Two bills being pushed through the legislature with help from Democrats, HB 2700 and SB 518, appear to put property owners in a bad position. HB 2700 will allow foreign firms to apply for permits relating to “linear projects” on private property without the owner’s knowledge or consent. SB 518, if it passes, “Provides that notice and public comment provisions of rulemaking do not apply to removal or fill general permits established by rule by the Department of State Lands”. In other words, the public will have no opportunity to comment on the application”.
The combined effects of these bills if they pass would leave property owners at a serious disadvantage, providing them with no opportunity to oppose actions on their own property. Democrats may be supporting these bills in a mistaken belief they will facilitate job creation.
HB 2700 is scheduled for a vote in the Senate tomorrow
Them guys – When I moved here twenty years ago, one of the first things I heard was “when you move to Coos County, bring the money with you to leave because you’ll never get it here.”
Based on my findings and careful reading of the bill, here’s what I glean as true in response to some of JM’s objections.
1. The notification provisions are completely new to statute. I’m assuming this is because since the passage of SB 529 (2001), a permit applicant must be a landowner or have the landowner’s consent prior to applying. Since HB 2700 allows applicants to apply while continuing to work with landowners, notification has become necessary. Electronic notification has become common throughout Oregon statute. Certified mail is not a common practice for these kind of matters.
2. SB 2700 does not change the appeals process in anyway. Before the House Business and Labor Committee, Bill Ryan of the Dept of State Lands testified,
“House Bill 2700-1 returns the law to its status prior to 2001. The result of the bill would be to allow the Department to begin its substantive review of the
application earlier in the review cycle. The Department would make clear in any permit that the permittee is responsible for obtaining authorization from the landowner, or otherwise acquire legal access to the property, prior to conducting any removal-fill activities on that property.
“The bill, amended as proposed, would not otherwise modify the current statutory review standards for these types of projects. Any permit issued by the
Department would still be required to be consistent with the protection,
conservation and best use of the water resources of this state and not
unreasonably interfere with preservation of the use of the state’s waters for
navigation, fishing and public recreation.”
Maybe he’s lying. But why would a civil servant perjure himself?
3. SB 2700 does not change the court’s procedure in obtaining an order. The process is exactly the same as it is now. If landowner rights can be circumvented through a court order, SB 2700 has nothing to do with it. It could happen tomorrow, or any time before the Gov signs the bill.
We can agree to disagree about how exactly this law might play out, but there is really no debate on what the bill says and does as written. That information is clear, objective, and plain.
If there’s a smoking gun written in the law somewhere that I’m missing, please post it. If I’m wrong, I want to know.
We’ll have to agree to disagree on this one Mark
magix,
I completely agree with your transparency argument. I see nothing in SB 2700 that compromises the current transparency in any way. Sure, a project director could secure a permit to work on my land, but s/he couldn’t set one toe on my property — much less move one cupful of dirt — without my consent. Yes, s/he could get a court order, but that is no different from the pre-SB 2007 days. My landowner rights and powers have not changed in any way. Believe me, this is something I take seriously and personally as a landowner.
I cant’ speak for the Port. I don’t yet have a good idea of why they do what they do, but SB 2700 does streamline the construction process, no doubt. It’s supposed to. But understand it’s designed to accommodate municipal projects that the vast majority of communities across Oregon want built. This makes the process faster and cheaper. Win-win, I think.
Unbelievable, having to argue the merits of seizure of private property by foreign corporate interests. Simply an embarrassment to what we have become. And praising the local pols that voted for it. Now I know more than ever why this area will never change. I’ve probably made the greatest mistake of my real estate investments ever, I’ll never be able to get out of this place. What a shame.
This entire Kabuki theatre was done to help Bob Braddock. Period. If you believe otherwise? Pull my other finger. Watch and see. BUT ! I want the pipeline to run the original route, right through the doctors’ property north of the bridge, and right through Messerlles’ ranch. That must be the most economic route. Now let’s see who Roblan is really listening to.
It is different because the applicant may not be the landowner and if the landowner never receives notification how would they even know a hearing was going on? I think I covered these issues already actually concerning landowner notification and why it must be done right and above board.
Why are you so defensive of such a poorly written bill? They could have corrected a lot of these issues but they chose instead to ignore everyone except industry lobbyist.
What is needed is an improvement to the notification process and that is not done by cutting more people out of the process. Those of us who have tried to follow some of these local and state permits know how hard it is even when you are watching since it takes a while for the permits to work their way through the system and if you don’t ask the right questions at the right time you may not find out what you really need to know.
