The BC government has shelled out almost $2.5 million dollars to clean up several large spills in the last decade – and it’s due to pay out more.
In documents obtained through an access to information request to the Ministry of Environment, a listing of six major spills revealed that the government only recovered $500,000 of $3 million spent to restore affected areas.
In the case of the Robson Bight incident in 2007, the government had to pay the entire bill after the trucking company that caused the spill went into bankruptcy – a whopping $1.5 million. Ted Leroy Trucking was transporting a fuel truck by barge when it tipped over into the ocean. Although the owner was convicted of pollution charges, he didn’t have to pay a cent.
During a legislature session on Mar. 2, 2015 opposition critic Spencer Chandra-Herbert questioned the ministry’s response to a more recent spill. The Mount Polley accident in August 2014 released tailings pond water into nearby lakes.
He said that the opposition was worried that the ministry couldn’t “ensure that the polluter pays every last penny” and that the cost would be put on “the backs of British Columbians”.
Environment minister Mary Polak revealed that the current cost to government for the Mount Polley breach was around $2-million dollars.
Chandra-Herbert said, “I don’t think that British Columbians should have to subsidize the clean-up of oil or other materials that corporations spill into our environment. It’s just wrong.”
Graham Knox, director of the environmental emergency program, said that the government is aware of the failings of the current cost-recovery model.
He said that when spillers are bankrupt, unidentified, or want to contest responsibility for the spill, the government can end up eating the costs.
Knox said some members of industry argue that because they pay taxes in the province, they shouldn’t have to cover all the costs of spills. “Spills aren’t a legal activity,” said Knox, “your operation doesn’t get three free spills because you pay taxes.”
There are avenues that exist for the government to recoup its losses, such as declaring an environmental emergency through the Provincial Emergency Program or applying to the federal Ship Source Oil Pollution Fund. The fund can compensate claimants for marine oil spills, while the emergency program has millions of dollars at its disposal.
However, there are limitations to each of these funding sources. For example, most of the emergency funds are earmarked for disasters that threaten public safety, said Knox.
In the Robson Bight spill, the oil pollution fund refused to pay for recovery costs of the submerged vehicles, stating in their annual report that “the measures taken were out of proportion to the threat posed.”
Over the past few years the government has been crafting a new spill preparedness and response approach using public input. Knox said it is likely that their department will bring the new approach in front of the legislature this spring.
One remedy that could stop taxpayers from paying for spill clean-ups would be a requirement that “risk-bringers” (companies that transport oil or other hazardous materials) pay into a fund that would be used in cases where the government can’t receive payment from the offending company.
However, citizens are concerned about more than just their tax dollar. They want to hold offending companies to account.
Megan Rowe, a Victoria resident, supports the government enforcing the “polluter pays” policy more effectively. “Without the threat of having to clean up a spill, and be financially responsible for that operation,” she said, “there is nothing to hold them responsible for the damages caused.”