George Dyson can see the waters of Bellingham Bay from his kayak shop, less than a block away from the pilings and abandoned docks that hang over the shoreline. He moved to Bellingham 20 years ago to build kayaks, drawn by the easy access to what he says is the best bay along the Washington coast. But for Dyson, the waters he sees from his window might as well not exist, as he is also a block away from the endless acres of dead ground and crumbling ruins of the Georgia-Pacific pulp mill.
The land the old paper mill sits on is a massive toxic waste site, due to the mill dumping mercury into the bay and over a century of heavy industrial use, and has separated the citizens of Bellingham from their bay for decades. For 20 years, Dyson has watched its empty grounds sit idle.
In 2005, the Port of Bellingham bought the 137 acres of land from Georgia Pacific for $10 - under the condition that the Port would take responsibility for the cleanup. On April 20, 2009, the Port and the City of Bellingham agreed on a controversial plan to redevelop the waterfront and bring Bellingham back to the bay.
But as Dyson points out, there is a big hitch in realizing that vision- the 220 acres the Port and City are trying to develop contains six state-listed toxic sites, including the site of a chlor-alkali plant where mercury was used to bleach and pulp wood fiber and then discharged into the bay. The other five sites include a municipal landfill, a wood treatment operation, a boatyard contaminated with petroleum and solid waste, a waterway used for fish processing, and a 40-acre wastewater treatment pond full of mercury-tainted sediments. Before any part of the Port and City's plan can be realized, the entire area needs to be cleaned up. But with the debate over the plan still raging, the economy in recession, the state budget at a deficit, and investors wary, the waterfront development finds itself caught between a necessary clean up and a lack of money to pay for it.
"Nothing will happen until there is a genuine, realistic cleanup plan, and action is taken accordingly," Dyson said, "Which will be very, very expensive."
The total cost of cleanup is estimated at $94 million.
Mike Stoner is the Port of Bellingham's environmental manager. Stoner has plenty of experience with toxic sites - before being hired by the port, he worked for the Environmental Protection Agency cleaning up Superfund sites. The Port and City, Stoner says, are envisioning a diverse and progressive redevelopment that would include 33 acres of park (the equivalent to 396 basketball courts) and open up 80 percent of the shoreline to the public. The wastewater treatment pond would be dredged and modified to include a new clean water marina that the Port says will be the first of its kind. The plan has drawn heavy criticism from some citizens, including Dyson and other prominent community figures. However, both the Port and City feel that it is the plan that will most benefit everyone.
"What we're trying to do is convert 220 acres of industrial land into 220 acres of vibrant, new, mixed-use waterfront," Stoner said.
The Port plans to fund half of the cleanup with money from the Department of Ecology under the Model Toxics Control Act (MTCA). The MTCA, approved in 1998, was intended to help provide money to clean up the state's most polluted sites and raises its funds mostly from taxes on oil companies. To pay for the remaining cleanup costs and to protect from expenses above the estimated cost, the Port invested $20 million into American International Group (AIG), formerly the world's largest insurer. Ideally, the Port would have eventually repaid this investment by leasing or selling property from the waterfront redevelopment. However, AIG collapsed in September 2008 and has since received $170 billion in federal loans to keep it afloat. The U.S. government currently owns 80 percent of AIG, and the company recently reported the largest quarterly loss in history, giving any investor in the company reason to be nervous.
Jack Weiss was one of two City Councilors to vote against the Port and City's redevelopment plan. Weiss cited the uncertainty of cost estimates as one of his reasons for voting against the proposal. He felt that voting for something without a definite price tag, especially in the current economic climate, seemed premature.
"We have no idea where AIG is going to go in the next couple of years," Weiss said.
"The Port says that part of the firm they've invested in will be okay, but we don't know for sure - I don't think they even know."
Stoner, however, feels that the cleanup process depends on having a solid redevelopment plan ready and in place. This will determine how each area of the redevelopment will be used, and depending on that use, each area would have to be cleaned up to a certain standard. For example, a playground would need a high level of cleanup, while an industrial building would not require as much attention. Since there are different costs for each level of cleanup, knowing this would allow planners to develop a more accurate cost estimate and cleanup strategy. Such a definitive plan will help placate the concerns of investors, both public and private.
The Port and City agreed to prepare the ground to attract normal development, with the Port taking responsibility for the cleanup and marina, and the City for the roads, utilities, parks and trails. With $350 million of public sector investment, they hope to attract $2 billion of additional investment over the next 20 to the 30 years, Stoner said.
The Port expects to recoup the money paid to AIG by selling or leasing roughly 30 acres to developers. Investors would be purchasing what is currently a toxic waste site - but would eventually be prime real estate - as well as being required to build to strictest sustainability standards. A plan would help assure them that the potential worth after cleanup would be worth the risk and pricier concessions.
As for public funding, there is no specific talk of cutting MTCA funds. However, the state has a budget deficit in the billions and many areas will be seeing cuts in funding, including the Department of Ecology. Stoner said having a concrete plan is important in securing federal money by showing the Department of Ecology that the City and Port are actively moving forward, rather than losing it to a different cleanup project as a result of squabbling.
Dyson, however, feels that the Port made a mistake in trying to attract private investors before cleaning the property up. He says that the reason Georgia-Pacific did not sell to developers themselves was because it is a toxic waste dump and that it will not sell until it is cleaned up. But when it is, figuring out what to do with it will not even be an issue.
"Once it is cleaned up there will be no problem agreeing on what to develop and what not to develop," Dyson said. "No private developers, in the current market, are going to take this liability upon themselves, and a lot of what we are seeing now is theatrics to try and disguise that fact. The Port, by dreaming about condos and marinas instead of getting to work on a realistic cleanup, missed its chance."
Cleanup processes are underway, Stoner points out, albeit slowly. The Log Pond - a site where large amounts of mercury were discharged into the bay - was capped in late 2000 and early 2001, and the Port is waiting for the permits to begin cleanup on what is called the Whatcom Creek Waterway. This area includes the Log Pond, the Whatcom Creek Channel, and the wastewater treatment pond and is heavily contaminated with mercury. In 2007, the Department of Ecology decided what actions were needed to clean up the waterway, but according to Stoner, the permits are still a year and a half out. There are currently no cleanup plans for the remaining sites, Stoner said.
The City and the Port may have finally agreed on a waterfront redevelopment plan. Whatever the plan, the site has to be cleaned up before any development actually happens. In the current proposal, much of the cleanup is slated to be complete as early as 2013. But with little of the cleanup done and continuing debate - as well as the current economic crisis making investors wary and funding scarce - it will be much longer before Bellingham citizens can walk to the bay and get their feet wet, or before George Dyson will only have to walk one block to launch his kayak.
Sakeus Bankson studies environmental journalism. This is his second published piece in the Planet.