A lawsuit has been filed to block the Interstate Bridge Replacement Program’s current fixed-span design, with the litigants arguing the 116-foot vertical navigation clearance would restrict navigation and upriver industrial activity.
The IBR is a bi-state project to replace the aging Interstate 5 bridge over the Columbia River between Portland, Oregon and Vancouver, Washington.
Iron Partners LLC, the plaintiff, contends that the Federal Highway Administration and related agencies did not follow proper environmental and navigation laws, and the company is asking the court for an injunction to stop current construction plans for the project.
Iron Partners owns a building on Vancouver’s industrial waterfront, operating water-dependent industrial and heavy equipment facilities on the Columbia River, utilizing large internal heavy equipment.
The company says it has fabricated large structures for decades — including offshore drilling platforms, bridge components, and missile-defense parts.
They rely upon having a tall bridge to pass beneath and are concerned that a 116-foot fixed span is inadequate.
Rep. John Ley, R-Vancouver, an outspoken critic of the current IBR plan, explained to The Center Square that some upriver firms have been promised mitigation for damages to their business, but not all, including Iron Partners who have filed suit.
“It was announced about a year ago that they had a reached agreement with four upriver firms, and the total payment is $141 million. The biggest one is Thompson Metal Fab, getting the lion's share of that money. But three other firms are also getting money in it."
Ley said he’s had no conversations with anyone affiliated with Iron Partners but said they may have been waiting to voice objections until the project was fully moving forward with the disagreeable restricted height.
“My belief is that this new firm that's bringing the lawsuit was waiting, hoping that a record of decision would not be given, because there were so many problems in the environmental review process and all of this,” said Ley.
“And on July 1, the record of decision was done, so now they've spent three months reviewing all the documents and they are suing, saying 116 feet of clearance for marine vessels is 62 feet lower than the current clearance, and that represents an unreasonable obstacle to navigation.”
The lawsuit asserts that a 116-foot fixed bridge would create an unreasonable obstruction to navigation under the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 and the General Bridge Act of 1946.
As previously reported by The Center Square, the price tag for the current design, to include light rail over the span, has exploded to between $13-15 billion.
Ley told The Center Square supporters of the design have recently said the project will be funded and built in phases.
“The IBR team came out and said, 'Well, there's not enough money to build all of this, so we are going to break it into phases.' And phase one, they are proposing would be between a $5.5 and a $7.5 billion dollar project," he said.
"The problem is, the IBR team, their engineers and financial people, are saying we are still short by $2.2 billion."
In 2022 the Coast Guard issued a determination finding that 116 feet, the current adopted plan height, would create an unreasonable obstruction for roughly a century.
The Coast Guard later changed up and without public comment, issued a new determination approving the lower height, according to the lawsuit.
Project officials with IBR provided a response via email to The Center Square's request for comment.
“The Interstate Bridge Replacement Program cannot comment on active litigation. Currently the suit has been filed against the IBR Program's federal lead agencies with the Federal Highway Administration and Federal Transit Administration," the email said.
The email directed The Center Square to contact the Oregon and Washington FHWA division administrators and FTA regional administrator for further comment. The Center Square will be reaching out for additional information.
