FM Talk 1065 Podcasts
William Strickland Exective Director of the Mobile Baykeepers talkes about the Mobile Bay Dredging Project - Midday Mobile - Wednesday 7-24-24
This is Midday Mobile with Sean Sullivan on FMTalk1065. By 1235, FMTalk1065, Midday Mobile, phone number and the text line have been popping already today, 3430106, 3430106, mentioned at the beginning of the show commenting on the story that was talked about yesterday with Mobile Baykeeper, putting in a lawsuit to sue the Corps of Engineers over dredging dangers to sturgeon. And then you heard, we talked about that yesterday, then you heard, if you were listening earlier on Jeff's show, and you can go back and catch the podcast. If you didn't, Mobile Chamber, Commerce President Bradley Byrne coming on and taking real issue with this lawsuit to join us from Mobile Baykeeper, the Executive Director back on the show with us. William Strickland, thanks for your time. Oh, thanks for having me as always, Sean. I really appreciate it. Okay. I'm good. I'm good. I want it because, you know, the opinions on this thing are bouncing back and forth on this radio station. Your take on why, you know, why Mobile Baykeeper filed this lawsuit over the dredging? Yeah. So, as with a lot of things in Alabama, we, this is really about who has the right to decide the fate of our own fate. And so in this case, we're talking about the health of Mobile Bay, and those that depend on its health to make a living. And so I can lay out the problem first for you the way that we see it. Sure. There's some misperception I'd like to correct, and then, and then of course, take any questions that you have for me. Why not? Because that sounds good. Yeah. Sounds good. Yeah. So the issue, because I mean, it's been discussed yesterday and today, but the issue here. What is, what does Mobile Baykeeper want to see changed, stopped, adjusted? What is it? What's the situation? Right. So the situation is, if there's a project to deepen and widen the ship channel for the Port of Mobile, which is not the issue that Baykeeper is concerned about, we're concerned about the impact that that, that the work that they're doing and that we'll be going on for the next 20 years will have on our local economy, the people that make a living on the water, and then of course, the health and the water itself. So 2018, they're studying the project, and this is the Army Corps of Engineers. This is the federal government, and they went against the judgment and the advice of local scientists, fishermen, oystermen, charter guides, property owners, all people that sure, they had a chance to voice their thoughts and instead decided to say there's not going to be any environmental impact according to our plan for this project. Now, you don't have to be a scientist to understand that there is certainly going to be some impact. So really what they did when they did that was they lost the opportunity to get federal money, our tax dollars, to do this project the right way. Now, what we want everyone to understand is not that we're looking at every part of this project that's the issue. The main crux for us is that there's maintenance going on over the next 20 years that'll produce 90 million cubic yards of mud that they're just going to spray into Mobile Bay. There's actually a lot more dredged than that. They're going to be used for a lot of different things, but the bulk of it, that 90 million cubic yards, is just going to be sprayed into the bay. And that causes all kinds of issues for our plan animal life. They're used to a certain amount of clarity when you have that cloudiness, and again, you talk to any old-timer, they'll tell you that it's not like it used to be, or if you talk to somebody that's 40 years old, and they'll tell you it's not like it was when they were a kid, we cannot continue to do this and expect to have life in our bay. So we've been working alongside commercial fishermen, oystermen, charter guides, some large business owners, and we've been meeting with the Corps, trying to, and that's one thing that I think we all agree on. We've been trying to talk this out. So you have been. Okay, because that means some of the discussion was that they were blindsided by this lawsuit. Does that seem accurate or not? It depends on who's saying that, right? So we've given plenty of notice to everyone that's involved in the lawsuit, which is just the Corps of Engineers. We've had discussions about our issues with this ship channel. Again, it's all on record since 2018. You go back and see what we've said. We put official comment into the record. And basically what we get back from the Corps of Engineers is that we're not going to do anything different unless we have to. Now, the lawsuit itself is about critical habitat for a threatened species of Gulf Sturgeon, and that's really all I have to say about that. The lawsuit really does is it gives a timeline for the Corps to actually start listening to the people that are saying, "Hey, you are damaging my way of making a limit." So just in the last two days, there's been over 1,200 letters sent to our federal elected officials. The support has been huge. The commercial fishing industry is still gaining support and wanting to