A group of Long Beach sport fishermen, dive operators and commercial anglers have filed a lawsuit against the Tidelands Oil company over a 2008 spill which shuttered their operations for nearly two weeks.

The spill was minor - about 50 gallons - but plaintiffs allege the cleanup was not, damaging their businesses and boats and causing economic hardship for which they were never compensated.

The leak at Berth 55, home of Long Beach Sportfishing and a popular fish market and restaurant, occurred April 10, 2008, when a broken pipeline operated by Tidelands spilled the oil into harbor waters adjacent to Pier C and Pico Avenue.

The resulting cleanup involved placement of a boom to capture spilled oil, blocking several boats from leaving their slots for more than a week just as the Spring sportfishing and diving season was gearing up.

When the companies went to Tidelands for compensation on the grounds that the company knowingly operated a decrepit, leak-prone pipeline (a similar spill at the same spot occurred in April 2007), they were rejected.

"Long Beach Sportfishing was forced to shut down for approximately two weeks during the cleanup of the oil and was polluted by an absorbent boom, trapping trash and oily waste in its water space for several months, drastically affecting its late spring and summer fishing season," said attorney Stephen Lopez of the San Marcos law firm Geraci and Lopez.

Tidelands, which settled a similar dispute with many of the same fishermen and dive operators after the 2007 spill, said it was reviewing the suit.

"Following the incident, we conducted a thorough investigation to determine the cause," said Tidelands Environmental Health and Safety Officer Mark Shemaria. "We then took the appropriate measures to prevent similar incidents in the future. Our goal continues to be that there will be no incidents which may impact our neighbors."

Port of L.A. fights back

After months of industry and legal attacks and an ugly break with Long Beach on the direction of the ports' twin Clean Truck Plan, the Port of Los Angeles has come out swinging in defense of its goal to require trucking firms to sign special agreements with the port to do business on its property.

L.A. Port Executive Director Geraldine Knatz penned the letter as her port, the nation's largest, prepares to defend itself in federal court, where a coalition of retailers, trucking companies and shippers have sued, alleging Los Angeles' proposed enforcement mechanisms violate federal law.

The port wants companies to gradually take ownership of new, cleaner-burning truck fleets visiting city and state-owned marine terminals - a scheme opponents deride as nothing more than an effort to unionize drivers.

As American Trucking Associations' Spokesman Clayton Boyce said last week, "the fact is, the port does have authority to turn away noncompliant trucks. We never challenged its authority to turn away old rigs, only its effort to turn away the owner-operators driving those trucks."

On this point, Long Beach sided with industry, agreeing that contract drivers would be able to shoulder the burden for new trucks - and if they couldn't, they'd be denied access.

And this is where the ports split.

Backed by numerous studies showing these drivers average about $12 per hour after expenses, Los Angeles believes contract drivers simply don't make enough to buy, insure and maintain the new trucks demanded by the ports. Already, deep subsidies from taxpayer bonds and public agencies are being offered to get contract drivers into new rigs - a fact L.A.'s supporters say is proof these drivers can't meet payments for new trucks on their own.

A new diesel rig costs about $100,000, with cleaner alternative-fuel rigs exceeding $200,000.

The ports' have jointly banned all pre-2007 rigs from San Pedro Bay by 2012 - an effort expected to cut diesel pollution from trucks by 80 percent. Diesel pollution is blamed for asthma, cancer, heart disease and other ailments, though harbor-serving trucks account for only 20 percent of the total air pollution spewed by the port industry.

Ships, which so far have not been effectively regulated, are responsible for the vast majority of port pollution, though federal and local authorities are working on a plan requiring cargo ships use cleaner fuels in coming years.

But back to the L.A. editorial.

After months of relative silence, Knatz is directly responding to the ports' critics, saying a long-term solution to truck replacement is necessary to ensure future fleets meet future clean-air goals.

"Our challenge - and what (opponents) fail to acknowledge - is that emissions standards are a moving target," Knatz said. "If that wasn't the case, perhaps we could wipe our hands, say `we're done' and move on. But we know that even today's cleanest trucks will not pass 2020 environmental standards, when mandatory caps will push greenhouse gas emissions back to 1990 levels. Even the next generation of trucks will fall short of those 2020 clean air standards."

Knatz argues that by placing the burden of ownership and maintenance on companies, enforcement of the truck plan now and in the future will be much easier, more reliable and less costly.

"If problems arise with any of these thousands of contracted drivers or their trucks, the (American Trucking Association) wants the port to chase down those individual truckers - an enforcement measure that is neither practical nor realistic," Knatz said.

To read the full editorial, visit www.portofla.org.

kristopher.hanson@presstelegram.com, 562-499-1461.