Ruby Pipeline Update

Environmental Groups Push For Halt Of Ruby Gas Pipeline Construction


David Nogueras
September 14, 2010
Bend, OR

Three environmental groups have asked the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals to halt construction of a natural gas pipeline that’s being built in Oregon, Nevada, Utah and Wyoming.

The latest challenge to the 680-mile Ruby Pipeline project comes from three environmental groups: the Defenders of Wildlife, the Sierra Club Toiyabe Chapter and the Great Basin Resource Watch.

The lawsuit, filed late last week, alleges federal agencies conducted incomplete and inadequate environmental reviews during the permitting phase of the project.

David Von Segern is with the Sierra Club Toiyabe Chapter.

David Von Segern: “They’ve chosen a route that should pretty much shoot it though pristine northern Nevada, a high desert steppe that is supporting wildlife especially the sage grouse and we’re very concerned about fragmentation of habitat.”

As spokesman for the El Paso Corporation, the company behind the project defended the permitting process, arguing it adequately protects wildlife along the route.

The 9th Circuit is still reviewing a separate request by the Center For Biological Diversity to halt the project.

Link

Here is an update on the Ruby Pipeline.  You may remember that El Paso Corp. tried to buy off the opposition by giving the Western Watersheds Project and Oregon Natural Desert Association $20 million dollars.  But when the rest of these environmental groups saw what was happening, they came to the trough hoping for a handout as well.  El Paso has found out what happens when you make deals with the devil.

Another Radical Lines Up At The El Paso Trough

El Paso's 678-Mile Pipeline Would Create `Path of Destruction,' Suit Says

By Joel Rosenblatt - Jul 30, 2010 5:30 PM MDT Fri Jul 30 23:30:36 UTC 2010

Federal approval of El Paso Corp.’s biggest expansion project, a 678 mile-long natural-gas pipeline spanning four western U.S. states, should be reviewed by an appeals court, the Center for Biological Diversity said today.

A lawsuit filed today in the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco seeks a review of the U.S. Bureau of Land Management’s approval of the Ruby Pipeline, which will cut across Wyoming, Utah, Nevada, Oregon and California, the center said in a statement today.

“The Ruby Pipeline will cause severe damage to rivers and streams, sensitive habitats for a host of fish and wildlife species and some of the most pristine lands in western North America,” Noah Greenwald, program director at the center, said in the statement. “Instead of creating an entirely new path of destruction, an existing pipeline route should have been utilized.”     Read More

Imagine that, other radical environmental groups find out that El Paso has paid off the opposition and they line up to get their share. This is a great example of what happens when legitimate science is abandoned and replaced with something like the “El Paso Payoff”. There are too many money-hungry anti-everything groups that will line up to take your money if your strategy is paying them to go away. El Paso’s pockets won’t be deep enough to satisfy them all. In the end, they will end up in litigation anyhow, but this time they will have $20 million less in the bank.

Western Ranchers Need Your Help

Let's call it the El Paso Payoff.  Last week I found out the El Paso Corporation paid $20 million to the Western Wateshed Project and the Oregon Natural Desert Association.  In return, both of these environmental groups agreed to drop all opposition to El Paso's plan for running a natural gas pipeline from Wyoming to Oregon.  I immediately called the company to get their side of the story.  They called me back later that day and I sincerely appreciate the opportunity to visit with a Mr. Robert Wheatley, El Paso's media relations guy. 

I had characterized this whole situation as nothing more than a bribe given to the last big opponents of their pipeline.  After all, $20 million made a problem go away.  While Mr. Wheatley certainly disagreed with my evaluation, his explanation of what happened did little to change my mind. 

It's admirable that El Paso wanted to do what they could to lessen the impact to the environment that their pipeline will create, however, dealing with a radical environmental group that has the stated goal of getting ranchers off federal land was about the worst way to go about it.  I asked Mr Wheatley why they didn't give it to a group that wasn't anti-ranching or give some money to a ag group as well as the WWP.  He didn't have an answer but if he was honest the real answer is that the squeaky wheel got the grease. 

