Imagine being a longtime, federally regulated business and facing fines simply for conducting business the same way you have for decades. 

That’s what railroads could confront for hauling oil and uncovered coal through Spokane, if a ballot measure backed by the Spokane City Council is approved by voters this fall. Voters should reject the ban on oil and uncovered-coal rail cars as an overreaching action for which the legal standing is highly questionable.

Meantime, between now and the November election, the railroads should endeavor to be better corporate citizens at the local level. At a minimum, they should make clear the steps they’re taking to ensure that trains stay on the tracks and that communities through which trains move remain safe. Many of us have fresh in our minds images of Union Pacific’s oil-train derailment along the Columbia River Gorge last month and shudder at the thought of a similar fire in the middle of downtown Spokane.

Safety is always a justifiable end, but the City Council’s means is far from justified.

If the measure is approved, the city would fine railroads $261 for every car of oil or uncovered coal that comes through town. 

Seattle-based BNSF Railway spokeswoman Courtney Wallace says that company runs 55 to 65 trains a day through Spokane. Of those, one to three are full oil trains—some of the oil cars one might see are empty—and one or two are transporting coal. She claims the railroad can’t refuse to transport such loads.

The number of cars carrying oil and uncovered coal varies, but Wallace says the company is carrying less coal than it has in the past, due to market conditions in which the demand for coal has declined. A Wall Street Journal article published July 26 says oil trains are trending in a similar direction nationally. 

Regardless of how many rail cars of oil and coal are moving through Spokane—and how onerous those fines would be to the railroads—a per-car fine is flawed and unfair. 

In the case of oil cars, Councilman Breean Beggs says, the city’s legal argument for the ban is the effect an oil-car derailment might have on the Spokane aquifer. He says that would classify as a unique situation in which a court could rule that a municipality could make laws that take precedence over federal regulations.

Courts have struck down similar rules that cities have tried to enforce near rivers. He’s unaware of any cases where the municipality argued against oil trains to protect an aquifer. 

The argument against coal is different. Beggs says it’s more of a trespassing issue, where uncovered coal cars spread debris on neighboring land, a fact he asserts is confirmed by Washington state Department of Ecology studies and not disputed by the railroads. 

It’s unclear how effective the legal argument would be for banning uncovered coal cars due to debris. 

What is clear is that the city is inviting legal battles with the railroads that don’t have a clear path to victory for its citizens. Voters should see this and reject the ballot measure.