do something official together. And really our message is this. We can't let the federal government pick winners and losers. We want to expand the port, deepen the channel. That's great, but we can't let the feds go cheap for us because we're not a swing state. I don't know what the reasoning are. That's just not fair. So we're asking the Corps to spend more money, and we certainly are not interested in getting into a long lawsuit on this. We're simply saying to our federal officials, "Make the Corps do it right. Do something with this dredge material." Okay. First of all, just a side, just note I made here. Is the Gulf Sturgeon, well, it's an endangered fish, is this a mascot for the bigger issue? Did you use the Gulf Sturgeon because of its critical nature? Because it sounds like it's not. While this does affect specifically the Gulf Sturgeon, there's a lot more to this. Am I off on that? Oh, you're exactly right. So the Gulf Sturgeon is a great legal hook for which us to apply this pressure on. And of course, the Sturgeon has the right to continue to live. If you look on the map, the entire Sturgeon Gulf Coast is already designated as critical habitat for the Sturgeon except for Mobile Bay. We know that there's plenty of Sturgeon there. But the protections that we give to the Sturgeon are really protections for everything else that lives in our Bay and the people that depends on those things that live in our Bay. So you're using it because everything else wouldn't have had the impact to file the lawsuit that the Sturgeon would, correct? Exactly. That's our best chance for now to get them to do something different. Okay. Ed, you said I'm going to go back with Bay Keeper not against deepening and widening the channel? Yes. So I want to be, that's the first thing that I want to be clear about. There's been some messaging that's gone out. I think some misperception, you had Bradley on, he and I are both out of town, right? So I'm not going to use that as our only excuse, but there's been a breakdown in communication. So I'll make it clear right now, we, Bay Keeper, the members we represent, those commercial fishermen, we are not trying to stop the deepening and widening of the ship channel. That is not what we're doing. What we are doing, asking the Corps of Engineers to not dump 90 million cubic yards of sediment, which by the way, is enough to cover 42,000 plus football fields with a foot of dirt. That's every football field in America from Pop Warner through the NFL, cover them all with dirt, or enough to cover the entirety of Mobile Baby Tune Adventures and Mud. We're saying you can't do that to it. So that's the first thing I want to correct is that has, that's not on the table, that we're stopping the deepening and widening of the channel. What is on the table is how do we do this the right way? Well, this is an adjunct to this and probably didn't, it's not come up in the discussion now, but because I've watched this for a while, I remember a few years ago, I don't know, maybe four, three, somewhere in there, a discussion came up of adding in a, you know, the way Gulliard Island is out there, a spoil island that has benefit for, for pelicans and different shorebirds, that there was an idea to do another something like, not just like Gulliard Island, but another use of the spoil to create wetlands. I had an issue back then because of where the footprint would be. I was excited to create more wetlands, but I was like, hey, let's not cover up the grasses that are already on tensile bar, let's move it deeper into an area that's not as productive. But the idea of using that spoil for that was presented back then. Is that part of the conversation anymore, or is that gone? What's y'all's understanding that? So that specific project, I'm not trying to dodge the question, but because the truth will answer is, I don't know where they're getting that dredge. I believe that it's not a part of this 90 million cubic yards that we're talking about, but it does bring up the greater point of this idea of beneficial use. So that project is designated as beneficial use, and that's a technical term that they use. So what the Army Corps of Engineers' goal is nationwide is to have 70% of dredge material used beneficially, and in this instance, Mobile Bay would be bringing down the average tremendously. And so we don't want to be prescriptive about what to do with that dredge spoil. We do know that what they're picking is the cheapest option, but there are plenty of restoration projects, not just building new islands that you may have an issue with, but lots of our marsh is drowning because of the way we've diverted water, and so we need lots of marsh nourishment. There's plenty of uses for this stuff, and we want to see more of that happen. The problem, of course, is that's more expensive, so that's where we have to say, hey, these are our tax dollars, stop spending them in other places, we deserve the same treatment here. I mean, I've seen this debate before, I've been in it before about the dredging in the past and not taking the sand portion, that dredge and letting it cross the Mobile Ship Channel down at Dolphin Island and, you know, just giving it straight to the island versus taking