August 17, 2010 in Idaho

Idaho judge blocks huge truck shipments

• Print
• Email
• Share

Betsy Russell photo

Idaho Gov. Butch Otter presides over a meeting of the state Land Board on Tuesday. During a break in the meeting, he called proposed oversized shipments on U.S. Highway 12 “good for Lewiston, and therefore good for the state.”
(Full-size photo)

BOISE – An Idaho judge today temporarily blocked ConocoPhillips from hauling four giant loads of oil refinery equipment over U.S. Highway 12 from the Port of Lewiston to Montana.

Judge John Bradbury of Idaho’s 2nd District issued a temporary restraining order preventing the Idaho Transportation Department from issuing permits for the loads, which are so wide they would take up both lanes of the two-lane highway. A motion for a preliminary injunction will be heard on Friday at 9 a.m. in Grangeville.

The judge found that the plaintiffs, three residents of the scenic Clearwater/Lochsa river canyon along which the highway runs, had shown “that they may suffer great damage” if ConocoPhillips is allowed to move the loads, and that by issuing permits for the transportation of the equipment, the ITD “may be violating its own regulations.”

However, he also ordered the plaintiffs, who are represented pro-bono by Advocates for the West, to post a $3,000 bond to “cover potential costs to the Department in the event this order has been improvidently issued.”

Laird Lucas, attorney with Advocates for the West, said his organization posted the bond Tuesday afternoon. The lawsuit contends the giant truck shipments would unsafely block traffic and would impact tourism along the designated scenic byway.

“This is right — a judge is taking this seriously,” Lucas said of the restraining order. “We wish the Department of Transportation had taken it as seriously as the courts are.”

The Idaho Transportation Department issued a statement saying it would “fully comply,” and noting that no permits have been issued to ConocoPhillips. “The transportation department is continuing its analysis of the ConocoPhillips request. The hearing on Friday is part of that process,” the statement said.

A day earlier, ITD spokesman Jeff Stratten said the department had planned to issue the ConocoPhillips permits Tuesday, but that plan changed when the lawsuit was filed. The company hoped to start the shipments this week.

Shortly before the judge blocked the shipments, Idaho Gov. Butch Otter was asked about the oversize shipments, which are the first of more than 200 proposed over the next 15 months by two companies.

“When we first started discussions, we wanted to protect ourselves,” Otter said; he’s now imposed a new requirement, announced Monday, for a $10 million bond from each of the two companies. “The question of a bond has always been there, or a deposit. How much was also going to be a good question.”

Otter wrote a letter to the Port of Lewiston pledging his support for the project in January 2009.

On Tuesday, he said, “We had satisfied ourselves to some degree. We had finally decided we were going to permit each load.” That way, he explained, the state could adjust requirements as needed, based on issues that arise with earlier truckloads, because a new permit would be issued for each load.

“I see it as potential economic development,” Otter said, “but I also see it as having done everything right as a demonstration that we can do those kinds of things, and that port being 400 miles inland is extremely valuable. … That of course, then, is good for Lewiston, and therefore good for the state.”

The Port of Lewiston, at 465 miles from the ocean, is the furthest inland port on the west coast of the United States.

The Idaho Transportation Board, at its regular meeting Thursday in Coeur d’Alene, is scheduled to consider raising fees for over-legal trucks, after a department review found that the current fees don’t fully cover the department’s administrative costs to issue the permits. Under the current fee structure, each of the giant loads proposed for Highway 12 would be subject to a $1,000 state fee; the proposed increase would raise that by as much as $35.

Six comments on this story so far. Add yours!

• 

  oneanddone on August 17 at 2:59 p.m.

  Someone should look HARD at Otter’s finances to see where ALL his campaign financing is coming from. I’ve got a few guesses. The state should NEVER have even considered this proposal. It’s completely idiotic and just shows how corrupt Boise is. I’m betting Otter has raw ankles from all the grabbing he’s done.

• 

  straighttalk on August 17 at 4:53 p.m.

  It is amazing the project has gotten this far BEFORE any public knowledge or opportunity to express pros and cons. This is one of those “greased” deals with “to heck with the local citizens.” It is definitely a plus for the port of Lewiston but from Lewiston to Missoula all along highway 12 is a different thing entirely. 240 ft loads turning out every 15 minutes is a joke because there isn’t even that many turn outs on the road. The $$ benefit to the area is minimal but the negative impact on the citizens is significant. Bet the $$ benefit to Otter’s political coffers should be interesting.

• 

  steveeugster on August 17 at 7:45 p.m.

  This material has to move. It cannot go by rail. It cannot be picked up and transported by helicopter. It can only be taken apart so much. The pieces or parts cannot go over highly used interstates. Too much traffic would be impeded. Thus, of necessity, the material has to be moved in this area on U.S. Highway 12. The desire to impede this movement seems unreasonable and, I might add, selfish. The impact of this material movement is minimal. Scenic U.S Highway 12 and its environs will survive this impact with no damage.

• 

  RobFreistadt on August 17 at 9:39 p.m.

  The selfishness of ConocoPhillips cannot be understated in it’s request for special consideration to use surface roads through sensitive corridors to transport rediculously large loads. The economy continues to suffer yet these energy companies continue to reap huge profits from business activities that continue to severely degrade our quality of life and environment. Why should those of us along the proposed corridor from Lewiston to the east have to disrupt our lives to aid in the further profit of this megacorporation and further be offended by the deterioration of our roads - roads which we will eventually need to resurface sooner than normal due to this special request that does not conform to the intended road-use?. Why can’t ConocoPhillips build these enormous items on site in order to avoid such absurdity? More importantly, why don’t the energy corporations invest more seriously in sustainable forms of energy that do not rape the landscape, destroy ecosystems and degrade our quality of life?

• 

  MrNatural on August 18 at 11:36 a.m.

  Eugster…only a twit like you would be this cock-sure about an issue that doesn’t pertain to you…let the people who actually live there (and those of us who recreate there) decide.

• 

  horsecyn on August 18 at 2:56 p.m.

  The loads of commerce, the loads are not toxic waste, these trucks will pump substantially more money into the local economy than they will ever hurt tourism. This is a pumped up over exagerated left liberal enviromental extremist propaganda that is being cried wolf. None of their claims are anything but speculation. This is a state highway that was built for interstate commerce, period.
  The money these companies have already pumped into the local economy far exceeds the annual tourism income.
  They well furthermore pump more money into the economy as they go thru, several nights stay, fuel, food.
  Come on people, these “freaks of the clearwater” are feeding you full of extremeist propaganda that you just buy into.
  They have a huge hand in destroying any jobs, commerce, livelyhoods they can that don’t meet the extreme enviromental agenda’s. They aren’t locals that actually “Work for a Living”.
  Get rid of them and this won’t be such a big deal.
  They working people that live here do not object to this plan.