Page 16
>El Paso Continued from P. 1 legal standing. Additionally, officials stated that as a cooperating agency, they were concerned that the ‘Record of Decision’ (ROD) was made prior to any information about the WWP deal being known, which is counter to how things should have been done. The ROD under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) is required to address the impacts on “cultural, social and economic resources”. Commissioners felt that without public knowledge of the WWP deal, this complete evaluation was impossible and the decisions of the county commissioners could have been different. It was also stated that El Paso has not met with Lincoln County commissioners to date to request a Conditional-Use Permit needed for construction, and that surely the WWP deal would now play a role. “The BLM is supposed to analyze the cumulative impacts of alternatives to the project,” said Joel Bousman, Commissioner for Sublette County, Wyoming. Bousman felt that this evaluation wasn’t possible without the full knowledge of the WWP agreement. All attending the meeting recognized that the pipeline would be an economic driver for the counties
Utah Farm Bureau News
during the construction phase and a real contributor to local economies into the future. Nevertheless, county commissioners and executives were also concerned that the private deal on public lands violates Section. 202 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA). Of chief concern to those in attendance was the fact that the terms of the agreement with WWP were unknown to those government officials who will be impacted by both the pipeline and any potential negative impacts on ranching, mining, and other uses of the land. Though not an official body with the ability to make binding decisions, the multi-state group of commissioners agreed on a list of five statements and encouraged each county commission to formally adopt the list in their respective counties. The list included the following: • Present for review a full copy of the agreement with WWP; • As a cooperating agency, Lincoln County has special rights. The WWP agreement should never have been executed without Lincoln County’s knowledge and involvement; • The Coalition reserves the right to legally challenge the agreement after reviewing it, especially if the
agreement provides for illegal activities such as the purchase of grazing permits and relinquishments; • Individual member counties in the Coalition further reserve the right to join Lincoln County’s challenge as friends of the court; • Individual members of the Coalition further reserve the right to reconsider already issued conditional-use permits to the extent of their reconsideration authority, based on review of the WWP agreement. Upon agreeing to the above statements and adjourning the meeting
September 2010
to WWP was made because El Paso couldn’t afford delays in construction brought on by litigation. It was claimed that delays could cost El Paso in the area of $1 million per day. Cleary explained to the group that El Paso would not be in a position to reveal the agreement with WWP because he felt it would violate the confidentiality of the agreement, but that he would check with WWP to see if they could release the agreement to the commissioners. Breaking the confidentiality could provide millions more to WWP without any strings attached, Cleary
UFBF CEO Randy Parker addresses a multi-state coalition of county commissioners, representatives from El Paso Corp, and members of the public regarding the financial agreement with Western Watersheds Project. until after lunch, when the Coalition would be meeting with representatives from El Paso Corp., a side meeting between Utah Farm Bureau President Leland Hogan, County Commissioners from Nevada, Utah and Wyoming, and the leadership of the Public Lands Council (PLC) took place. It was made known that upon confronting El Paso Corp. regarding the WWP deal, PLC had also been offered a payment of $15 million in an attempt to “balance the deal”. PLC is a group of state and national cattle, sheep and grasslands associations with a focused goal of advocating and representing public land ranchers in 12 western states. It was revealed that the PLC deal is to “protect, enhance, and defend” public lands grazing, focusing on projects that use science to improve rangeland resources and wildlife habitat, and cannot be used for litigation. Meetings resumed in the afternoon with the Multi-state Coalition joined by representatives from El Paso Corp., including Jim Cleary, president of El Paso’s Western Pipeline Group. Cleary reiterated to the commissioners the economic value the pipeline will bring to their counties, and explained that the payment
said. Cleary tried to assuage the commissioners by stating that the current deal prohibits WWP from using any of the money for litigation, but would be used instead for purchasing base property and other activities to protect the rangeland, similar to projects funded by El Paso via the Nature Conservancy. Cleary claims there was nothing illegal about the deal it signed with WWP, but acknowledged that in retrospect, El Paso should have probably made the agreement known to all parties. After a series of presentations made by local scientists and interested parties, Utah Farm Bureau CEO Randy Parker provided comment not only on behalf of the many grazers in the northern part of Utah, but for the general multiple-use philosophy of public lands. “Farm Bureau is concerned that El Paso is funding WWP and an illegal activity – the purchase of “chiefly valuable for livestock grazing” rights and retirement,” Parker said. “This is illegal under the Taylor Grazing Act and Utah State Law.” John Harja, Public Lands Policy Coordinator for Utah Governor
>El Paso Continued on next page