Clinton Kennington, representative from Eastern Oregon on the Board of the Oregon Dairy Farmers Association, made a presentation to the Eastern Oregon Dairy Farmers concerning the effect high voltage transmission lines would have on exclusive farm use property.
Residents are not always aware that it has been the intent of Idaho Power to route lines through a neighbor's EFU land if strong enough objections are made by someone down the road. So even if the proposed line doesn't cross your property, you still may end up with it. Devaluation of property and the farm economy will affect everyone.
It has been the determination of the Stop Idaho Power group that alternates through neighbors' property are no alternates at all. The best alternative is for public utilities to be routed through public lands. If you are a business, agency or organization, or belong to an organization that might be affected by the economic devaluation of our farm economy, please lend your support by writing a letter to the addresses below.
The Oregon Department of Agriculture, Oregon Dairy Farmers Association, Idaho and Eastern Oregon Onion Growers, the City of Vale, the City of Ontario, Malheur County Court and Planner, Owyhee Irrigation District, Farm Bureau and other interested organizations have written or plan to write letters of support for our effort. Addresses to send letters to:
Eric Hackett
Idaho Power Project Manager
P.O. Box 70
Boise, ID 83707
Adam Bless
Oregon Department of Energy
625 Marion St. NE
Salem, OR 97301
Lucas Lucero
BLM Federal Project Manager
4701 N. Torrey Pines Drive
Las Vegas, NV 89130
Matthew J. Muldoon
Oregon Public Utilities Commission
550 Capitol St NE Suite 215
Salem, OR 97301-2551
Please also send an email copy of your letter to
rogerfindley@q.com or pattykennington@gmail.com
Showing posts with label letters. Show all posts
Showing posts with label letters. Show all posts
Thursday, February 5, 2009
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
From Adam Bless, ODOE
Questions answered in four emails about Idaho Power's NOI (Notice of Intent) and the Project Order to be issued by Adam Bless of the Oregon Department of Energy: UPDATED (5) below
(1) rogerfindley@q.com> 01/12/09 7:10 AM
Adam:
Stop Idaho Power has heard that ODOE has issued a Project Order to Idaho Power for the B2H line. What was the date for that, and how do we get a copy of the Project Order? Did ODOE define the impact analysis area? What is it? Have the other alternatives been incorporated in the impact analysis areas?
Thanks for your help.
Roger
(2) Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2009 08:46:24 -0800> From: Adam.Bless@state.or.us> To: rogerfindley@q.com Subject: Re: B2H Project Order to IPCo? Stop Idaho Power
Roger,
ODOE has not yet issued the Project Order. I have drafted the Project Order, but our Attorney General had quite a few comments, which I am now incorporating. I do hope to issue it in the next week, but I can't be certain. The draft project order does have analysis areas for the various standards. There isn't a single analysis area; actually we set a different analysis area for each type of impact.
My draft Project Order does direct Idaho Power to seriously consider several alternative routes. Three of those routes are the three in your earlier letter, particularly the one straight from Hemingway to Sand Hollow through Canyon County. The arguments made by SIP and John Beal in favor of going straight through Idaho were quite convincing, at least to me. Other people further West suggested route changes in their counties as well, and the draft project order directs Idaho Power to consider them also.
I was concerned when I received a letter asking ODOE to not issue a Project Order. I hope people understand that a Project Order is not an approval of anything; it's more like a summary of the comments and issues. Its purpose is to set the expectations for the applicant, not to approve or deny anything. It's similar to the scoping report that BLM must put out. I think you will see that when we issue it. As you have probably noticed, BLM is also taking more time to issue the scoping report than they originally planned.
Please rest assured that when we do issue the Project Order, we'll post it so everyone can see it.
Also, remember that the Project Order is a living document and we can change it anytime if there's a need to do that.
Sorry this is taking so long.
Adam
(3) <rogerfindley@q.com> 01/13/09 7:12 AM
Thanks for the reply, Adam.
According to the EFSC process on the bubble-bar chart given to citizens at the scoping meeting, the Project Order "defines the impact analysis areas." SIP assumes that those are on-the-ground areas where impacts will occur and where those impacts will be analyzed.
