Stockton's inland shipping port is poised to triple its capacity if port officials can stave off a lawsuit filed by environmentalists and port neighbors.

At issue is a plan to enlarge the port by 1,400 acres of land on the San Joaquin River that the Stockton Port District acquired from the federal government three years ago. But nearby residents and environmentalists contend that an additional 130 visiting ships a year in Stockton will increase road traffic and cause more air and water pollution in the populated area.

Expansion of the Stockton port - it is the largest inland port in the state - is viewed by the Stockton Port District as a economic boost to the region, creating jobs and encouraging the export of agricultural products from the Central Valley. However, the region is also beset by some of the state's worst air and water pollution, which, project opponents say, would be exacerbated by the port expansion.

The expansion is proposed for Rough and Ready Island, a man-made island that housed a naval communications center in recent years. The site lies across the river from the existing 600-acre port, which opened in 1933, and which expansion opponents claim is underutilized. The new port land is located as close as 400 feet from exclusive residential homes on the water.

Plans for expanding the port include upgrading and using seven wharves, constructing and operating a 105-acre container terminal and a 300-acre auto processing facility, developing an intermodal rail yard, dredging a mile of the San Joaquin River channel, and building bridge and road improvements. With an expected 130 new ships a year using Rough and Ready Island, the expansion is projected to add as many as 40,000 new jobs, according to the Port District.

Already, the port has expanded its operations with 20 ships a year coming to Rough and Ready Island, something that environmental advocates charge was done without environmental review.

Anne Chargin, an 81-year-old retired judge who lives on the waterfront across from the island, said ships' generators can be heard round the clock. Loading and unloading cargo, she said, occurs 20 hours a day.

Bob Kavanaugh, the Port District's chairman, also lives on the waterfront and said the noise is not a problem. He said the port district did an extensive environmental impact report in preparing for its expansion. The study, however, did not satisfy project opponents.

The environmental organizations Deltakeeper and the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), along with several neighborhood associations, filed a the California Environmental Quality Act petition. In the lawsuit, the groups contend that 51,000 new vehicle trips each day after the expansion will cause more air pollution. In addition, ships and equipment such as tugboats and yard tractors will emit heavy diesel fumes. Water quality will also suffer if the expansion occurs, according to Robert Perlmutter, attorney for Deltakeeper and the residents' groups, because of a decrease in oxygen in the water, the introduction of invasive species and more runoff from stormwater and dredged materials.

The CEQA lawsuit points out that the San Joaquin Valley air basin is designated as being in “extreme non-attainment” for national and state ozone standards and “serious non-attainment” for particulate matter. The San Joaquin Valley is considered to have the second worst air quality in the state, and diesel exhaust from the ships and truck traffic is expected to increase the problem dramatically, according to the lawsuit.

Port spokeswoman Abbie Gubera countered that the port's expansion will take thousands of trucks off the highways leading to the Bay Area. But environmental advocates argue that one ship - using an extremely dirty fuel called bunker oil - emits many times as much pollution as automobiles do.

The lawsuit also charges that the project will severely impact residents of Boggs Tract, a low-income minority residential area where much of the increased vehicle traffic will travel. But the Port District's Kavanaugh said the traffic near Boggs Tract will be redirected when a bridge is built to nearby Highway 4 as part of the project.

NRDC attorney Julie Masters said opponents of the port's expansion are not against use of the island, but they favor a project that does not cause harmful effects.

“The question is whether it's necessary,” she said. “We don't think it [the existing port] is being used to capacity. Why not use this as a commercial and light industrial area? It might have less impact on the surrounding communities.”

Regarding unused capacity, Perlmutter said statistics show that the older part of the port on the east sits empty nearly 70% of the year.

Port commissioner Steven Herum disagrees. “It's not true,” he said of the 70% figure. Herum said that the port is in negotiations with users who have special needs that can be met only with expanded facilities on Rough and Ready Island.

Herum said the port district has adopted a number of measures to reduce noise, glare and light from affecting the nearby residences. Although the proposed expansion would require new truck routes and move operations closer to houses, it is unclear how environmentalists' suggestion to increase the use of existing facilities would solve the problem of noise at existing houses or the broader issue of air pollution.

In addition to the lawsuit challenging the Stockton project, opponents plan to challenge the issuance of Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board permits that are needed before dredging can begin.

Masters said court-ordered settlement talks were conducted in the CEQA case and are continuing. It is too early to tell if the sides will settle the case, she said.

Stockton is not the only port district dealing with pollution issues. The NRDC recently won a $60 million judgment against an expansion project at the Port of Los Angeles. The judgment requires the port to construct the world's first electrified container terminal where ships can plug into dockside power while at berth, rather than continuously run their diesel engines to generate electricity.

In September, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed legislation (AB 2042, Lowenthal) that would have capped the booming ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach at existing air pollution levels.

Further north, issues of cost and truck emissions have bedeviled the Port of Sacramento, which is expected to consider deepening its port this fall to compete better with facilities such as those proposed in Stockton.

Contacts:
Steven Herum, Stockton Port District commissioner, (209) 472-7700.
Bob Kavanaugh, Stockton Port District chairman, (209) 943-5443.
Julie Masters, Natural Resources Defense Council, (310) 434-2300.
Robert Perlmutter, Shute, Mihaly & Weinberger, (415) 552-7272.
The case: Deltakeeper v. Port of Stockton, San Joaquin County Superior Court Case, No. CV024399.