(The following story by Michael Jamison appeared on the Missoulian website on May 4,2 009.)
WHITEFISH, Mont. — The suggestion of a lawsuit over railroad contamination in Whitefish has put the city in something of a bind, placing it in an awkward spot between citizens and a large corporate neighbor.
“The council would have to weigh a lot of things before it joined any litigation, including whether the city wants, or needs, to take an adversarial position with a neighbor such as the railroad.”
So said John Phelps, city attorney for Whitefish, who added that any such decisions remain a long way off.
At issue is an up-and-coming neighborhood, a formerly derelict part of town now being revitalized and gentrified, right alongside the train tracks.
In recent weeks, representatives of Burlington Northern Sante Fe railway have approached property owners there, saying they’d like to buy buildings that otherwise aren’t for sale. The offers have come with hints of possible toxic contamination.
The neighborhood is adjacent to a known BNSF cleanup site, where diesel and solvents have polluted groundwater. Until now, however, the toxic plumes were not thought to extend into the neighborhoods.
BNSF will not say why they’re making the offers, and will not say which property owners have been approached.
On April 27, a Billings law firm wrote to city officials, confirming that it had been hired by several locals and would be conducting environmental tests of its own.
The city, Phelps said, has an interest in the issue, because the known plume does extend beneath several city-owned properties. A recreational bike path treads over the contamination, as does part of a public park and a school playground. A portion of the town’s library is atop the plume, as is the city-owned O’Shaughnessy Performing Arts Center.
Many of those properties, Phelps said, were purchased by the city more than a decade ago, “and no one checked. Back in the early ’90s, the contamination wasn’t well known in the general community.”
But now, he said, “we’re going into it with our eyes wide open.”
Phelps said the city remains interested in purchasing a patch of land north of the library, where a new city hall has been considered. “It definitely has contamination problems,” he said of the site, “and we’re only going to move ahead if we can resolve all those issues.”
He’ll want assurances that the property is safe and healthy, as well as guarantees that any future cleanup costs will be borne by the railroad, and not the city.
In the past, the city has drilled some test wells of its own, Phelps said, and those have shown a small degree of contamination. But now, with new worries about possible toxic fumes rising from the groundwater aquifer, “we have more questions we’ll need to ask.”
The Billings firm of Edwards, Frickle and Culver are asking those same questions, with plans to sink monitoring wells into the neighborhood along the tracks. The city likely would allow wells on its property, Phelps said, but signing on to any subsequent litigation is another matter entirely.
“We work with BNSF all the time,” he said, adding that the city and the company have a generally cooperative relationship. The city runs utilities on easements under the tracks, cooperates with weed-control programs, and is thinking of placing a new sewer pipe across BNSF land.
“We have a very complicated relationship with BNSF,” Phelps said, “but we also have obvious obligations to our citizens. The council will have to find the proper balance.”
Last week, the mayor and two councilmen met with concerned residents. No such meetings are scheduled with BNSF.