When EFU-zoned land is to be impacted, at least one viable alternative must be considered outside of EFU land. Idaho Power has not indicated that any additional routes will be considered for analysis that bypass EFU land in Malheur County. It appears to SIP that the Notice of Intent was incomplete and needs to be revised and resubmitted with addition of at least one alternative route outside of EFU land in Malheur County before the Project Order can be issued and the impact analysis areas defined.
SIP does not believe Idaho Power is serious about considering routes bypassing EFU land in Malheur County based on recent information we have learned that they (Idaho Power) are now planning to place their substation on private land in Idaho nearer to Adrian, Oregon, rather than on BLM land near Sand Hollow in Idaho. The 'sleeping giant' in Idaho is waking, and citizens' groups there are forming to keep this line out of their farm ground and away from their homes as well. SIP believes Idaho Power still thinks it will be easier, and less deadly to their public relations in Idaho, to deal with the farmers/residents in Malheur County and condemn their land than to deal with the farmers/residents in Idaho or with the environmental groups on public land.
SIP's alternative #2, which bypasses all EFU land in Malheur County and all farmland in Idaho, needs to be analyzed as part of the NEPA process and needs to be a serious contender for routing of this line if the 'loop' around Treasure Valley as proposed in the Treasure Valley Electric Plan, which in no way was a plan representative of the citizens to be affected, ultimately is to be built.
One final question: are there any legal requirements by the state of Oregon regarding the ways and means by which Idaho Power (or any utility proposing a project with major impacts to private landowners) must inform individuals about the impending line, particularly those directly under the line? More and more individuals are coming forward to say that they are just now learning about this line for the first time. Does the scoping process need to be restarted so that all interested parties can have a chance to participate and comment?
Thanks again for your help.
Roger
(4) Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2009 15:22:38 -0800> From: Adam.Bless@state.or.us> To: rogerfindley@q.com> CC: Tom.Stoops@state.or.us Subject: RE: B2H Project Order to IPCo? Stop Idaho Power
Roger,
You have asked some questions about the EFSC process, the NOI, and the Project Order.
The Project Order does several things, and one of the most important sections of the Project Order is the section that shows the analysis areas. Those are the areas where impacts must be analyzed. We often set the analysis areas a little larger than the actual impact, to create a buffer zone. For example, for endangered species ODFW usually recommends an analysis area that extends a few hundred feet beyond the area where there will be physical impacts.
Different types of impacts have different analysis areas. For instance - for Cultural resources we usually specify an analysis area that covers the site but does not go beyond it. On the other hand, for scenic impacts we usually specify an analysis area that is much wider than the proposed corridor. The amount depends on the type of facility, because some facilities are more visible than others.
I agree that Idaho Power's EFSC NOI should include at least one viable alternative or reasons why only one route was feasible. The rules do not say whether the alternatives must be completely different routes or if they can be short "detours" like the ones that show up as green lines on the map in the NOI. In any case, the Project Order is the document where we direct Idaho Power to consider other alternatives beyond what they offered in the NOI.
You have not yet seen the draft Project Order, but it does tell Idaho Power to consider specific alternatives. The three alternatives shown in the map you sent with your written comments are listed in the Project Order as alternatives that must be seriously considered. I agree that your Alternative #2 must be considered. However, I do have a question for you about alternative 2: - does it inadvertenty affect Durkee? It looks from the map like alternative 2 heads right for Durkee. I have received much correspondence from folks in Durkee, especially Diane Bloomer. As you can understand, ODOE's efforts to help one community should not come at the expense of a different community.
I also agree that for EFU land, IPC must show that "reasonable alternatives have been considered" and can only be rejected if those non-EFU alternatives are shown to be unfeasible under the criteria in section 2 of 215.275. The application is where they must do this. Our draft Project Order makes this very clear. So even though the NOI didn't include the alternatives analysis set forth in ORS 215.275 , the application will have to.
In my draft Project Order I have taken the position that Idaho Power must treat farm land in Idaho as a serious alternative to EFU land in Oregon, because Idaho does not prohibit residential development on farm land as Oregon does. I based that position mostly on comments from John Beal but I think it's consistent with SIP's position. I have asked our Attorney General to confirm this position. I realize there will be pushback from Idaho. BLM forwarded to us a letter from the city of Parma, protesting the placement of the powerline near an area where they expect some urban growth. In ODOE's opinion, that expectation is not sufficient to meet the test of ORS 215.275.
