Friday, March 25, 2011

Conservation Fund Raises Ire of Lawmakers

El Paso Western Pipeline Group president Jim Cleary presented to a joint session of the Senate Resources and Environment and House Resources and Conservation committees this week on a multi-million dollar conservation fund established to mitigate environmental impacts from the Ruby Pipeline. The project is a $3.5 billion, 680-mile buried pipeline that will conduct natural gas through Wyoming, Utah, Nevada and Oregon, serving roughly 4 million homes.

The Sagebrush Habitat Conservation Fund was established to address concerns of environmental groups that sued the company over anticipated impacts to the sage-steppe habitat through which it would be constructed. The fund’s board includes representation from Ruby Pipeline, the Western Watersheds Project – a party in one of the lawsuits against the project – and one independent member.

The fund will support conservation projects in the pipeline’s area of impact (which includes southern Idaho counties). It will also fund the purchase and retirement of grazing permits from willing sellers – a point which has caused a significant amount of anxiety among land users and policy makers throughout the western states impacted by the fund.

Lawmakers were quick to question assertions of the fund’s independence from the conservation groups who were a party to the settlement. The fund’s current president and executive director, Debra Ellers, negotiated the terms of the settlement of behalf of the environmental groups suing over the pipeline project and represents the Western Watershed Project’s interests.

There was also considerable consternation over what could be seen as a precedent for paying what lawmakers called “blood money” to appease environmental groups.

“You have set a template for a group that has as its mission to remove livestock from public lands,” said Senator Siddoway, a sheep rancher from eastern Idaho. “How is removing livestock going to alleviate the scars from construction on this project?”

“Traditionally, multiple land users stick together,” added Representative Bedke, “now we’re left with one of those multiple users setting the terms for the rest of us.”
Cleary disagreed that a precedent had been set.

“Typically such settlements involve writing a check to the organization bringing the suit,” he said. “We set up a fund with conservation at its center, but that funds projects aimed at conservation. Our mission is very different from that of Western Watersheds.” He gave lawmakers his word that no one would be coerced into selling grazing permits.

No comments: