DUSEL Loses Key Support - Wenatchee World Editorial
DUSEL foes get support from Leavenworth council vote
Information Station in Icicle Canyon a Big Success
Editorial by Harriet Bullitt -- President, Icicle Broadcasting Co. - KOHO Radio
Wenatchee World article on Mt. Cashmere and other potential DUSEL sites
Public Hearing on May 12: Citizens say NO DUSEL
Read "Response to DUSEL CASCADES Pre-Proposal" [PDF: 92kb]
Lawsuits in similar cases and why it is important not to allow the precedent of unlawful drilling in wilderness and scenic river corridors...
Legal Victory in Montana prevents digging a mine under wilderness area
See Citizens Advisory Committee section
Chelan County Port District's "DUSEL Process" cooks the books:
Four local Chamber of Commerce membership lists were added to the "count" of those in favor of the DUSEL project, despite the fact that the members were never asked their opinion. If these four Chamber of Commerce individual membership lists are excluded from the count (as they should be), the Port received 905 notices against DUSEL Cascades proposal and 34 in favor of it.
Leavenworth Mayor receives 527 letters from area residents against DUSEL being built here, and 4 letters in favor of the proposal.
Coming soon to a bookstore near you...
the Chelan County bestseller...
SEE THE BOOK COVER
National Security Operations
Read a 3-page excerpt [PDF:69kb] buried in the appendices of the proposal which refutes a lot the comments by proponents which gloss over the National Security Operations which would occur at DUSEL.
Editorial from the July 17, 2005 edition of the Wenatchee World newspaper:
DUSEL loses key support
It was the vote that had to be: The Leavenworth City Council unanimously declined to endorse the Deep Underground Science and Engineering Laboratory proposed for the beloved and valued Icicle Valley.
The council includes some former outspoken proponents of DUSEL. It includes at least one scientist and high-level educator. Someone might have expected at least some residual support for endorsing DUSEL, perhaps just a few encouraging words. But no, the council's opposition was consistent, its unanimity glaring.
The council voted correctly. Truly, it was the only position the council could possibly take. Community opposition to the DUSEL proposal is that deep, and swelling. The Leavenworth City Council was not going to take a position opposing its own citizens. Leavenworth cannot oppose Leavenworth.
All this may not mean that the prospects of actually building DUSEL are diminishing. The National Science Foundation probably already has chosen sites for further study. The Icicle Valley and the proposed tunnel under Mount Cashmere may or may not be on the list. But if DUSEL is built with its portal in the Icicle Valley, it will be in the face of strong, obvious and consistent local opposition. It's possible, but difficult to imagine.
The opposition to DUSEL long ago transcended anti-growth types and NIMBY forces. It is not all based on misinformation and selfishness, as DUSEL supporters often contend. People with a stake in the community's welfare, who support economic development and commerce, have weighed the evidence, listened to all sides and concluded that DUSEL is not the right project for this region, and the Icicle Valley is the wrong place for DUSEL. The scope and size of the project are so great that they threaten something highly valued: the Icicle Valley, its tranquility, the character of the Leavenworth area itself. It is perceived to be that way, and in a case like this perception itself is truth. The potential economic benefits of DUSEL for the rest of the region start to shrink in significance, considering the Leavenworth opposition.
This doesn't mean the DUSEL project itself is unimportant, or that the science is not necessary, and that we will not benefit from it. It simply becomes easier to imagine it being built in one of the many other communities that dearly want it. They, obviously, do not include Leavenworth.
This is not the last time the community will visit this issue, but a major statement has been made. The talk of DUSEL will have to take a distinctly different tone to accommodate the fact that in the place where it would be built, they don't want it.
This is the opinion of The Wenatchee World and its Editorial Board: Editor and Publisher Rufus Woods, Managing Editor Gary Jasinek and Editorial Page Editor Tracy Warner.