There was a time when ODOE could deem the NOI incomplete and refuse to process it further until it was "complete". In fact we used to issue "RAI's" (Request for Additional Information) on NOI's. But in 1993 the legislature changed the focus of the NOI and removed ODOE's authority to deem an NOI "complete" or "incomplete". In retrospect I believe they made a good decision, although you may disagree. The principle was that the NOI was never intended to be a decision making document. It's a "heads up", nothing more. Its purpose is to get people's attention, identify problems and generate comments from the public and from our fellow reviewing agencies. We have received hundreds of comments which identify many issues, so I would say the NOI did its job. But remember, the NOI is not a decision making document and does not result in the approval or denial of anything.
Based on the response to the NOI, we will direct Idaho Power to consider alternatives that were not in their original NOI. I think that's consistent with what you're asking. For that reason, I think it's important that we do issue the Project Order. It's legally required, and it's the right thing to do. The Project Order is the document where we point out the problems in Idaho Power's original plan, direct them to look at alternatives and provide our expectations regarding the Application. In short, the Project Order is where we give some regulatory significance to the issues raised in comment.
Thank you for the heads up about any possible new plans to change the substation. I speak regularly with both Eric and Lucas and neither of them has mentioned that. As recently as a week ago Eric told me on the phone that they are still planning the Sand Hollow substation. Also thank you for the heads up about citizen's groups in Idaho. We need to reach a compromise that both states can agree on. Otherwise we risk Federal preemption. No one wins if that happens.
Finally, you asked about the notice requirements. Those requirements are found at OAR 345-015-0110, which in turn refers to the list of adjacent property owners described at OAR 345-020-0011. In plain English, it's very similar to land use law - it requires notice to owners of property within 500 feet of the proposed corridor. The rule requires Idaho Power to get those names from the county property tax assessor's most recent roll. Certainly that would include people right under the line.
However, Idaho Power will likely change the route in response to the comments. When they submit the Application for Site Certificate, it might show a route that is quite different from the one shown in the NOI. We would consider that a valid response to the public suggestions. If that happens, it does not start the process all over again. If it did, that would create an infinite loop from which there would be no escape. The people who own property adjacent to the proposed corridor in the application will receive notice of the application, and will have ample opportunity to participate and comment.
Feel free to write of call at anytime.
Adam
(5) 1-14-2009UPDATE
Thanks, Adam, for your thorough reply. We surely appreciate all the time and attention you are giving us on this important county issue.
A point of clarification: our Alternative #2 is meant to basically END at the Malheur County line. Idaho Power's TVEP shows a loop around the larger Treasure Valley; hence, the line would go to the east behind Farewell Bend and Weiser, but we propose it goes north at whatever would be a good route for the Durkee folks.
From information received from the electrical people we are working with, we understand that only a switching station is necessary when a line splits (one leg to the north, one to the west). We would be happy to sit down with BLM, Idaho Power, and anyone from Durkee/Baker County to put the route at the north end of Malheur County that would best meet the needs of the Durkee farmers, other folks in Baker County, Idaho Power, and sage grouse, which is the only resource of a highly controversial nature in that part of the world at the Malheur/Baker County line (I was the Range Conservationist for that country for a number of years, as well as botanist for the Vale District BLM).
SIP tried to make it clear that our proposed Alternative #2 route is a 2-3 mile CORRIDOR, with considerable flexibility for exact route location. There are many options for exact locations from Vines Hill on Highway 20 to the north that completely miss EFU land in Malheur County, which is of course our goal.
Jean
(1) rogerfindley@q.com> 01/12/09 7:10 AM
Adam:
Stop Idaho Power has heard that ODOE has issued a Project Order to Idaho Power for the B2H line. What was the date for that, and how do we get a copy of the Project Order? Did ODOE define the impact analysis area? What is it? Have the other alternatives been incorporated in the impact analysis areas?
Thanks for your help.
Roger
(2) Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2009 08:46:24 -0800> From: Adam.Bless@state.or.us> To: rogerfindley@q.com Subject: Re: B2H Project Order to IPCo? Stop Idaho Power
Roger,
ODOE has not yet issued the Project Order. I have drafted the Project Order, but our Attorney General had quite a few comments, which I am now incorporating. I do hope to issue it in the next week, but I can't be certain. The draft project order does have analysis areas for the various standards. There isn't a single analysis area; actually we set a different analysis area for each type of impact.