So ranching families are now facing an already wealthy environmental group, with a stated goal of getting ranchers off the land, that's just recieved a large cash infusion. 

This part of the ag community will now need your help and support even more.  After my visit with El Paso I was apparent that they were feeling some heat from this deal.  It's important that the entire ag community stand together on this issue and let El Paso know that this isn't acceptable.  Please leave a comment on the El Paso Facebook page or phone them with your thoughts.  It's a quick and simple thing you can do to be an advocate for agriculture.

El Paso Corp Helping End Public Grazing

El Paso cuts deal with Western Watersheds

ADELLA HARDING Free Press Staff Writer
Posted: Friday, July 16, 2010 11:11 pm

ELKO — El Paso Corp. has reached a precedent-setting, $20 million arrangement for habitat protection with two environmental organizations that protested the company’s planned Ruby Pipeline that will extend from Wyoming to Oregon.

The company will set up conservation funds with the Western Watersheds Project and the Oregon Natural Desert Association, and the organizations in turn are dropping objections to the natural gas pipeline.

“It’s something we didn’t have to do. We chose to do it,” El Paso spokesman Richard Wheatley said Friday. “The bottom line is we think it’s a preferable approach than being involved in litigation.”

Establishment of the funds also is in line with the company’s outreach efforts to be good stewards of the land, he said.

“There is the potential to do really good work,” Wheatley said.

“We agreed not to try to delay or litigate Ruby Pipeline,” confirmed Western Watersheds Project Executive Director Jon Marvel.

He said El Paso will set up a $15 million conservation fund for Idaho-based Western Watersheds and a $5 million fund with the Oregon organization.

“The money also can be used to purchase private property or conservation easements, but our priority is grazing permits,” he said. “It’s time to end public lands grazing.”    Read More

After learning more about this deal yesterday it becomes a very scary thing. Basically El Paso bribed their opposition to the pipeline with $20 million dollars so they could go after ranchers rather than the energy company. Also keep in mind that most of the pipeline in question is going through ranchland with the permission of the very ranchers who could now be put out of business. This just goes to show that neither El Paso or Western Watersheds have anyone with principals involved in their groups. Ending public grazing will negatively affect the rangeland that has been meticulously cared for by generations of ranching families. Stay tuned to this story because I’m not convinced it’s over yet.

Ranchers Win Court Battle Against Environmentalists

Wyoming environmental group loses challenge to livestock grazing in national forest
by The Associated Press
Thursday September 03, 2009, 8:30 AM

CHEYENNE, Wyo. -- A federal judge has sided with managers of northern Wyoming's Bighorn National Forest and ruled against an environmental group that challenged livestock grazing in the forest.

Hailey, Idaho-based Western Watersheds Project filed suit in 2007 over a 2005 revision to the forest management plan. The group said the revision process should have considered various alternatives for grazing in the forest, including reduced amounts of grazing.

U.S. District Judge Clarence Brimmer in Cheyenne ruled Monday that forest managers did as the law required -- took a "hard look" at the environmental consequences of the forest plan.

"Simply because the WWP may not like the ultimate outcome does not mean that the Forest Service was in violation of the law," Brimmer wrote.

Three Wyoming counties straddled by the forest -- Big Horn, Sheridan and Johnson -- intervened on the side of the U.S. Forest Service. The Wyoming Farm Bureau Federation, Wyoming Stock Growers Association and the Muddy Creek Grazing Association also intervened on the agency's side.

"The interveners were not confident that the Forest Service would protect their interests, so they intervened to protect themselves," an attorney for the interveners, Dan Frank, explained in a release. Read More

Proper grazing is one of the most beneficial things you can do for grasslands. These grasslands have adapted over thousand’s of years to use grazing to it’s advantage. Western Watershed’s plan to kick ranchers off these public lands is not a management plan, it’s an agenda. Luckily, the ranchers have won this fight for now and the American public will continue to benefit from an affordable food supply.