From the July 13, 2005 edition of the Wenatchee World newspaper:
DUSEL foes get support from Leavenworth council vote
By Michelle McNiel World staff writer
Wednesday - July 13, 2005
LEAVENWORTH -- Opponents of a plan to build an underground science lab in the Icicle Valley crowded into Leavenworth City Hall Tuesday night fully expecting the City Council to reject the project.
But the audience still gasped in collective surprise when the vote was unanimous not to endorse the University of Washington's proposal to tunnel a lab under Mount Cashmere west of the city.
The council voted 7-0 -- with the support of Mayor Mel Wyles, who did not vote. The mayor said an unofficial tally -- from petitions and public testimony from a meeting a month or so ago -- was running 3,205 people against the lab and nine in favor of it.
The big surprise came when Councilman Rob Eaton, a vocal lab supporter, not only voted with the council but also made the initial motion to oppose the lab. Three other council members quickly seconded the motion and the vote was taken without any discussion among board members or comments from the audience.
The standing-room-only crowd of about 80 people erupted in shouts, cheers and applause.
This morning, John Wilkerson, a University of Washington physics professor promoting the project, said the National Science Foundation probably has decided which sites around the country should be pursued for further study and will be releasing that decision in another week or two. He said that will have a big impact on what happens with the Mount Cashmere proposal.
Opponents of the project have posted "misinformation" about it in the Icicle Valley, which is difficult to combat, he said. "A lot of it is totally fabricated," he said.
A Port of Chelan County citizens advisory committee had taken a more balanced approach to the proposal, and county, state and national interests have to be considered along with Leavenworth's, he said.
Leavenworth's vote may result in not locating the lab's educational and informational facilities there, he said.
At the council meeting, Wyles said the council had been "beat up" over the issue.
"But they listened to you. This council has done what you've asked," Wyles told opponents.
Afterward, Eaton read a prepared statement. In part, he said, "The council must, in good faith, acknowledge the general will of the community."
In an interview after the vote, Eaton said he still supports the lab idea.
"All the council members have their personal opinions," he said. "But we all have a higher responsibility to the community."
Councilwoman Carolyn Wilson said the board members never discussed among themselves how they would vote, and said even she was surprised by the unanimous decision.
"They did the right thing," said Leavenworth resident Hank Drewniany.
"This is the first concrete decision we've had from any public officials against this project," said Cot Rice, president of the Icicle Valley Protection Alliance. "I'm very happy to see that they followed the obvious will of the people."
Wyles cautioned that while the council took a stand against the lab, they have no official say whether it is eventually built near Leavenworth. Those decisions will be made by the federal government, he said.
The National Science Foundation is expected to narrow the field of eight potential sites to three later this month. A final site may not be chosen until 2008.
"We've won a little battle here," said lab opponent Marshall West of Leavenworth. "But we still have a whole war to fight."
World staff writer Dan Wheat contributed to this report.
Michelle McNiel can be reached at 664-7152 or by e-mail at mcniel@wenworld.com
NO DUSEL Information Station a Big Success
The Icicle Valley Protection Alliance thanks all of the people who have stopped by our information station in Icicle Canyon at the base of Mt. Cashmere near the proposed DUSEL site. And we especially thank the more than 3,602 people who have signed our petition against siting DUSEL here. The signatures represent 120 Washington cities, 35 states, the District of Columbia and 4 foreign countries. Approximately 2,000 of these signatures have just been gathered since May 27, 2005 at the information station.
Campers, hikers, climbers and other visitors from several states stopped by the station. Many had not heard of the proposed project and were shocked that it was even a possibility in such a beautiful place.
The station has a large kiosk bulletin board with information, maps, and photos. Information flyers and NO DUSEL window signs were also distributed.
