In 1959, in Martin v. Reynolds Metals, the Oregon Supreme Court held that the owner of an aluminum factory that cast invisible fluoride ions onto its neighbor’s property had trespassed on the neighbor and had to pay damages. The court held that even the invisible could trespass.
The case comes to mind today because after many more years of operations and fluoride emissions (averaging 800 pounds a day at the time of the Martin case) the Reynolds Aluminum (do you remember the “Reynolds Wrap” brand of aluminum foil?) site passed into the hands of Alcoa, a multi-national producer of aluminum. Alcoa closed the plant in 1999, though it still owns the property. The federal government recognized its years of operation, but not in a way that anyone would crow about: it awarded the site a “Superfund” designation in 1994. The cleanup is still going on.
The Port of Portland wants to build an intermodal rail yard (rail-to-truck transfer and vice versa) on the site. Fairview and Troutdale are opposed: those two cities (the two closest to the site) want to see the site redeveloped by and for private industry.
Nobody’s talking (at least, not to me) about what Alcoa prefers. Alcoa’s going to finish the Superfund cleanup, which is only fair: it and its predecessor made the mess. But the Knower of All Things did mention the story he heard: that if Alcoa sells to the Port, it’s going to insist that the Port indemnify Alcoa against the cost of cleaning up any remaining contamination outside the Superfund cleanup.
That’s one job the Port shouldn’t be taking on.
Comments
3 responses
Something’s got to keep them busy when K-line and Hanjin flee the scene. Right?
For information re: how NASCAR was defeated in Marysville, go to http://www.heraldnet.com, click on Special Reports, find the NASCAR link there, and therein you will find a 4-part series written over a one-year period by Scott Morris. But the best source is http://www.scar-info.net/documents/SummarySeattleTimes_Fontana.htm
SCAR = Snohomish Citizens Against a Racetrack.
Questions: Does Martin v Reynolds extend to smoke and noise emanating from a NASCAR racetrack? Are wetlands objections to the siting of a track at Reynolds viable? Are federal laws applicable, were Indians to object to the track siting, given the proximity to The Columbia and Sandy Rivers and Indian treaty fishing rights? And what about EPA involvement inasmuch as Reynolds is a Superfund Cleanup Site? Hopefully someone out there will respond to these questions before NASCAR reps get too excited March 1 when they tour the Reynolds Metals site.
Interestingly, because The Guv is inking , like today, the OK for The Warm Springs Tribes to build their 500,000 sq ft casino in Cascade Locks, The Grand Ronde Tribes, who had offered to build the NASCAR track in Troutdale (surely, the quid pro quo was a contiguous casino), now are canoodling with Portland Meadows , hyping a “racino” there. Well, rather than an intermodal railyard at Reynolds Metals, I believe Troutdale would like The Grand Ronde to revisit our town but with a proposal like: “we will build our casino, but we also will build contiguous soccer fields, a hotel, eateries, a golf course, and other tourist-and-locals-friendly amenities that showcase The Sandy and Columbia Rivers which border the former Reynolds Metals Site. Albeit, it is a Brownfields area, politics and politicos have made it feasible that such a site could be configured for public use safely. After all, The Port of Portland offered to indemnify the current owner , ALCOA, for any and all toxins related claims. So as landlord why might they not continue thusly, perhaps with a better cleanup of the site, making it user-friendly for people rather than for rail cars?