out to the beneficial use area, that area offshore. I was told back then that by decree law, I don't know what it was that the Corps had to, by their definition, do the cheapest option out there, that they were mandated to do the cheapest option so their hands were tied. It's your understanding of that. Yeah. So that's what the Corps continues to tell us, right? Is their hands are tied because they said, and this is, again, part of the information that the business community has put out there, or I shouldn't say the business community, sorry, Sean, those that really want port expansion, which, again, nothing wrong with it, they're saying that they've done a study and it shows that there's going to be zero environmental impact. Again, Sean, you've been out there fishing. You tell me if there's going to be environmental impact. You tell me if there's not already environmental impact. So when they did that, now they don't have to do something different with it and they're claiming they have to do the cheapest thing. Now if you're dredging your own dot to get your boat in, I guarantee you the Corps is not going to be okay with you have to doing the cheapest thing and you're producing your own report saying that there's going to be zero environmental impact for you to put it wherever you want. So why does it not apply to the government if it applies to us? Everything, one more thing, Sean, I just wanted to -- another helpful piece of information in some of the communications I've seen for port expansion is that we have been working together, that the port itself has facilitated talks, and we have been really grateful to the port on that, and they've facilitated talks with the Corps, and I want to make it clear once again that this lawsuit is with the Corps of Engineers. What we're asking our federal officials to do is to make the Corps of Engineers do the right thing and then fund that work, which is why I've been a little bit confused as to why there's been such a backlash against what we've done, confused and surprised. I thought there was a possibility, and still think that there is one, to work with those groups that want port expansion. Hey, let's advocate together. Let's make our case even stronger that they need to do the right thing and send us more money to get it done. Okay. But just 30 seconds here, 45, before we go, the news break can come back. But is it a situation where the Corps basically said, maybe in back channel or something that, if it costs more, we're not going to do this? Because it seems to be being framed by those that oppose you on this as a real binary situation. If you do this, this lawsuit is going to maybe keep it from happening. Well, if it's binary, I don't yet have that information. I certainly hope there's not back channeling with the Corps of Engineers or our federal government saying, "We're not going to do the right thing and we're going to let these critical species, the people depend on for their living to die," but I have no knowledge of that. I can't really speculate as to why that is, but to me it's not binary at all. I think we're presented with a false choice. Okay. I'm coming right back more with executive director of Mobile Paykeeper, William Strickland, right here on Midday Mobile. This is Midday Mobile with Sean Sullivan on FMTalk 1065. By 1251, FMTalk 1065, Midday Mobile, just say, "If that's six or seven more minutes here, for now," in this conversation with William Strickland, executive director of Mobile Paykeeper. William, I want to kind of go through some things that were rolled out today when Bradley Byrne was on with Jeff, and he said, "First of all, what y'all are doing is anti-development and anti-worker," and you're saying that y'all, once again, I know I asked you at the beginning. Again, does Mobile Paykeeper oppose the deepening and widening of the Mobile Ship channel? The answer is no, we do not oppose the deepening and widening of the Ship channel. These are the sort of talking points that come up when they're trying to get you to feel emotion in some type of way, I think, or maybe there's just a misunderstanding. Like I said, Bradley and I are both out of town. We haven't talked, but you tell me, listener, we are advocating for more of your tax dollars to come back to you to clean up Mobile Bay. We don't want to stop the deepening and widening of the channel. We want to protect the jobs of commercial fishing families and charter guides, and those folks that depend on those species in the water. To me, that seems like we'll have more jobs, if we're successful, not less, so I'm unsure where the anti-development argument could even come into play. The idea is that, hey, you do this deepening and widening, but you want, is it 100% of the spoil to go somewhere, whether beneficial use or somewhere else, or like, where's y'all's, I don't want to get in your, I don't want to get in your, I don't want to get in deals here, but where's your line? Where does Vee get to say? Of course, we want as much as possible, but we really do want all of the dredge spoil to not be just spread out his mud into the bay, and a good example of this is Savannah. Every time I go to a chamber meeting, I'm on the Board of Advisors, by the