Skip to main content
Advertising

Originally published Monday, May 26, 2014 at 6:43 PM

  • Share:
           
  • Comments (0)
  • Print

State’s appetite for fish stirs battle over industry, environment

Tribes, fishermen and environmental groups are pitted against Boeing, business groups and municipalities in a fight over how much fish we eat — and therefore how clean Washington waters should be.


The Associated Press

Reader Comments
Hide / Show comments
Boeing's already gone? Tens of thousands of people work for Boeing in this area. Do you know what happens to Everett... MORE
So how many top-secret-agent nut cases with no environmental experience are writing policies and regulations at the... MORE
"People are worried about what we might do. Are we going to be protective enough? Are we going to drive business out of... MORE

advertising

A bitter fight over how much fish people eat — and thus how clean Washington waters should be — has pitted tribes, commercial fishermen and environmental groups against Boeing, business groups and municipalities.

The state Department of Ecology appears ready to boost the current fish-consumption rate, an obscure number that has huge ramifications for the state because it drives water-quality standards. A higher number means that fewer toxic pollutants would be allowed in waters.

“So much is at stake,” said Kelly Susewind, with the Department of Ecology, adding: “People are worried about what we might do. Are we going to be protective enough? Are we going to drive business out of the state? That ups the ante.”

Meanwhile, the regional head of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has warned the state that the agency intends to take over the process if the state doesn’t finalize a rule this year. And a coalition of environmental groups is asking a federal judge in Seattle to get the EPA to step in and force the state to complete a rule or to impose one itself.

The state missed its own March deadline to release a draft rule. With “strong guidance” from Gov. Jay Inslee, the state is still deliberating and may not have a draft rule until later in the summer, Susewind said.

Inslee has gotten personally involved in the issue, calling a task force representing tribal, business and environmental interests to advise him.

It’s a political balancing act for the Democratic governor, who has made the environment a central issue, but also has shown a willingness to accommodate companies like Boeing. The aerospace giant in March raised concerns to Inslee that the proposals “will have unintended consequences for continued Boeing production in the state.”

Inslee spokesman David Postman said the governor believes a balance is possible and “that’s what he’s working for.”

For years, the state has known it needs to update its fish-consumption rate, which federal regulators say doesn’t sufficiently protect those who eat the most fish, particularly Native Americans and Pacific Islanders.

Studies have shown Washington residents eat more fish than other people nationwide, but the state currently assumes people eat about 6½ grams a day — or about one small fillet once a month.

The state is now certain to boost that amount and is considering a fish-consumption rate between 125 and 225 grams of fish a day. Oregon set its rate at 175 grams a day, the highest for a U.S. state.

While a higher fish rate would make standards more stringent, Ecology is also considering changing another factor in the complicated formula that would likely make standards less stringent. The proposal would increase by tenfold the excess cancer-risk rate from certain cancer-causing chemicals.

The Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission, Puget Soundkeeper Alliance and other groups have told Inslee that a less-protective cancer-risk level is unacceptable and would disproportionately harm those who eat the most fish. They worry that a higher cancer-risk level would offset gains elsewhere.

Meanwhile, the Association of Washington Business, local governments such as Everett, and others have told Inslee that keeping the cancer-risk factor at its current rate is “unacceptable” and, coupled with a high fish-consumption rate, would result in “unmeasurable incremental health benefits, and predictable economic turmoil.”

They say some standards being debated would drive businesses out of state. They note that technology doesn’t exist in some cases to limit certain pollutants, though environmental groups argue that the standards would drive technological innovations.

The state is also considering issuing variances — temporary waivers from the rules — allowing businesses and municipalities that discharge pollutants into waterways as many as 40 years in some cases to meet the standards, though they would be required to report progress periodically.

“We think variances are a powerful tool going forward,” Susewind said.

Critics of variances have urged Inslee not to give polluters too much time or too many ways to opt out of following new rules.

The state is also considering different proposals that would leave the standard for mercury the same while making standards for PCBs and arsenic less stringent.



Want unlimited access to seattletimes.com? Subscribe now!

Also in Local News

News where, when and how you want it

Email Icon

What do you know about the Image Duplicator?

What do you know about the Image Duplicator?

View an iconic Pop art image and enter to win a trip for two to Vancouver, B.C.

Advertising

Partner Video

Advertising


Advertising
The Seattle Times

The door is closed, but it's not locked.

Take a minute to subscribe and continue to enjoy The Seattle Times for as little as 99 cents a week.

Subscription options ►

Already a subscriber?

We've got good news for you. Unlimited seattletimes.com content access is included with most subscriptions.

Subscriber login ►
The Seattle Times

To keep reading, you need a subscription upgrade.

We hope you have enjoyed your complimentary access. For unlimited seattletimes.com access, please upgrade your digital subscription.

Call customer service at 1.800.542.0820 for assistance with your upgrade or questions about your subscriber status.

The Seattle Times

To keep reading, you need a subscription.

We hope you have enjoyed your complimentary access. Subscribe now for unlimited access!

Subscription options ►

Already a subscriber?

We've got good news for you. Unlimited seattletimes.com content access is included with most subscriptions.

Activate Subscriber Account ►