Bob Baker, who has dedicated years to organizing the “save the Cedar River campaign,” became wistful when I asked him about Renton’s vanishing “amicus brief” that would have protected the Cedar River Valley.  Hearing Bob report on the difference this would have made in the Court of Appeals trial is like listening to a die-hard Seahawks fan discuss the fateful decision to try a pass instead of giving the ball to Marshawn Lynch on the one yard line at the Super Bowl.  Like Marshawn reports about his teammates at the Superbowl, the reaction of everyone close to the “Save the Cedar River effort” was  “What the f….?

Mr. Baker had spent years raising the tens of thousands of dollars required for the Court of Appeals to hear the case, and Bob reports that at the trial two out of the three judges said that if Renton had submitted an amicus (friend-of-the-court) brief expressing municipal concerns about the plant, they would have found in favor of “Save the Cedar River.”

The Court record has several references to County work to direct the (partially) treated water into Renton’s sole-source aquifer because they judged the runoff too dangerous to put into the river.  Renton should have availed the court that the requirements for purity in our sole-source aquifer exceed those of the Cedar River, and that there are coal mine tunnels leading into the aquifer on the site.

Why was there no amicus brief, for an asphalt plant that Renton Council and Renton Regional Fire Authority were so clearly against?

Mr Baker clearly articulated the need for it at the October 16, 2023 Council Meeting:

And the Council took the request seriously, passing a motion to draft the requested brief.

After that, there seems to be no public records of further action taken to close out this item.  Even if Council chose not to move forward, the closure should have been a public action in a public meeting… but it looks like it never occured.

My wife Cathy was told by Renton staff at a coffee last Wednesday that staff was unable to submit an amicus brief because they were not a party to the appeal, but this answer did not sit well with Cathy.  The normal understanding is that an amicus brief is by definition submitted by a third-party interested in a case; if the city was a party in the case it would be their brief, not an amicus brief.  And even if there were some legal barrier to submitting it, why would the public not be informed, after the motion was passed at a public council meeting?

Whether one believes the science that shows that our aquifer has a moderate/high susceptibility to contamination, or one believes Renton’s Martin Pastucha that there is only a “relatively low” risk of contamination from the plant, a few hours spent writing an amicus brief would have changed the asphalt plant risk to zero.  Given that clean water is essential to our city’s survival, the Mayor and Council should have sent this amicus brief.

We need to hold our elected leaders responsible for protecting our water.  Please consider emailing them, and asking them what they plan to do since they failed to complete the amicus brief.  They can be emailed at: mayor@rentonwa.gov  and  council@rentonwa.gov