conservation and Preservation Association

P.O. Box 323, Seabrook, Texas 77586

Phone: 281-326-3343

Bayport Is the Wrong Place