February 23, 2011 in Idaho

Idaho bill targets anti-megaload lawsuits

• Print
• Email
• Share

Associated Press photo

Parked between the Clearwater River and U.S. Highway 12 at Kooskia, Idaho, on Feb. 3, the first megaload of a ConocoPhillips half-drum awaits the next leg of its journey to Billings.
(Full-size photo)

BOISE - St. Maries Rep. Dick Harwood introduced legislation Wednesday designed to impose huge bonding requirements on anyone who sues to block a megaload - or anything else - from traveling on Idaho’s highways.

Harwood’s bill, which the House State Affairs Committee agreed to introduce on a divided vote, would require anyone who files a lawsuit against a transportation project on state highways to post a bond equal to 5 percent of the value of the items being hauled, and if the plaintiffs lose the lawsuit, the whole bond would go to the Idaho Transportation Department. For giant megaloads, that potentially could be tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars. Plus, the bill would authorize the court to award damages to the hauler in the amount of its loss for delays related to the lawsuit.

“This has been brought because of the megaloads,” Harwood told the committee. “Any time an individual group can stop our commerce from flowing, it’s not a good thing, and that’s what happened.”

Four huge loads of oil refinery equipment have been approved to travel from Lewiston to Montana on U.S. Highway 12, over protests from area residents and business owners, who sued to block the loads but lost at the Idaho Supreme Court. Hundreds more oversized loads are now proposed for the twisting, two-lane route; the loads are so wide they take up both lanes, creating a rolling roadblock.

Rep. Lynn Luker, R-Boise, an attorney, raised questions about Harwood’s bill, saying, “It looks like they’re paying twice,” between the bond and the damages to the hauler. Luker said if the bond is excessive, the plaintiff should get amounts back beyond the department’s costs associated with the project, but said, “the bill doesn’t say that.”

Rep. Max Black, R-Boise, said, “I think that that’s totally justifiable because they really did put the Department of Transportation into a lot of extra hearings and transportation costs, going to North Idaho for the hearings and whatever else. Ultimately, they won, but without this, there was no reimbursement for their extra expenses.”

Rep. Eric Anderson, R-Priest Lake, who said he’s supportive of the megaloads, voted against introducing Harwood’s bill. “I don’t think he had any answers for any questions that were given to him - I think he needs to refine it,” Anderson said. “I can’t even tell you what the bill says right now, for reading it.”

He added, “People have a right to access our court system, that’s my theory.”

Harwood compared his proposal to bonds required for lawsuits over state timber sales, and said those bond requirements “pretty much ended any lawsuits on the Department of Lands.”

Meanwhile, megaloads opponents on Wednesday filed a petition asking ITD to reconsider its initial approval of 207 proposed megaloads that ExxonMobil/Imperial Oil plan to send across Highway 12, now that the company has begun modifying many of the loads to allow them to be trucked to Alberta, Canada via the interstate system instead.

Highway 12 resident Borg Hendrickson said, “Throughout 2010, Exxon/Imperial repeatedly told Idahoans that no alternative route existed for these massive loads, but now 60 of them are being shipped from Vancouver via an alternative route and 30 more are also going to be shipped via an alternative route,” after modifications as they sit in Lewiston. “ITD’s decision needs to be based on real facts, and our petition, in effect, asks ITD to step back and get those facts.”

Eight comments on this story so far. Add yours!

• 

  RedCedar on February 23 at 9:05 a.m.

  I appreciate the frustration behind this bill, but I’m very wary of anything that makes government less accountable to the citizens. The opportunity to sue government agencies is a vital part of open democracy. I find fault on both sides of the megaloads controversy. On the one hand, many of the people who are now piling onto the anti-megaloads bandwagon are doing it because they’re against oil, against tar-sands development, in favor of wilderness, or other concerns that are valid but are not directly related to the issue at hand. We really don’t need people using Idaho as a mechanism to fight Alberta’s mining laws, or turn an overweight permit into a proxy for global warming, for example.

  On the other hand, IDOT was too quick to assume that there would be no problem with essentially blocking one of our major highways for extended periods of time. A lot of people use that highway for a lot of different reasons, and being stuck behind heavy haul trucks is going to have a serious impact on residents, tourism, and other commercial haulers. The highway was built, for better or worse, to be a transport route between Lewiston and the Midwest, but not on the scale presently anticipated.