My draft Project Order does direct Idaho Power to seriously consider several alternative routes. Three of those routes are the three in your earlier letter, particularly the one straight from Hemingway to Sand Hollow through Canyon County. The arguments made by SIP and John Beal in favor of going straight through Idaho were quite convincing, at least to me. Other people further West suggested route changes in their counties as well, and the draft project order directs Idaho Power to consider them also.
I was concerned when I received a letter asking ODOE to not issue a Project Order. I hope people understand that a Project Order is not an approval of anything; it's more like a summary of the comments and issues. Its purpose is to set the expectations for the applicant, not to approve or deny anything. It's similar to the scoping report that BLM must put out. I think you will see that when we issue it. As you have probably noticed, BLM is also taking more time to issue the scoping report than they originally planned.
Please rest assured that when we do issue the Project Order, we'll post it so everyone can see it.
Also, remember that the Project Order is a living document and we can change it anytime if there's a need to do that.
Sorry this is taking so long.
Adam
(3) <rogerfindley@q.com> 01/13/09 7:12 AM
Thanks for the reply, Adam.
According to the EFSC process on the bubble-bar chart given to citizens at the scoping meeting, the Project Order "defines the impact analysis areas." SIP assumes that those are on-the-ground areas where impacts will occur and where those impacts will be analyzed.
When EFU-zoned land is to be impacted, at least one viable alternative must be considered outside of EFU land. Idaho Power has not indicated that any additional routes will be considered for analysis that bypass EFU land in Malheur County. It appears to SIP that the Notice of Intent was incomplete and needs to be revised and resubmitted with addition of at least one alternative route outside of EFU land in Malheur County before the Project Order can be issued and the impact analysis areas defined.
SIP does not believe Idaho Power is serious about considering routes bypassing EFU land in Malheur County based on recent information we have learned that they (Idaho Power) are now planning to place their substation on private land in Idaho nearer to Adrian, Oregon, rather than on BLM land near Sand Hollow in Idaho. The 'sleeping giant' in Idaho is waking, and citizens' groups there are forming to keep this line out of their farm ground and away from their homes as well. SIP believes Idaho Power still thinks it will be easier, and less deadly to their public relations in Idaho, to deal with the farmers/residents in Malheur County and condemn their land than to deal with the farmers/residents in Idaho or with the environmental groups on public land.
SIP's alternative #2, which bypasses all EFU land in Malheur County and all farmland in Idaho, needs to be analyzed as part of the NEPA process and needs to be a serious contender for routing of this line if the 'loop' around Treasure Valley as proposed in the Treasure Valley Electric Plan, which in no way was a plan representative of the citizens to be affected, ultimately is to be built.
One final question: are there any legal requirements by the state of Oregon regarding the ways and means by which Idaho Power (or any utility proposing a project with major impacts to private landowners) must inform individuals about the impending line, particularly those directly under the line? More and more individuals are coming forward to say that they are just now learning about this line for the first time. Does the scoping process need to be restarted so that all interested parties can have a chance to participate and comment?
Thanks again for your help.
Roger
(4) Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2009 15:22:38 -0800> From: Adam.Bless@state.or.us> To: rogerfindley@q.com> CC: Tom.Stoops@state.or.us Subject: RE: B2H Project Order to IPCo? Stop Idaho Power
Roger,
You have asked some questions about the EFSC process, the NOI, and the Project Order.
The Project Order does several things, and one of the most important sections of the Project Order is the section that shows the analysis areas. Those are the areas where impacts must be analyzed. We often set the analysis areas a little larger than the actual impact, to create a buffer zone. For example, for endangered species ODFW usually recommends an analysis area that extends a few hundred feet beyond the area where there will be physical impacts.
Different types of impacts have different analysis areas. For instance - for Cultural resources we usually specify an analysis area that covers the site but does not go beyond it. On the other hand, for scenic impacts we usually specify an analysis area that is much wider than the proposed corridor. The amount depends on the type of facility, because some facilities are more visible than others.
I agree that Idaho Power's EFSC NOI should include at least one viable alternative or reasons why only one route was feasible. The rules do not say whether the alternatives must be completely different routes or if they can be short "detours" like the ones that show up as green lines on the map in the NOI. In any case, the Project Order is the document where we direct Idaho Power to consider other alternatives beyond what they offered in the NOI.
