|
Response to the REIR by the California Coastal Commission. On the subject of “Alternative Ownership” as reviewed in the DREIR (Draft Recirculated Environmental Impact Report)
The DREIR evaluates “alternative ownership” of the proposed facility to address a concern that operation of the facility by a private entity could result in more environmental impacts than those resulting from a publicly-operated facility. Section 7.3 of the DREIR states that alternative forms of ownership - i.e., changing the facility from being privately operated to being operated by a public entity - would not change how it would affect the environment. In support of that assertion. the document cites a passage from the 2004 California Water Plan, which states, in in relevant part, “So long as government regulations are applied in the same manner to water projects involving multinational corporations as they are to water projects owned or operated by domestic companies or public utilities, there would be no conflict with international trade treaties.” The DREIR goes on to state that the project proponent, Poseidon Resources Corporation, is a U.S. corporation, not a multi-national corporation.
There are several problems and shortcomings with the analysis provided in the DREIR. First, the analysis does not accurately portray the issue of concern - it is private ownership of the facility, not its operation, that is oc concern, due to provisions of international treaties that suggest such facilities may escape certain locally imposed health and environmental standards. Second, the cited passage from the Water Plan does not address the concern that provisions of international treaties may lesson or remove the ability of local and state government from regulating private multi-national entities or regulating a resource that is controlled, sold, or otherwise marketed by these entities. The passage merely states that there would be no conflict with these treaties if regulations were applied in the same manner to both private entities and public agencies. The concern about the international treaties is that they may create a “lowest common denominator” system of regulation, in which the least restrictive standard imposed by a country subject to a treaty becomes the standard applicable to any entity here in California providing a service covered by the treaty. We recommend the DREIR incorporate other sources of information about this issue-for example, instead of using the statement above from the Water Plan that doesn’t apply to the issue of concern, we recommend the analysis incorporate the concerns of the California Office of the Attorney General and the California Office of the Attorney General and teh California Senate Select Committee on International Trade Policy and State legislation, both of which have expressed significant concerns about potential loss of local and state authority over proposed projects such as this one.
Lastly, we not the the DREIR states that the applicant, Poseidon Resources, is not a multi-national corporation because it is based in Connecticut. That is incorrect. Many multi-national corporations are based in the U.S., as is Poseidon. What makes a corporation multi-national is not where it is based, but that it has operations in several countries. If Poseidon operates in a country subject to treaty provisions that provide lesser environmental or health standards than California, and those standards become applicable to their operations here in California, the proposed project may have far greater adverse effects than those described in the DREIR.
|