There is no automatic notification system within the local and state permitting processes. We have already had Jordan Cove get through a permit that nobody commented on because no one knew about it and the notification was done very underhandedly…..obviously to get it through. Complaining to public officials does no good in many cases either. Many of our local officials support all this, so kind of hard to get a deaf ear to listen. Thank God for those who do listen by the way!
Knowing what they have gotten past us I can’t even begin to think what landowners are going to be up against.. You are not always dealing with people who stay within the guidelines, just ask some landowners about what the pipeline people have already done to them.
In any event, As soon as the Gov signs the bill, Pacific Connector will get out of a legal case that would have proved them wrong. This will probably cost landowners a lot of money too because it clearly gives PCGP the upper hand in actually being able to come on the property by court order once they get the permit.
We know how the game is played and landowners already have the deck stacked against them so now it will be even more.
The Ruggiero’s found that out the hard way…….
http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7054281n&tag=contentBody;housing
http://earthworksaction.org/TXOGAP-CaseStudy-Ruggiero.cfm
http://www.dentonrc.com/sharedcontent/dws/drc/localnews/stories/DRC_Ruggieros_0328.1ee8c9ff0.html
Mark, I will let JM handle most of your argument here but the issue for me is that it is never a good idea to keep the public out of the process. Plans are made behind the scenes on many projects but we the public only hear little pieces of it, spoon fed over time. An example would be that a multimillion dollar EIS due out Mar 2012 will include a scenario for the Port of Coos Bay that includes post Panamax sized vessels. Only by accident is this now known because the public are not fully informed about these “plans” in advance. (even though we are paying for it)
HB 2700 helps obscure these far reaching plans from the public (and the landowners affected) for much longer. Why do that? In the event of a pipeline, the route will likely be challenged and changed anyway, so why not give the public a heads up from the beginning?
Why doesn’t the Port fully disclose their dreams and aspirations up front, instead preferring to feed it out over time?
6/7 continues:
Thereupon the director shall set the matter down for hearing, which shall be conducted as a contested case in accordance with ORS 183.415 to 183.430,
183.440 to 183.460 and 183.470. After such hearing, the director shall enter an order containing findings of fact and conclusions of law. The order shall rescind, affirm or modify the director’s initial order. Appeals from the director’s final order may be taken to the Court of Appeals in the manner provided by ORS 183.482.
Does that not mean that either the landowner or the permit director has equal access to a fair hearing in court? If so, how is that different from prior to SB 2700?
How does moving the permitting step ahead of the permission step give FERC powers over the the Clean Water Act and the Coastal Zone Management Act that it doesn’t presently have?
Believe me, if SB 2700 did what you think it does, I’d be outraged too. I don’t think that is the case.
I completely agree with your final point 100%.
6/7 continues:
Thereupon the director shall set the matter down for hearing, which shall be conducted as a contested case in accordance with ORS 183.415 to 183.430,
183.440 to 183.460 and 183.470. After such hearing, the director shall enter an order containing findings of fact and conclusions of law. The order shall rescind, affirm or modify the director’s initial order. Appeals from the director’s final order may be taken to the Court of Appeals in the manner provided by ORS 183.482.
Does that not mean that either the landowner or the permit director has equal access to a fair hearing in court? If so, how is that different from prior to SB 2700?
How does moving the permitting step ahead of the permission step give FERC powers over the the Clean Water Act and the Coastal Zone Management Act that it doesn’t presently have?
Believe me, if SB 2700 did what you think it does, I’d be outraged too. I don’t think that is the case.
I completely agree with you final point 100%.
The law was changed in 2001 to require landowner consent on removal/fill permits. There must have been prior property owner abuse for the 2001 bill to limit these removal/fill permit applications to property owners only. Going back to the way things were before the 2001 law does not deal with why the law was changed in the first place; it only means the problem will resurface again.
Most of the testimony on HB 2700 centered around water pipes in urban areas which I found odd since most construction in these areas would not even require a removal/fill permit. Removal-fill permits only concern the removal of material from the bed or banks or fill of any waters of this state.
The issue with FERC is that FERC Preemption does not apply in this case because it falls under the Clean Water Act and the Coastal Zone Management Act. FERC does not have authority over these. This was all about fast tracking the LNG pipeline projects through the State permitting processes so I am sorry if people can’t understand that but it is the truth anyway. It was easier for them to pull the wool over our legislators then to win in court or work deals out with landowners.
Engrossed B House Bill 2700 states:
“…[(6)] (7) Any applicant whose application for a permit or authorization has been deemed incomplete or has been denied, or who objects to any of the conditions imposed under this section by the director, may, within 21 days of the denial of the permit or authorization or the imposition of any condition, request a hearing from the director….”