Editorial by Harriet Bullitt -- President, Icicle Broadcasting Co. - KOHO Radio, Leavenworth
Broadcast on KOHO Radio, May 17, 2005
When scientists from the University of Washington, a year and a half ago, described their proposal to build a laboratory deep under the Mt. Stuart batholith, they explained to us that community support was vital to their choice of site. Since then, Professors Haxton and Wilkerson have met with many community groups, outlining their intentions and their studies of advanced physics. Ten percent of the project’s cost, or $30 million, would be dedicated to the community, most of that in the form of a science education center. Such an academic center in the Leavenworth area could offer learning opportunities for all ages and career paths for young people – beyond the limited choices in our tourist-related trades and fading orchard lands. The long-term potential of an academic addition to the valley sounded like both a social and an economic benefit. Today, we see an overriding reason why the deep underground science and education lab, or DUSEL, should not happen here. It relates not to the integrity, skill and scholarly intentions of the scientists nor to the value of the work. The community that would be affected is split. An aggressive opposition and a support that shows little evidence of planning for future growth is not the formula for harmony, which this valley needs more than any big project. A neighborhood like ours is too small to allow a major institution to come in without broad support. The specter of divisiveness over DUSEL recalls the strife in the school system that split families and neighbors, and left wounds that took years to heal. We don’t need hostility like that. Before a high-profile institution makes a place in this valley, regardless of the positives it promises, there has to be a history of planning for the social whole, of sharing and conserving resources. There are enough conflicting forces at work, with water and development issues that are difficult and simply must be handled locally. Let’s face it: Chelan County won national fame for low marks in growth management. That can change! Whatever DUSEL does, let this event be a learning experience. Before inviting a new challenge, let’s focus on a long-term vision that includes dealing with changes that are already happening here. The most powerful treasure we all have in common is our love of this place that’s home – the land, the rivers and canyons. Let’s foster that. -- Harriet Bullitt President, Icicle Broadcasting Co. May 17, 2005
From the May 14, 2005 edition of the Wenatchee World newspaper:
Pitching the Bavarian Village as a pure-science heaven: Whatever the natives’ opinions of DUSEL, UW scientists are selling the Leavenworth site hard —but the competition is just as enthusiastic about its favorite deep lab locales
By Michelle McNiel World staff writer
Sunday - May 15, 2005
WENATCHEE — Gorgeous scenery. Hard rocks. Cheap power. Easy topography. Government support. Mild weather.
Scientists and researchers vying for the nation’s first deep underground lab all have their selling points for pitches to the National Science Foundation.
And from Palm Springs, Calif. to Blacksburg, Va., New Mexico to South Dakota, and a site near Leavenworth, they all have one thing in common: Their site is the best.
“Everyone that I’ve talked to thinks their site is the front runner,” said John Bahcall, a physicist who led a team of scientists that in 2001 urged the National Science Foundation to fund such a lab.
The University of Washington’s proposal to tunnel a lab under Mount Cashmere southwest of Leavenworth claims to offer the lowest power rates, which could save millions of dollars over the projected 40-year life of the lab. A site near Carlsbad, N.M., has completed time-consuming environmental studies, while the area surrounding the site in Virginia was named one of Outside magazine’s top 10 places in the country to live, work and play.
Sometime this summer, the NSF is expected to narrow the field of eight down to perhaps three candidates. An NSF advisory committee said in an April 22 report that the most important attributes needed by the lab will be easy access and educational opportunities. It also says the site should accommodate many different science experiments, ranging from the study of dark matter and inner workings of stars in the galaxy to tectonic plate shifts to microbial life deep in the Earth.
The finalists will get at least $500,000 for more studies. But funding to build the lab is not guaranteed and may not come until 2008 or later.
Scientists who are limited in their studies by current depths of underground labs around the world are eagerly awaiting such a deep lab in the U.S., said Bahcall, a professor at the Institute for Advanced Studies in Princeton, N.J., and vice president of the 40,000-member American Physical Society.
“The science needs to happen, no matter where it’s done,” he said.
Currently, underground labs of varying depths are found in France, Russia, Japan, England, Sweden, Belgium, Canada and Switzerland.
