Voters in Clatstop County will be making a decision on the referendum 4-131 today. They have been receiving mailers and flyers regarding it for weeks now and while on one hand the information on the fliers tells voters that the referendum is not about the LNG terminals that are going through the permitting process to be built in Clatsop County, on the other the fliers’ pictures and information ask if people want parks to be open to LNG related pipelines.
Chief petitioners for the referendum were Debbie Twombly, Don West and Marc Auerbach, three individuals who have been active in opposing LNG corporations from siting their holding terminals in Clatsop County. The referendum was challenged by Emil Nyberg when it first appeared because of the wording that was used. Judge Cindee Matyas altered the wording, yet the confusion, as evidenced by many discussions on the street, and in the forums can attest.
The confusion seems to be that typically when people write something it is a position they want people to support or something they want passed. People see who is backing the ballot measure and often vote accordingly. Knowing that Twombly, Auerbach and West are against the development of LNG holding terminals many voters that are for LNG terminals were prepared to vote “no” on a petition backed by the trio.
However, this is a referendum written to do just the opposite. This referendum, according to Andy Jordan, land use attorney often used by Clatsop County, ballot measure 4-131, “essentially holds the Commission’s act in abeyance, and it is not effective unless the measure passes.” Jordan goes on to explain, “The measure could also have been submitted as an initiative petition rather than as a referendum. An initiative petition proposes a new law while a referendum just calls for a vote on an existing law.”
The measure, as it is written, supports the decision made by the Board of Clatsop County Commissioners (BOCC) to conditionally allow pipelines and cables in lands zoned Open Spaces, Parks and Recreation lands (OPR). Voting “yes” allows conditional permits to be given, after applications have been reviewed by the planning department and only if the development is a Type II development. This is the same planning department which has mandated heavy conditions connected to the permits for all development related to the Bradwood LNG project currently being developed by Northern Star.
A “no” vote overturns the decision made by the BOCC and disallows all pipelines and cables from crossing OPR zoned lands.
In order to obtain a conditional use permit for a pipeline, as included by Ordinance 08-05, in an OPR zoned land the county land use laws state that: The proposed development shall be consistent with the Clatsop County Comprehensive Plan; The development shall be compatible with and appropriate to the natural resources and features, recreational characteristics and current predominant land use of the area for which it is proposed; In no event shall the proposed development destroy or endanger the natural and recreational resources giving value to the area; The proposed development shall include adequate measures to reduce fire hazards and prevent the spread of fire to surrounding areas; The location of buildings, signs, parking, recreation areas and open space shall be compatible with adjacent areas and the natural scenic amenities of the locality. If 4-131 is voted down then these conditions will not apply to the proposed pipeline.
Many proponents of LNG argue that given those conditions it is common sense that it would be impossible for a dangerous pipeline or cable to pass through a public park. They also point out that the fliers sent out by Common Sense, the group fighting the referendum, is careful not to mention “public” parks although one of their ads do show a camper.
When asked why they approved the conditional permit for the pipeline in the OPR zoned land at Bradwood the commissioners that voted for the approval stated that it was because the project met the above criteria, with the one caveat being that the project could not be started without the signoff of the emergency responders (agreeing that their concerns have been satisfied).
The property where the Bradwood project is proposed is not a public park, it is private property. There are neither homes nor public lands located near the pipeline and no people are at risk if the buried pipeline should have a leak on that property. If a pipeline were proposed to go through a public park it would have to meet the conditional use criteria as outlined above. This is where many people feel that the opponents to LNG have deliberately led the voting public astray.
Although those who oppose LNG state that referendum 4-131 has nothing to do with LNG, as recently as September 12, Laurie Caplan, an activist working for Common Sense, a political action committee against LNG, emailed the following to the Clatsop County Manager: “some of us are wondering if the commissioners’ plan is to lobby FOR the terminal as a way to discount the very strong opposition to LNG, including the countywide support for a NO vote on the Sept. 16th referendum.”
Yet, West has stated in an email: “The referendum is not for the small portion of natural gas pipelines that Bradwood has proposed; in fact the referendum has no bearing on the Northern Star project.”