You have not yet seen the draft Project Order, but it does tell Idaho Power to consider specific alternatives. The three alternatives shown in the map you sent with your written comments are listed in the Project Order as alternatives that must be seriously considered. I agree that your Alternative #2 must be considered. However, I do have a question for you about alternative 2: - does it inadvertenty affect Durkee? It looks from the map like alternative 2 heads right for Durkee. I have received much correspondence from folks in Durkee, especially Diane Bloomer. As you can understand, ODOE's efforts to help one community should not come at the expense of a different community.
I also agree that for EFU land, IPC must show that "reasonable alternatives have been considered" and can only be rejected if those non-EFU alternatives are shown to be unfeasible under the criteria in section 2 of 215.275. The application is where they must do this. Our draft Project Order makes this very clear. So even though the NOI didn't include the alternatives analysis set forth in ORS 215.275 , the application will have to.
In my draft Project Order I have taken the position that Idaho Power must treat farm land in Idaho as a serious alternative to EFU land in Oregon, because Idaho does not prohibit residential development on farm land as Oregon does. I based that position mostly on comments from John Beal but I think it's consistent with SIP's position. I have asked our Attorney General to confirm this position. I realize there will be pushback from Idaho. BLM forwarded to us a letter from the city of Parma, protesting the placement of the powerline near an area where they expect some urban growth. In ODOE's opinion, that expectation is not sufficient to meet the test of ORS 215.275.
There was a time when ODOE could deem the NOI incomplete and refuse to process it further until it was "complete". In fact we used to issue "RAI's" (Request for Additional Information) on NOI's. But in 1993 the legislature changed the focus of the NOI and removed ODOE's authority to deem an NOI "complete" or "incomplete". In retrospect I believe they made a good decision, although you may disagree. The principle was that the NOI was never intended to be a decision making document. It's a "heads up", nothing more. Its purpose is to get people's attention, identify problems and generate comments from the public and from our fellow reviewing agencies. We have received hundreds of comments which identify many issues, so I would say the NOI did its job. But remember, the NOI is not a decision making document and does not result in the approval or denial of anything.
Based on the response to the NOI, we will direct Idaho Power to consider alternatives that were not in their original NOI. I think that's consistent with what you're asking. For that reason, I think it's important that we do issue the Project Order. It's legally required, and it's the right thing to do. The Project Order is the document where we point out the problems in Idaho Power's original plan, direct them to look at alternatives and provide our expectations regarding the Application. In short, the Project Order is where we give some regulatory significance to the issues raised in comment.
Thank you for the heads up about any possible new plans to change the substation. I speak regularly with both Eric and Lucas and neither of them has mentioned that. As recently as a week ago Eric told me on the phone that they are still planning the Sand Hollow substation. Also thank you for the heads up about citizen's groups in Idaho. We need to reach a compromise that both states can agree on. Otherwise we risk Federal preemption. No one wins if that happens.
Finally, you asked about the notice requirements. Those requirements are found at OAR 345-015-0110, which in turn refers to the list of adjacent property owners described at OAR 345-020-0011. In plain English, it's very similar to land use law - it requires notice to owners of property within 500 feet of the proposed corridor. The rule requires Idaho Power to get those names from the county property tax assessor's most recent roll. Certainly that would include people right under the line.
However, Idaho Power will likely change the route in response to the comments. When they submit the Application for Site Certificate, it might show a route that is quite different from the one shown in the NOI. We would consider that a valid response to the public suggestions. If that happens, it does not start the process all over again. If it did, that would create an infinite loop from which there would be no escape. The people who own property adjacent to the proposed corridor in the application will receive notice of the application, and will have ample opportunity to participate and comment.
Feel free to write of call at anytime.
Adam
(5) 1-14-2009
Thanks, Adam, for your thorough reply. We surely appreciate all the time and attention you are giving us on this important county issue.
A point of clarification: our Alternative #2 is meant to basically END at the Malheur County line. Idaho Power's TVEP shows a loop around the larger Treasure Valley; hence, the line would go to the east behind Farewell Bend and Weiser, but we propose it goes north at whatever would be a good route for the Durkee folks.
