by Cassandra Profita The Daily Astorian http://www.dailyastorian.info/main.asp?SectionID=2&SubSectionID=395&ArticleID=60462&TM=65586.51
The controversial House Bill 3058, which opponents are now calling the "LNG fast-track bill," moved out of its first legislative committee Tuesday without a recommendation.
The bill made it out of the House Sustainability and Economic Development Committee before a key deadline, so it will stay alive and move to the Rules Committee. . .
State law currently requires project developers to get permission from all the landowners along proposed pipeline routes. . . before they apply for a wetlands removal-fill permit from the Department of State Lands. The permit would be needed to build natural gas pipelines across rivers and streams.
(Rep. Brad) Witt said his bill is still waiting on amendments that he thinks will make it more palatable to those who see the bill as a threat to private property rights. He has been working to make it clear that the bill would not authorize development on anyone's land without their permission. He says the bill would only allow the permitting process to begin.
. . . Birkenfeld resident Marc Auerbach, whose property is along the Palomar pipeline route, said the bill steps on private property owner protections."Right now only a private landowner or someone they authorize can request permits," he said. "But House Bill 3058 would overturn current law, allowing almost anyone to pull permits on your property."
House Bill 3058 could affect power line
A couple of quotes from Nick Budnick of the http://bendbulletin.com :
“From what we’re given to understand, (HB 3058) could undo in the stroke of a pen what we’ve worked for months to attain,” (Baker County's Move Idaho Power's Mike) Ragsdale said, saying the group had made progress in standing up for property rights.
Similarly, Ontario’s Patty Kennington, of Stop Idaho Power, a group also opposed to the (500 kV) power line, said current laws are designed to protect landowners from “badly sited utility corridor proposals,” and the bill “appears to be at odds with that.”