The eight prospective North American sites all have their backers, often including elected officials, government agencies, universities and research facilities.
The state of South Dakota formed a new state office to support the lab proposal, and the state lawmakers in South Dakota and Virginia have pledged millions to develop the labs. Congressional delegations in South Dakota, New Mexico, Minnesota and Virginia have written letters of support for the proposals in their states.
Five of the eight sites are operating or former mines and one is a federal nuclear waste dump, and underground science experiments are already being done at all of them.
Dave Snyder, executive director of the Science and Technology Authority Board, formed by the state of Idaho to support construction of the lab there, said the old Homestake Mine site is the best location because it’s already excavated to 8,000 feet.
“It could be done at a very reasonable cost and in a very timely manner,” he said. “You don’t need the permitting like you would need at a green site, where you are starting from scratch. When you have an existing site, like a mine, you know what you have underground already.”
Only two sites — Leavenworth and Palm Springs — are undeveloped sites.
They are also apparently the two proposals facing organized opposition. Critics of the Mount Cashmere site fear it will change the character of the forested Icicle Valley, chase away tourists and pollute nearby Icicle Creek. The Icicle Valley Protection Alliance says it will sue if the project is approved.
The Sierra Club opposes the Palm Springs site “for just about every environmental concern possible,” said Jeff Morgan, vice chairman of the organization’s Taquitz Group in central California.
“It would be far better off that an existing mine site be used for the lab,” Morgan said.
Sites in Canada and New Mexico are not vying to build the entire underground lab, but would like to host some experiments. When renovations are completed at the Canada laboratory, which houses the Sudbury Neutrino Observatory, it will be able to do some of the science planned at the deep underground lab.
According to its application to the NSF, the laboratory does not want to compete with U.S. sites for funding, but would like the opportunity to include more experiments.
The New Mexico site isn’t deep enough for all the science at the underground lab, but would like to have some of the research done there, according to its NSF application.
Scientists at the U.S. Department of Energy’s Fermi National Accelerator Lab west of Chicago are paying close attention to the NSF process. The nation’s premier particle physics lab would be one of the primary users of an underground facility for research.
“We’re getting so close to the core of how nature operates at fundamental levels, but it takes extremely sophisticated tools and environment to get at it,” said Fermilab spokeswoman Judy Jackson.
She said the lab has a good working relationship with a lab in northern Minnesota that has applied to NSF for funding to build the deeper research facility.
She said that while scientists at Fermilab would go anywhere a lab would be built, she said they would like to see a facility that is easily reached from a major airport.
“Many of these scientists are associated with universities, they teach and work in labs,” she said. “They need to be able to get in and out without taking up too much of their life.”
As a sidelight, she said scientists are generally a “cosmopolitan lot” who appreciate culture, a good place to eat, and pleasant surroundings when doing their work.
They also enjoy support from the communities that surround the labs where they work.
“That’s a big factor,” she said. “One thing we notice when we got to Soudan (Minnesota) is what boosters they are in the community. You can go to the dry cleaner and he can tell you all about neutrinos. The town feels an identification with the science community.”
She added, “I think any lab, to survive, ultimately needs not just the tolerance but the support of the neighbors.”
Since Fermilab is not directly involved in any of the eight applications, Jackson said it has been fun to watch the application process from a distance.
“It’s interesting to look at the differences, the different communities, the climates, the attributes,” she said.
“Each one has its own personality. At this point, you can’t really discount any of them.”
Eight-way race for a deep lab
Eight sites in seven states and Canada, including the University of Washington’s bid near Icicle Creek, are competing for a proposed deep underground lab. The National Science Foundation this summer is expected choose up to three sites for more study.
Cascades
Leavenworth, Wash
Site description: Undeveloped U.S. Forest Service land under the Alpine Lakes Wilderness area
Applicants: University of Washington
Selling points: Cheap power rates, horizontal tunnel access
Boosters: Chelan County Port District voted to support continued study, Wenatchee Area Chamber of Commerce and Leavenworth Chamber of Commerce
Minuses: Organized opposition from Icicle Valley Protection Alliance, unknown impacts to water, uncertainty over wilderness issues
Homestake
Lead, S.D..