way, Sean. We'll see what the next meeting is like, I guess, is we're talking about Savannah. We're going to be like Savannah, and it seems like we're trying to be Savannah on Biloxi prices. Savannah deep in a wide in their ship channel, they put zero mud back into their estuary. They put low oxygen bubblers into their ship channel, they did some large conservation easements, and they even protected or raised up an old Civil War ironclad ship. And so our requests are similar, I think fairly reasonable, that we don't use dredge material in the bay unless it's beneficial use, that we are involved in determining what is beneficial use, that we study what ship weight does to erosion of our shoreline. We do some protection of our shorelines in converting them back into living shorelines which is proven to cause less erosion and be better for sea life. So all things that are going to help those that are making a living on the water, all things that are reasonable that have been done most other places, for some reason here, we think we don't have to do them. And again, when I say we, I'm talking about the federal government here. I'm not talking about our local folks making decisions, we're talking about the feds coming in and saying we know best, we know better than you. Now, once again, so you pointed out other places that the core of engineers has done this similar deepening and widening or dredging and has taken another measure versus just throwing it back into the waterway. This has been done. So there's some precedent? Oh, most of these projects, again, I mentioned before, the core, it has a goal by 2030 to 70% of dredge material for beneficial use. That's not creating a big mud cloud in Mobile Bay, which is the current plan. So we're advocating that they follow their own rules. And this is so they have done this. There's president said, this is the idea that through your, through your eyes, through what you all have done here, that if the core of engineers has to do something else other than just spray it back into the bay, they still will continue to deepen, widen the ship channel. That's exactly what we're advocating for. So the lawsuit here, another thing to point out is like, you know, you know, Mobile Bay Keeper comes in with this lawsuit and all it does is cost a bunch of money out there. And as it delays things and costs money, also, Bradley Bernard said that y'all were associated with the Center for Biological Diversity, that this is this, like anti-business, anti-commerce group out there. They had opposed drilling leases and all that. So what's your response to burn in others that say, hey, what gives with this? Well, in terms of a costly, delaying lawsuit, again, not our intention, and we have not followed a lawsuit. We've noticed that we intend to follow a lawsuit if the people of Mobile and Baldwin County's demands aren't met. So that's first and foremost, we do not want to follow a lawsuit if we can avoid it. The second, with the Center for Biological Diversity, it goes to the bottom line of all of this, right? So I got to play football for Coach Dave in up at Alabama and he didn't care where you came from or what you did. He concerned with, are you the best at what you did? So the Center for Biological Diversity is the premier group and it comes to legal action around threatening endangered species. So why would I not partner with the best group in the world, regardless of what else they've done that I have nothing to do with on a project that allows for us to have a deepened and wide-and-shift channel, an expanded port, and to have a healthy day? And so that is the outcome that you see is possible. This is not some, you know, that both things can happen once again, not a binary choice. Well, both things have to happen if we're going to have a thriving economy. We don't have a thriving economy without a healthy day, and so we're advocating that both things have to happen in order for us to live the lives that we want to live here. And you know, I mentioned Coach Saban, this is the old saying, and I've said it on the show before, I think, where he says, "If you want to get what you want, you don't have a lot of choices because it takes what it takes." And so this is another instance where I'm confused, I wasn't expecting this. I talk with these people, they verbalize, they want healthy water. It's critical to our economy, it's critical to our lay of life. They verbalize this. Then everyone I talk to, they see the way the Bay has continued to degrade, yet when it's time to do something about it, we're not willing to do something about it, even if it's not going to really cost us anything. So I think it's the win-win. Hopefully we can get together and agree on that. All right, William Strickland, we'll get you back in over the next couple of weeks, talk more about this. Appreciate your time today. Thanks, Sean. You have a good one. All right, there he goes, executive director at Mobile Baykeeper, William Strickland, our guest. We'll keep our eyes on this story. Another story we've had our eyes on a long time of the firing of former police chief Paul Prine. The report comes out yesterday, you heard the mayor's reaction. Paul Prine joins me to talk about it next.