  IDOT was hasty in approving such huge loads, especially in the quantities anticipated. The lawsuits do have a basis in genuine concerns, despite all the tangential and unrelated interests piling on. In the interest of democracy, I think this is something worth thrashing out in court, even though we taxpayers will need to pick up the legal fees.

  IDOT needs to do a better job of balancing conflicting interests. Maybe they need to limit “megaloads” to 500,000 lbs max, or to no more than 10 per year on any given highway. Maybe they need to charge more for overweight permits and use the money to build more turnouts or do environmental restoration. I’m not sure of the details. It’s an issue that caught everyone by surprise, but it’s a legitimate issue. Good government should now thrash out the conflicting interests and come up with a reasonable compromise, not try to gag those who have raised issues.

• 

  hawken on February 23 at 10:17 a.m.

  Good move.

  It costs environmental extremists very little to file frivolous law suites. We have a similar problem with doctors getting sued. Frivolous lawsuits.

  Tort reform is badly needed in our nation. It is costing all of us a significant amount of money. The only winners are attorneys, who are happy to file the suits.

• 

  IRun on February 23 at 11:16 a.m.

  @RedCedar… Great post and agreed.

  @Hawken… Again with the name calling and generalizations. So now you’re calling normal citizens who live and own business alone the I-12 corridor who argued against the megaloads as “environmental extremists”. First off, what is an environmental extermist? Or this another way for you to further your right-wing lip service agenda? Secondly, why was this a frivilous lawsuit? Do you have a law degree or is this just your knee jerk reaction to what you feel isn’t the right-wing party line? In addition, I thought you were for limited government, and pro-business. Your comments and now this bill fight against both of those particulary in the case with the megaloads. I don’t need to go into the points any further since RedCedar covered them well.

  But picture this, say some company wants to build a new complex next to your house and you believe there is high likelihood for damage to your property as a result of construction and ongoing operation. But the city and state have now given that company permits to build. Now for you to prevent what you see is a danger to your property and family you try to sue but now you have to put up millions of dollars to file such a lawsuit. Doesn’t sound so good now does it?

  A pay to sue system is doomed for major failure and only benefits the powerful while the less able are not able to have their voice heard in court. Think outside the box a little and not the little hole that you claim is the world in which we live in. Put your feet in some else’s shoes for once.

• 

  oneanddone on February 23 at 12:36 p.m.

  It is certainly unconstitutional to require a bond to file a lawsuit, but when did a little quirk like that stop the Idaho legislature. Personally I would cheer if all attorneys were hung along the Appian Way but this would only allow big business to run roughshod over the landscape. Of course, that’s who owns the legislature and therefore why this bill was introduced. Unfortunately more of our tax dollars will be needed to defend this indefensible arrogance.

• 

  greenlibertarian on February 23 at 1:51 p.m.

  Some people are incapable of thinking in, or outside the box. They simply parrot talking points, no matter how unrelated to the topic at hand.

• 

  maria on February 23 at 5:20 p.m.

  hawken, do you live along this corridor? I do and I DO NOT WANT THESE MEGALOADS ON HIGHWAY 12.

• 

  pinkbutter on February 23 at 9:15 p.m.

  RedCedar, thank you for your thoughtful letter.
  Personally, I am against the megaloads. I wonder how a river that has been designated as “wild and scenic” can remain so when used for large numbers of such loads. I am concerned at the rate at which we are losing habitat.

• 

  mtngardener on March 22 at 8:47 a.m.

  “This has been brought because of the megaloads,” Harwood told the committee. “Any time an individual group can stop our commerce from flowing, it’s not a good thing, and that’s what happened.”… So Conoco Phillips asking 7 trucking companies to not ship on HWY 12 while they tried to get their first 2 loads through was helping commerce flow. Looks to me like the group stopping commerce was Conoco Phillips. But maybe it doesn’t count if you have lots of money. His bill will keep things lopsided. Woe betide any smaller trucking company who wants to use HWY 12 when the megaloads are using it.