Editorial from Capital Press, "Eminent domain should be a last resort, not first choice":In the lexicon of land-use acronyms, nearly everyone has heard of NIMBY - Not In My Back Yard.
But in the case of some projects, another acronym comes to mind: BANANA. That's short for Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Animals.
Most recently, Idaho Power has proposed a new 300-mile electrical transmission line across Eastern Oregon. The route was chosen to avoid sage grouse breeding areas.The problem with that is the welfare of the farmers and ranchers who live and work there has taken a backseat to birds. Those farmers have questioned why the power company would want to go through the arduous process of eminent domain to build on private land when there is plenty of government-owned land nearby. . .
. . . The goal of improving the electrical grid is a good one. Added capacity and integration mean that farmers and ranchers who build wind farms and other means of electrical generation will have a way to market their electricity.
However, the use of eminent domain should be a last resort for such a project, not a first choice. . .
. . . the people of Eastern Oregon see a red flag in the route Idaho Power has chosen for its power line. It's also why many people in Oregon's Willamette Valley oppose a liquefied natural gas line through their farms, and it's why people in Washington, Oregon, Idaho and California agree that any use of eminent domain must be considered only after all other options have been tried.
Especially when government land is available, there appears to be little urgency to Idaho Power's plan to use so much private land for its transmission line. To its credit, Idaho Power has stated that the odds are "zero" that its initial route will ultimately be adopted. That demonstrates flexibility and a willingness to build the much-needed power line without unduly infringing on the rights of property owners, including the farmers and ranchers whose lives and livelihoods could be affected.
All sides of this issue recognize that other, better options exist. That in itself gives property owners hope.
http://capitalpress.info/main.asp?SectionID=75&SubSectionID=767&ArticleID=48314&TM=59636.79
AP's article "Southwest Idaho residents want to stop power line," appears in the Capital Press at http://capitalpress.info/main.asp?SectionID=94&subsectionID=801&articleID=48413
as well as The Olympian http://www.theolympian.com/northwest/story/742246.html , the Deseret News http://www.deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,705281199,00.html and the Idaho State Journal http://journalnet.com/articles/2009/02/01/news/breaking/15.txt . One reader's comment on the Journal story:
Phil Stott wrote on Feb 1, 2009 9:27 AM: "Here in the UK most new lines are underground, I know it may not be possible in some parts of the run but would preserve the natual beauty of the area where it could. I guess your just so used to hanging your power over your heads no one has considered burying under your feet. (No offence meant) Regards Phil. Manchester England"
