Our Klamath Basin Water Crisis
Upholding rural Americans' rights to grow food,
own property, and caretake our wildlife and natural resources.
Court's power plant decision fails on real issues
October 4, 2005 By BILL
BROCK Guest columnist
The decision appears to be a
compilation of two writing styles: one being some
member of the court, because in a number of places
the first person is used and the style is singular.
In other places, the writing is almost identical to
that of Stoel Rives, the Portland law firm
representing Peoples Energy and, in this case, the
Oregon state Energy Department.
In order to placate the Oregon Energy Department, the court contends that the Energy Facilities Siting Council can pick and choose the unconnected parts of Oregon Law that promote its intended conclusion - a piece from this law, a piece from that law and neither is a valid use when the entire law is considered.
The court uses its best political doubletalk in an attempt to confuse the reader and promote the court's conclusion. This even in cases when the court concedes that the law was wrongly interpreted by the Siting Council.
Save Our Rural Oregon's
legal advice has been that in order to place this
monster in a rural exclusive farm use area that
exceptions to statewide land use planning goals 3
and 4 were needed.
Using the all-illusive term
"mitigation," all forms of adverse impact is
In a very brief and terse paragraph, our concerns
with the possibility of a major earthquake are
I don't care about the
facility - it's the gas pipeline I am worried about.
This pipeline will cross a 2,000-foot high fault.
For me, the
trivializing of the water right issue is most
Page Updated: Thursday May 07, 2009 09:14 AM Pacific
Copyright © klamathbasincrisis.org, 2005, All Rights Reserved