Site description: Closed gold mine
Applicants: 60 scientists from around the country, led by scientist at Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory in California
Selling points: Early favorite of the nation’s science community, hosted world’s first solar neutrino detector, site of scientific studies since early 1960s, has existing caverns to 8,000 feet deep
Boosters: State has formed the Science and Technology Authority Board, has pledged $100 million in bonds toward construction, $14.3 million for converting the mine to a lab and $10 million to remove the water; mine site to be donated to the state; strong public support
Minuses: Mine was flooded by owner, will cost millions to drain
San Jacinto
Palm Springs, Calif.
Site description: Undeveloped land at Mount San Jacinto
Applicants: University of California, Irvine
Selling points: No competing uses or retrofitting of old mine caverns like other proposed sites, easy horizontal entry, abundant land for development
Boosters: Support from the city of Palm Springs, other cities in the Coachella Valley and the local business community
Minuses: Under a wilderness, inside a national monument, Sierra Club opposes due to concerns about wilderness, water supply, traffic and endangered bighorn sheep
Henderson
west of Denver, Colo.
Site description: Operating molybdenum ore mine surrounded by Arapaho National Forest since 1976
Applicants: Colorado State University, Colorado School of Mines, University of Colorado, Phelps Dodge Corp., Arapaho Project, Stony Brook University
Selling points: Only operating mine among the U.S. applicants, existing caverns, mine already has environmental and operating permits
Boosters: State legislature, state departments of Natural Resources, Local Affairs and Economic Development and International Trade, governor’s office, county commissioners and city councils in Grand and Clear Creek counties, cooperation of mine owner
Minuses: Would need to coordinate ongoing mining operations with science experiments to avoid conflicts
WHIPP
Carlsbad, N.M.
Site description: Department of Energy underground nuclear waste dump
Applicants: University of California at Los Angeles, Temple University, West Chester University, University of Mississippi
Selling points: Physics experiments conducted at site since 1993, already certified by Environmental Protection Agency, existing facilities
Boosters: Letter of support from Department of Energy, New Mexico’s congressional delegation, governor’s office, state Legislature
Minuses: Proponents acknowledge the site can’t host all the experiments that physicists would like to do in a deep underground lab
Soudan
northern Minnesota
Site description: Former mine, now a historic state park
Applicants: University of Minnesota
Selling points: Hosted government-sponsored science experiments since 1980, already has a neutrino beam, producing neutrinos since January
Boosters: Governor’s office and the state’s 10-member congressional delegation
Minuses: Potential impact to bats, historic structures and wetlands
Kimballton
Blacksburg, Va.
Site description: Butt Mountain at site of former limestone mine on U.S. Forest Service land
Applicants: Virginia Tech, with support from MIT, Duke, Penn State, Princeton, Purdue and Radford universities
Selling points: No obvious environmental impacts, National Science Foundation-funded science experiments already under way
Boosters: State budget for 2004-2006 includes the issuance of $150 million in bonds toward construction; letters of support from Virginia’s congressional delegation, Giles County officials and the U.S. Forest
Service, widespread public support
Minuses: Potential impacts to ground and surface water flow
Snolab
Sudbury, Ontario
Site description: International underground science lab at Creighton Mine nickel and copper mine
Applicants: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio
Selling points: Already doing neutrino research at 6,800 feet underground, lab expansion to be completed by 2007
Boosters: Government already funding expansion of the lab
Minuses: Proponents acknowledge the site can’t host all the experiments that physicists would like to do in a deep underground lab
*Note: Site is not seeking National Science Foundation approval to build a new lab, but instead asking for limited funding to possibly expand its current operation and to develop a partnership with whatever U.S. site may eventually be chosen
— Michelle McNiel, World staff
On the Web
www.dusel.org/
www.nsf.gov/pubs/2005/nsf05506/nsf05506.htm
Michelle McNiel can be reached at 664-7152 or by e-mail at mcniel@wenworld.com
Public Hearing: Citizens say NO DUSEL
The Leavenworth Mayor and City Council had a public hearing on Thursday, May 12, 2005 at the Leavenworth FestHalle to gather comments from local residents and people from outside the area on the DUSEL proposal.