Commissioner Ann Samuelson has stated, emphatically, that she is proud of how the county has handled that permitting process with Northern Star, LNG and the Bradwood project. “I do not see how we could have been more diligent in being open with the whole process. I am not sure what more we can do to make sure our citizens are safe than the conditions we have placed on the project. If the referendum is voted down, that removes a part of those conditions, those related to the pipeline. Bradwood will not have to go through us for the permit for the pipeline. They will not have to meet our conditions. Our conditions state that Bradwood would have to prove there are “adequate measures to reduce fire hazards and prevent the spread of fire to surrounding areas”. If the referendum is defeated, Bradwood won’t have to prove that for the length of the pipeline, only for the facility itself. FERC takes control of the pipeline. Defeating this referendum takes local control away from the local citizens and gives it to the federal government. I thought that’s what they were fighting?”
Joe Desmond, spokesman for Bradwood, wants the voters to clearly understand that by voting “no” on the referendum Bradwood will no longer have to follow the conditions that the county commissioners worked so diligently in putting into place regarding the pipeline portion of the permitting process, “a NO vote simplifies our permitting process by eliminating the requirement to seek a conditional use permit [on the OPR zoned land].” Later on, when those against LNG complain that Northern Star is not following BOCC set conditions related to the pipeline Desmond wants it clearly understood that it was the groups fighting the referendum that encouraged the citizens to abdicate their right of local control to the federal government.
Northern Star has promised to follow all legal conditions agreed to between them and the BOCC. If the referendum is defeated by a “no” vote, the conditions regarding the pipeline portion become null and void and the pipeline then becomes a matter for FERC to determine.
Marc Auerbach counters that, “The local ability to place conditions on LNG facilities stems from the Coastal Zone Management Agreement (CZMA) between Oregon and the federal government. It is equal in weight to the Natural Gas Act of 1938 that empowers FERC. Facilities in the CZMA area must meet local as well as state criteria on a whole range of issues including local land use. This requirement is not augmented nor diminished by 4-131.”
Mary O’Driscoll, director of press services with FERC, was asked about pipeline placement and specifically about what happens when local land use laws conflict with allowing natural gas pipelines. She referred to the citizen’s guide on pipeline placement for the answers. This brochure is required to be mailed to all citizens who have land that a proposed pipeline route is on or abuts.
According to FERC, while citizens can give their input to FERC as to where placement of a pipeline should be FERC will make the final decision, regardless of whether or not it conflicts with local ordinances, dependent on FERC’s requirements.
Auerbach was given the opportunity to clarify how he feels about the energy situation in Oregon. He wrote:
• At a time when we are seeking energy independence we ought not be increasing our use of foreign fossil fuels.
• At a time when we are already forced into uncomfortable relationships with undemocratic countries over access to oil, we ought not be creating a whole new set of entanglements with some even worse regimes.
• At a time when we are by all accounts putting very high levels of carbon in the atmosphere from fossil fuels we ought to be reducing that output as rapidly as possible.
• At a time when the world most needs American ingenuity and productivity to solve these problems we ought not keep our heads buried in oil sands, but instead invest heavily in renewables. Why is it that we see so many windmill towers coming into our ports and rolling down I-84 to be installed there instead of being built here?.
Bradwood, when contacted, said that most of the LNG they would be importing would be coming from Australia and India.
The renewable energy providers that took part in the Governor’s energy future in Oregon conference August 27th, were hopeful that renewable would be providing 25% of Oregon’s energy needs by 2025. Solar and wind providers stated that they would need a companion source of fuel until technology was developed to store the energy they generated during peak times to be used during their down times.
Mr. Auerbach was unable to provide a source of renewable energy in Oregon that was stating that it would be able to handle the energy needs of Oregon at this time. Auerbach was presented with the dilemma that Governor Kulongoski said Oregon was presently facing: renewable energy providers won’t be ready to meet 25% of the state’s needs until 2015 at the earliest and probably 2025 more realistically; even then that leaves 75% still needing some other fuel.
The panelists at the conference on Oregon’s energy future said that conservation may work with homeowners (and to a certain extent businesses) but renters who do not own their appliances cannot be expected to have the money to purchase large item appliances and the poorest would be paying the brunt of the fuel costs if fuel cannot be efficiently delivered. What energy approach can best deliver reliable, cost efficient fuel to the citizens of Oregon? Auerbach stated simply: “This is a big topic with many bigger brains than mine working on it. I do think that in the short run we need a lot more conservation. But we can’t conserve our way to prosperity.”
No comments:
Post a Comment