Site search
sponsored by
Home
News
Kudos to the Douglas County Board of Commissioners for publicly announcing its opposition to a proposed 36-inch pipeline that would transport liquefied natural gas across Douglas County.
Landowners who will have to give up easements to the line that runs east from Coos Bay through the southern part of the county have felt like they are fighting a futile battle against nearly insurmountable odds.
Having the support of their commissioners may give them some extra voice and may attract more support than they have received so far.
County and state officials realize that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission holds the power in these decisions. However, one reason the terminal is proposed for Coos Bay is that residents of more populous California — the destination for all that gas — have raised enough ruckus to keep it out of their harbors.
In short, a terminal and pipeline in rural Oregon affects fewer people who have less political clout.
The pipeline isn’t a big issue for most people, unless it crosses their property. Then it becomes a very big deal. Most of the 223-mile pipeline will cross private land. About 70 miles crosses federal property. The line would require seven river crossings and hundreds of streams.
Landowners will have to give up the use of a 100 foot-wide swath of their property during construction and live with a permanent 50-foot easement where use would be limited. Many are not reassured by claims that there is no danger to the pipeline, which will carry 1 billion cubic feet of natural gas a day.
Local meetings conducted by FERC, pipeline company Williams Pacific Connector Gas Co., and partner PG&E have been well-attended. The mood of county residents who came to ask questions or protest is definitely anti-pipeline.
Everyone understands there are those few times when the greater good outweighs individual property rights. Imagine interstate highways that had to snake back and forth across the country.
However, this doesn’t appear to be one of those cases. It has all the makings of an underrepresented part of the country putting up with a pipeline and natural gas terminal that California didn’t want.
County commissioners, the governor’s office and our Congressional delegation can make sure that local voices are heard and federal agencies conduct a solid review to see if this pipeline is really needed, and if the proposed location is the most efficient and direct choice.
It’s also important to ensure that those who are forced to provide easements across their private property are properly compensated and protected.
Landowners who will have to give up easements to the line that runs east from Coos Bay through the southern part of the county have felt like they are fighting a futile battle against nearly insurmountable odds.
Having the support of their commissioners may give them some extra voice and may attract more support than they have received so far.
County and state officials realize that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission holds the power in these decisions. However, one reason the terminal is proposed for Coos Bay is that residents of more populous California — the destination for all that gas — have raised enough ruckus to keep it out of their harbors.
In short, a terminal and pipeline in rural Oregon affects fewer people who have less political clout.
The pipeline isn’t a big issue for most people, unless it crosses their property. Then it becomes a very big deal. Most of the 223-mile pipeline will cross private land. About 70 miles crosses federal property. The line would require seven river crossings and hundreds of streams.
Landowners will have to give up the use of a 100 foot-wide swath of their property during construction and live with a permanent 50-foot easement where use would be limited. Many are not reassured by claims that there is no danger to the pipeline, which will carry 1 billion cubic feet of natural gas a day.
Local meetings conducted by FERC, pipeline company Williams Pacific Connector Gas Co., and partner PG&E have been well-attended. The mood of county residents who came to ask questions or protest is definitely anti-pipeline.
Everyone understands there are those few times when the greater good outweighs individual property rights. Imagine interstate highways that had to snake back and forth across the country.
However, this doesn’t appear to be one of those cases. It has all the makings of an underrepresented part of the country putting up with a pipeline and natural gas terminal that California didn’t want.
County commissioners, the governor’s office and our Congressional delegation can make sure that local voices are heard and federal agencies conduct a solid review to see if this pipeline is really needed, and if the proposed location is the most efficient and direct choice.
It’s also important to ensure that those who are forced to provide easements across their private property are properly compensated and protected.