48 people voiced their opinions to the City. 45 of those spoke strongly and articulately against the DUSEL proposal for Icicle Canyon. Three people spoke in favor of the proposal.
It is clear that there is NO community support for DUSEL here. This hearing, along with the 1,500-plus letters and petition signatures to local public officials, makes it quite obvious that an overwhelming majority of people are against DUSEL in the Leavenworth area.
From the May 13, 2005 edition of the Wenatchee World newspaper:
DUSEL is one hot topic — and Leavenworth City Council is feeling the heat:
Leaders get an earful at first public meeting, but so far they aren’t taking a public stand
By Michelle McNiel World staff writer
Friday - May 13, 2005
LEAVENWORTH — The Leavenworth City Council may not be able to sit on the fence much longer.
The seven-member council may have to look their friends, neighbors and constituents in the face and take a stand on the University of Washington’s proposal to build an underground science laboratory in the city’s back yard.
On Thursday, the council took its first step forward by listening to 2½ hours of testimony during a public hearing at the Leavenworth Festhalle.
They heard from longtime residents and newcomers; retirees, scientists, teachers, environmentalists, friends and neighbors. Dozens spoke adamantly against the lab idea. Three were in favor of it.
“On something this big, we better be listening to what our constituents are saying,” Councilwoman Carolyn Wilson said after the meeting.
So far, council members have been tight-lipped. Only Councilman Rob Eaton has stated publicly that he’s open to the idea. Wilson said she has no idea how her fellow council members feel about it.
The Leavenworth site is one of eight sites in North America that are being proposed for the nation’s first Deep Underground Science Engineering Lab (DUSEL).
The National Science Foundation is expected to shorten the list to three sites in June.
“In my opinion, if Leavenworth makes that short list, we as a council need to take a stand,” Wilson said.
Councilman Peter DeVries said the council has gone back and forth on whether to take a position. On one hand, the proposed site under Mount Cashmere is not in the city. But on the other hand, it is nearby in an area frequently visited by city residents and tourists.
DeVries said he would have no problem looking his friends and neighbors in t he face and making a decision.
“I will vote what’s best for the city of Leavenworth,” he said. “If people don’t like the stand we take, there is an election this fall.”
Councilman and mayor pro-tem Bill Wells said there is obviously “terrific polarity” in the community over the lab proposal that will make it difficult to take a stand. But, he said, “Once I find out what I think is best for the city, that’s what I’m going to back.”
Some at the hearing urged the council to take a stand against the proposal. Councilman Bob Kelly said most of the people who want the council to take a position are in opposition.
“In this job, we’ve got to be ready to make tough decisions,” Wilson said, then added, “As the saying goes, we knew the job was dangerous when we took it.”
More comments:
“The economy of a pristine wilderness would far outweigh what DUSEL could bring over the lifetime of the project.” -- Bao Le, Lake Wenatchee
“You all would be responsible for taking the German community started in 1964 and destroying it. I think it would be a horrible mistake.” -- Donald Grim, Peshastin
“This (the lab) is a good opportunity for my children. It’s important for the town, the country and the planet.” -- José Blazquez, Leavenworth
“Dear council members: I do not want this project.” -- Elsa Meinig, Leavenworth
“I’m dead-set against it. I think it will be one of the biggest mistakes in the evolution of Leavenworth.” -- Ken Marson, Leavenworth
“I’m outraged that such a proposal is even on the table for discussion.” -- Dan O’Connor, Leavenworth
