or Login to see your representatives.

Access Candidates' and Representatives' Biographies, Voting Records, Interest Group Ratings, Issue Positions, Public Statements, and Campaign Finances

Simply enter your zip code above to get to all of your candidates and representatives, or enter a name. Then, just click on the person you are interested in, and you can navigate to the categories of information we track for them.

Public Statements

Letter to Rear Admiral Keith Taylor: Economic Impact Study Needed for CRC

Letter

By:
Date:
Location: Washington, DC

Today, four Northwest Members of Congress formally requested that the U.S. Coast Guard conduct an economic impact study on the Columbia River Crossing prior to that agency issuing any possible permits for the project. In a letter to the Coast Guard, Reps. Jaime Herrera Beutler (WA-3), Doc Hastings (WA-4), Cathy McMorris Rodgers (WA-5) and Raul Labrador (ID-1) reinforced continued concerns over the CRC's proposed design that is too low to accommodate multiple river users on the Columbia River.

The text of the letter follows, and the original letter can be found by clicking here:

Rear Admiral Keith A. Taylor
District Commander
Thirteenth Coast Guard District
915 2nd Avenue, Room 3590
Seattle, WA 98174-1067

Dear Admiral Taylor:

We are writing to express our continued concern regarding the potential, and increasingly probable, negative impacts of the Columbia River Crossing to navigation and commerce upriver of the project. As you know, a recent survey of current river users was conducted by the CRC to determine the impacts of a bridge clearance design that is too low to accommodate the free flow of navigation. The findings of that survey, as well as additional discussions with those users by the CRC, have shown results that are very troubling.

Although the CRC has attempted to lessen the impacts to some of the users by calling for a design that will provide 116 feet of clearance, unfortunately significant impacts to upriver users remain. We believe it is crucial that we move beyond the number of times per year that these impacted users would need to move their cargo under the bridge, to the real numbers that these trips represent.

· The CRC admits that these trips, though limited in number, are significant revenue producers for the fabricating companies that would no longer be able to fit their cargo under the bridge for shipment. These trips have historically represented nearly 10 percent of their gross annual revenue, and stand to represent even greater numbers due to current company growth.

· These trips have represented nearly $200 million in revenue to these companies over the course of the last 10 years and have provided employment to approximately 140 full time, well paid employees. Current and anticipated growth within the companies will only cause these numbers to rise.

· In addition to the businesses that are being impacted, land owners stand to lose significant value to their properties if these businesses are forced to relocate and future tenants cannot be found due to insufficient bridge clearance to move cargo.

· Costs for the bridge design modifications to raise the clearance to the height of 116 feet are estimated at $30 million. In reality, this number is woefully inadequate since it does not include mitigation costs, estimated to be in the hundreds of millions, for the businesses and landowners who will continue to be impacted by a bridge clearance that would remain insufficient.

· In an issue unaddressed by the CRC, how can we possibly mitigate for the families whose jobs will unnecessarily be lost?

We cannot cavalierly dismiss the impacts to the businesses, current and future, which depend upon the free flow of river commerce to survive. Neither can we dismiss the impacts to our local economy, nor the jobs that would cease, should these companies be forced to relocate or close their doors. We would argue that we do not want to take this risk when we have the opportunity to bring about a solution that ensures free navigation of the river and protects our regional economy, both now and in the future.

To close, this issue is of such significance to our districts that we request a full study of the current and future economic impacts to all upriver traffic prior to the issuance of a possible permit. Too many questions remain unanswered, and it is imperative that we find a solution that fosters, rather than hinders, our future economic viability. Thank you for your time and attention to this matter. We look forward to your response.


Source:
Back to top