“…[(11)] (12) As used in this section:
(a) “Applicant” means a landowner, a [or] person authorized by a landowner to conduct a removal or fill activity or a person that proposes a removal or fill activity for construction or maintenance of a linear facility….”
The problem with the LNG project is it is outdated technology. We are eons beyond building more fossil fuel infrastructure that we don’t need or want. Time to move into the 21st and 22nd century and create thousands of jobs in the process…….. or we can stay stuck in the past and end up with more of the same. Let’s move forward shall we!
Hi JM.
Thanks for the feedback. I’m looking into your objections.
Regarding #1: Does this constitute a change in the way the law originally read prior to 2001? That is, back then were landowners to be notified by certified mail?
Regarding #2: Which part of the bill are you reading that says, “This bill gives the applicant of the permit more rights than landowners since the applicant of the permit (who may not be the landowner) has the right (as stated in the bill) to appeal a DSL decision but the bill does not specifically state the landowner can appeal.”
Regarding #3: How does this bill make that scenario you describe any more likely than it already is. If FERC wants to ramrod an LNG project through it doesn’t need SB 2700 to do so. It already has that power. How does this bill make things worse?
I think we both understand that the true way to undermine LNG at Jordan Cove is to create sustainable energy projects in Coos County that render it expensive, obsolete, and unneeded. SB 2700 is a red herring to where the real action is in this fight, imo.
I could be wrong, but I actually think SB 2700 could be advantageous for us as we push for the development of clean, green energy alternatives.
“May 12th testimony before the Senate Business, Transportation and Economic Development Committee concerning HB 2700 gave reasons why B Engrossed HB 2700 should be amended or rejected. This bill could have easily been fixed to exclude corporate non-public projects, but the Senate Business, Transportation, and Economic Development Committee completely ignored these concerns and did not even discuss the -6 or -7 amendments which were presented to them. ”
And this is the committee headed by Arnie Roblan, am I correct?
Mark has posted his info came from Vergers’ office I believe. He says it changes absolutely nothing. Why would Vergers’ office be so deceitful to a constituant?
That smoke-thingy will clear Mark, when you stop letting people blow smoke up your arse. Trust me it works.
Obviously MarkM did not read the bill and has not been paying attention.
The current bill the way it is written would allow foreign owned profit-making corporations the right to obtain dredge-and-fill permits on private land without the permission or even knowledge of the landowner. It is hard to believe anyone would even be considering something so Anti-American.
May 12th testimony before the Senate Business, Transportation and Economic Development Committee concerning HB 2700 gave reasons why B Engrossed HB 2700 should be amended or rejected. This bill could have easily been fixed to exclude corporate non-public projects, but the Senate Business, Transportation, and Economic Development Committee completely ignored these concerns and did not even discuss the -6 or -7 amendments which were presented to them.
Several issues raised concerning HB 2700 on May 12th include but are not limited to;
1) Notification to landowners should be by certified mail to guarantee that landowners have actually been notified. HB 2700 does not specify this. General mail delivery is no guarantee that landowners will actually be notified. There is a greater chance of manipulation and deceit without this key component being put into place now that landowner signatures would not be required.
2) Landowners should have a right to a hearing and an appeal process. This bill gives the applicant of the permit more rights than landowners since the applicant of the permit (who may not be the landowner) has the right (as stated in the bill) to appeal a DSL decision but the bill does not specifically state the landowner can appeal. (* See note below ) On March 29, 2011, the Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) came out with their decision ruling in favor of landowners with regard to the Pacific Connector Gas Pipeline (LUBA No. 2010-086). Pacific Connector Gas Pipeline was wanting to steamroll over landowners without their consent and LUBA said “no”. LUBA ruled there must be a landowner signature or an automatic right for landowners to have a hearing. The Oregon Legislature should have also ruled in favor of Oregon landowners concerning HB 2700, but they chose not to.
*[On May 12th Oregon Department of State Lands (DSL) director, Louise Solliday assured Senator Beyer when he questioned her that DSL ALWAYS notifies landowners and they have the right (by statute she said) to appeal a DSL decision even though it is not specifically stated that way in HB 2700. Of course, what good is the right to appeal if you never officially receive notification a permit is being applied for or issued?( See issue #1 above )
3) Once permits are issued, landowners will not have clear bargaining power. Despite the fact the bill does not allow entry onto the private land without landowner consent, it does not protect landowners from having that consent ‘easily’ taken away by court order. Once a removal/fill permit is issued on property, these private and/or foreign owned corporations will have the upper hand and a very good chance of getting the right to actually come on the property by court order, despite landowner objections. House Bill 2700 basically paves the way for these private corporations to do what they want and get away with it. Landowners and business owners will end up having no real voice or ability to fight them.