From information received from the electrical people we are working with, we understand that only a switching station is necessary when a line splits (one leg to the north, one to the west). We would be happy to sit down with BLM, Idaho Power, and anyone from Durkee/Baker County to put the route at the north end of Malheur County that would best meet the needs of the Durkee farmers, other folks in Baker County, Idaho Power, and sage grouse, which is the only resource of a highly controversial nature in that part of the world at the Malheur/Baker County line (I was the Range Conservationist for that country for a number of years, as well as botanist for the Vale District BLM).
SIP tried to make it clear that our proposed Alternative #2 route is a 2-3 mile CORRIDOR, with considerable flexibility for exact route location. There are many options for exact locations from Vines Hill on Highway 20 to the north that completely miss EFU land in Malheur County, which is of course our goal.
Jean
Tuesday, December 30, 2008
BLM Comment Period
Roger and Jean Findley with the generous help of Evelyn Sayers have researched and written a well-reasoned and fair-minded 11-page letter to the local and regional BLM asking them to consider alternative routes around Malheur County farmland, giving not only ample background material and detailed discussions of alternatives, but legal, financial, and community- based reasons for doing so as well. The BLM extended its comment period to December 22nd to accommodate this input by our non-profit group. The stated aims of the letter (available HERE or under "Documents Links" in the column to the right) are to request that siting agencies:
- Move the proposed 500 kV transmission line out of exclusive farm use-zoned land in Malheur County in accordance with LCDC Goal 3 guidelines.
- Eliminate impacts of the 500 kV transmission line to humans, their residences, places of work, and animals as much as would be possible by locating the 500 kV transmission line away from areas of residences and farms.
- Eliminate impacts of the 500 kV transmission line to scenic values, recreational opportunities, wildlife values, and Oregon Trail values in Malheur County.
You will notice the use of the word "eliminate" rather than "mitigate," a word often thrown around by Idaho Power hoping that you will be satisfied when they "mitigate" what happens to you while moving 12-story towers a few feet into your neighbor's yard rather than doing the responsible thing and following Oregon state law in the first place, by siting transmission lines using designated utility corridors.
Our group is in the process of obtaining counsel from an electrical engineer on the feasibility of the alternate options, including relocating the proposed Sand Hollow substation.
Tuesday, November 25, 2008
A letter to our Senators
Senators:
For thirty years the people of Oregon have zealously protected the farm land of our State. Now, in total disregard to our long standing land use laws, Idaho Power Utility Company is proposing to put a 500 kilovolt electrical transmission line from north to south through the very productive farm land of northeast Malheur County.
The line will be strung from mega towers 110 to 190 feet in height, positioned every 1300 feet, on 40 ft by 40 ft pads, through an easement 250 feet wide. Please recall that an acre is about 207 ft square, so for approximately every 200 feet this will take an acre of land. This line will swoop to as close as 35 feet from the ground. Please recall that sections of aluminum irrigation hand lines are usually 40 feet long. Irrigation pivot circles can be 600 ft to 1500 ft in length. Wheel lines, designed to travel the width of a field, can also vary in length.
Yet, through an established farming area, absolutely dependent on irrigation, Idaho Power has chosen to set their mega transmission line. They prefer not to go through Canyon County, Idaho, because in the words of Idaho Power, "there are too many residences". The reason there are too many residences is because Idaho has not established a land use priority and allows ANY property not divided since August 29, 1979, to have anywhere from 1 to 4 divisions depending on the county in which the land lies.
Because we have been diligent in protecting our farm land we are now going to be punished for doing so. Our agricultural economy is about the only economy Malheur County has, and now Idaho Power would run a power line which, by their count, is impacting over 300 properties in Malheur County. This is devastating. We need your help.
Please contact the Oregon Department of Energy, the Bureau of Land Management, Idaho Power, and let them know that the present proposed route is unacceptable and in total disregard to Oregon's Land Use Planning Goals. Please STOP THIS TAKING of our ability to make a living, to maintain a healthy lifestyle. We need your help and we need it now.
Respectfully, Patricia Phillips, resident of Malheur County
For thirty years the people of Oregon have zealously protected the farm land of our State. Now, in total disregard to our long standing land use laws, Idaho Power Utility Company is proposing to put a 500 kilovolt electrical transmission line from north to south through the very productive farm land of northeast Malheur County.
