Webster’s defines the word “lucrative” as an adjective that means “profitable” or “money-making.” My thesaurus lists synonyms for “lucrative” that include “profitable” and “productive.” Terms that signify the opposite of lucrative include “running at a loss” and “not making money.”

If anyone should pay attention to words, judges and journalists should surely top the list. So help me understand how on earth a judge could misinterpret a commonly understood word and a state full of cracker-jack journalists could ignore it?

The state recently filed its appeal of federal District Court Judge John Sedwick’s February decision invalidating the Juneau road’s environmental impact statement. The judge ruled that the EIS was incomplete since current ferry infrastructure and services had not been considered adequately as a means to increase capacity.

In the judge’s Order and Opinion, on page 17 he cited a paragraph from the environmental groups’ lawsuit in which they erroneously characterized the financial viability of Lynn Canal ferry service by stating that, “[e]liminating [mainline] Lynn Canal ferry service with the construction of a road, and the resulting loss of revenue from those lucrative ferry runs, would force the agencies to choose between increasing subsidies for the ferry system or decreasing service elsewhere to reduce costs.”

Among other items in its appeal, the state’s brief takes issue with the term “lucrative” and well it should:

“The State of Alaska subsidizes just under half the cost of AMHS operations in Lynn Canal. 3 ER 241 (2004 $5.7 million subsidy, 49% of total cost). The state subsidy for Lynn Canal is only slightly less than the subsidy required for AMHS statewide operations. Id. (2004 $44.8 million subsidy, 50% of total cost). The district court states losing revenue from Lynn Canal’s “lucrative ferry runs” will cause an increased need for subsidies elsewhere in the AMHS system. 1 ER 21-22. The one- or two-percent difference in the required subsidy does not make Lynn Canal operations ‘lucrative.’”

The agencies that supposedly ignored fair consideration of ferries included in the EIS accurate data for 2002 when the total cost to run the system was about $80 million. Then, users paid $39.5 million toward the cost and the state subsidy was $40.1 million, meaning that the subsidy was 50 percent of the total cost.

The Lynn Canal portion of the system (Juneau, Haines and Skagway) has always accounted for about 14 percent of the entire system’s service. In 2002, Lynn Canal service cost $11.5 million. Of that total, users contributed $6.4 million and the state subsidy was $5.1 million. By 2007, the cost to run just the Lynn Canal route had increased to about $20 million. Users paid $9 million and the state subsidy was $11 million. It doesn’t take an economist to understand that the Lynn Canal route is not a money-maker for the state of Alaska.

But how anyone can characterize that route as “lucrative” is mind-boggling. It wasn’t “lucrative” in 2002, 2004 or 2007 and it never will be. While the Lynn Canal route has lost a little less money than the entire system has, it is delusional – if not downright dishonest – to suggest that the route is “lucrative.”

The only explanation I can come up with is that the district court made an outcome-based decision choosing to disregard hard facts and instead adopt the fallacious and emotional arguments of the environmental groups.

The state’s appeal of the judge’s “public interest decision” goes to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. It will likely be a year before the higher court decides if the agencies were correct in issuing the permits for the road. Meanwhile, it was announced on the radio early Thursday morning that the fast ferry Fairweather was out of drydock and back in service. By mid-morning a press release was issued noting that the scheduled sailing was canceled due to inclement weather. If it isn’t broken down, it’s tied up because it isn’t seaworthy.

Our ferries are falling apart, the English language is being misused and the rule of law is crumbling.