4) Due to sophisticated current mapping abilities and the use of airborne laser Lidar mapping techniques ( http://www.lidarmapping.com/ ), there is really no excuse for corporations to state they do not know what is on the land ahead of time. They clearly have the ability ahead of time to obtain detailed information about the property, so what this bill really boils down to is an effort to give private and foreign owned corporations the right to sidestep and trample over landowners and speed up the permitting process for their benefit only. This includes a multitude of businesses dependant on the land who will also be trampled on without due process.
If there is a need to do soil sampling on the property by the Oregon Department of State Lands (DSL), that could have been presented differently, specifically limiting the extent of what can be done on the property. Private and foreign owned corporations should not be allowed to just trample over landowners and Oregon business owners just because they can. There is a line in the sand and this bill clearly crosses the line and gives a lot of power to entities it shouldn’t.
The Pacific Connector Gas Pipeline would rather have legislators in Salem give them the right to trample over decisions made by the courts regarding the issue of landowner consent. That way they can get around having to deal with landowners and small business owners. The courts should be allowed to rule on the lawsuit filed by Pacific Connector Gas Pipeline (PCGP) claiming that the existing “landowner signature requirement” is unconstitutional. The lawsuit against the State of Oregon, which applies to LNG, should be decided on its own merits and not rendered moot by HB 2700. All court proceedings in this PCGP case were stayed until June 30 to see if the legislature would enact this legislation that will essentially moot the case by allowing DSL to process applications without landowner approval.
So anyone who thinks this bill is not about LNG is not paying attention. If this bill did not apply to LNG projects, why in the world did Sutherland LNG Blog even cover it? (“Oregon Senate Passes Infrastructure Legislation That Could Ease LNG Project Siting” – June 1, 2011)
In addition, these approved permits can be sold or transferred to another party without the property owners notice or approval.. A sad day for Oregon property owners in Oregon should the Goveror sign this. In Southern Oregon we stand to lose thousands of acres of prime timberland, which will be taken out of production. 385 waterbodies, many vital to spawning steelhead and salmon, will also be negatively impacted along with oyster beds, farms, ranches and recreational areas.
According to this April 1, 2010 presentation by Bob Braddock of the Jordan Cove Energy Project http://www.nwppa.org/web/presentations/2010_EandO/Braddock-Power_Conference_Briefing.pdf
Canadian Fort Chicago Energy Partners L.P. ( i.e. Veresen Inc since Jan 1, 2011 – http://www.fortchicago.com/ ) owns 90%+ of Jordan Cove Energy Project and 33.3% of Pacific Connector Gas Pipeline.
Canada today……. tomorrow….?
HB 2700 – or – Pandora Box…?
SB 2700 is now a governor’s signature from becoming law. I’m not sure what to be alarmed about. The bill’s focus is for municipal projects, not foreign corporations. No landowner rights are circumvented. All are still intact.
Project leaders can now get permits prior to acquiring the land or rights to the land. This doesn’t mean the latter step is a fait accompli. There is no guarantee that any permit will lead to a groundbreaking. It certainly doesn’t mean that LNG on the North Spit is a step closer to reality. Permitting is not holding that project up.
Maybe I’m missing something. I don’t see the fire behind this smoke.
Fast Track Bill HB 2700 ( which can’t be amended on the floor, so it’s basically an up or down vote now ) was scheduled for the Senate floor today, Friday the 27th, but now that’s going to be a short floor session and it’s been pushed to Tuesday, May 31st.
LAST CALL TO TELL SENATORS TO VOTE “NO”
http://www.leg.state.or.us/findlegsltr/
While the full Senate will consider (HB 2700) and whether to give foreign owned profit-making corporations the right to obtain dredge-and-fill permits on private land without the permission or even knowledge of the landowner, (This in itself is an outrageous violation of the personal and property rights of Oregon citizens.) legislators on the House side will consider by committee whether to move along Senate Bill 518, which will take away the right for public notice and comment provisions on Removal-Fill general permits established by rule by the Department of State Lands.
[SB 518 is awaiting an amendment so more details on the specifics of this bill will be coming]
The 518 bill applies to “general permits” – which typically applies to projects less than 0.2 acres in extent, or associated with transportation projects. I have been told this would not typically include LNG pipeline removal/fill permits…..but irregardless of LNG….when has taking away public notification and comment ever been a good thing?