The line will be strung from mega towers 110 to 190 feet in height, positioned every 1300 feet, on 40 ft by 40 ft pads, through an easement 250 feet wide. Please recall that an acre is about 207 ft square, so for approximately every 200 feet this will take an acre of land. This line will swoop to as close as 35 feet from the ground. Please recall that sections of aluminum irrigation hand lines are usually 40 feet long. Irrigation pivot circles can be 600 ft to 1500 ft in length. Wheel lines, designed to travel the width of a field, can also vary in length.
Yet, through an established farming area, absolutely dependent on irrigation, Idaho Power has chosen to set their mega transmission line. They prefer not to go through Canyon County, Idaho, because in the words of Idaho Power, "there are too many residences". The reason there are too many residences is because Idaho has not established a land use priority and allows ANY property not divided since August 29, 1979, to have anywhere from 1 to 4 divisions depending on the county in which the land lies.
Because we have been diligent in protecting our farm land we are now going to be punished for doing so. Our agricultural economy is about the only economy Malheur County has, and now Idaho Power would run a power line which, by their count, is impacting over 300 properties in Malheur County. This is devastating. We need your help.
Please contact the Oregon Department of Energy, the Bureau of Land Management, Idaho Power, and let them know that the present proposed route is unacceptable and in total disregard to Oregon's Land Use Planning Goals. Please STOP THIS TAKING of our ability to make a living, to maintain a healthy lifestyle. We need your help and we need it now.
Respectfully, Patricia Phillips, resident of Malheur County
Friday, November 14, 2008
Monday mtg, property access, letter to the Gov
I'm drafting a letter to Governor Kulongoski, our state representatives, LCDC, Union and Umatilla Counties, etc. etc. They all need to know what's going on here. If anyone wants input, make a comment to this blog post or send it via email. I'll bring my letter to the meeting Monday night.
Don't forget: If anyone from Idaho Power contacts you about coming on your property, politely but firmly decline.
I've been looking at these "Circle Maps" from the Treasure Valley Electrical Plan, and the more I think about it, the less the idea of using any corridor across Malheur County farmland seems needful at all. Most of the line will be in Oregon already, so after it starts in Boardman, it should cross the Snake River into Idaho above Vale and Ontario, then stay there all the way to Hemingway instead of going 30 miles out of its way to recross the Oregon border to pick up farms in Nyssa and Adrian.
See you Monday night 7:00 p.m. at the Boulevard Grange.
Don't forget: If anyone from Idaho Power contacts you about coming on your property, politely but firmly decline.
I've been looking at these "Circle Maps" from the Treasure Valley Electrical Plan, and the more I think about it, the less the idea of using any corridor across Malheur County farmland seems needful at all. Most of the line will be in Oregon already, so after it starts in Boardman, it should cross the Snake River into Idaho above Vale and Ontario, then stay there all the way to Hemingway instead of going 30 miles out of its way to recross the Oregon border to pick up farms in Nyssa and Adrian.
See you Monday night 7:00 p.m. at the Boulevard Grange.
Friday, November 7, 2008
Getting the Letters Out
Cliff Looney and his wife Pat have taken on the huge task of printing up hundreds of copies of form letters than can be sent to the BLM and ODE, and Idaho Power and PUC petitions. The letter packets will be ready Friday afternoon. If you can take letters out to your neighbors to be sent off before November 14th, contact Cliff in Vale at 473-3111 or home 889-6569.
These documents are downloadable in the Important Links column so you can print and sign them, including letters to Lucas Lucero at the BLM, Adam Bless at ODOE, the Idaho Power and PUC petitions and the Concerned Citizens Survey to see what you are willing to help with. Please send off the letters ASAP, and return petitions and surveys to Cliff Looney or Roger and Jean Findley.
UPDATE Pat Phillips would like to collect all petitions by Tuesday, November 11th.
These documents are downloadable in the Important Links column so you can print and sign them, including letters to Lucas Lucero at the BLM, Adam Bless at ODOE, the Idaho Power and PUC petitions and the Concerned Citizens Survey to see what you are willing to help with. Please send off the letters ASAP, and return petitions and surveys to Cliff Looney or Roger and Jean Findley.
UPDATE Pat Phillips would like to collect all petitions by Tuesday, November 11th.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)