June 27, 2011 in Idaho

Hearing officer recommends OK for megaloads

• Print
• Email
• Share

BOISE – More than 200 megaloads of Korean-made oil equipment bound for Canada should be given the go-ahead to roll across northern Idaho’s scenic U.S. Highway 12, an Idaho state hearing officer ruled Monday.

Retired state Judge Duff McKee, in a 63-page ruling, discounted every protest against the megaloads from a group of residents and business owners along the twisting, two-lane highway, from safety to business interruptions to environmental harm. His ruling is a recommendation to the Idaho Transportation Department; there’s still an opportunity for motions for reconsideration, a process that could take weeks more.

“I conclude there was no error in procedure on the part of ITD in the issuance of the permit in this case, or any other basis to interfere with the executive determinations of the department in issuing the permits in this case,” McKee wrote in his ruling.

Imperial Oil/ExxonMobil wants to ship more than 200 giant loads oil field equipment across the Idaho highway, en route from the Port of Lewiston to the Alberta oil sands. The loads are so large that they’ll block both lanes of the two-lane road, creating a rolling roadblock.

All parties now have 14 days to file a motion for reconsideration of the hearing officer’s recommendation, according to ITD, which the hearing officer would then have approximately 21 days to rule on. The parties could then appeal the ruling to ITD Director Brian Ness, who would have 56 days to rule on the appeal.

After that process is complete, or if no appeal is filed, ITD said, Ness will accept, reject or modify the ruling.

“Obviously we’re disappointed, but we think the hearing officer misunderstood some of the facts and the evidence,” said Laird Lucas, attorney for the opponents. “I need to confer with my clients, but I think there’s a likelihood we’ll be filing a motion for reconsideration.”

A business group dubbed “Drive Our Economy” that’s been pushing for approval of the loads derided the opponents in a statement issued late Monday. “Environmental activists have claimed for months that their opposition was rooted in protecting the communities of Highway 12. But as they continue their opposition in communities like Moscow and Coeur d’Alene, it becomes increasingly clear that their only goal is to stop the shipments altogether – regardless of their routing.” said Alex LaBeau, president of the Idaho Association of Commerce and Industry. “They do not care about Idaho jobs and commerce, or the best interest of our communities.”

Imperial/Exxon has cut down some of the loads in Lewiston to half-height, to allow them to travel up U.S. Highway 95 through Moscow to Coeur d’Alene, then take I-90 to Montana and Canada. Though ITD agreed to issue permits for those reduced-size loads starting Monday, none have yet moved and none are expect to for some time.

Imperial/Exxon has maintained throughout the process that Highway 12 is its preferred route.

McKee noted in his ruling that Highway 12 is “a narrow, winding mountain road, barely 25 feet wide in many places, with sheer rock faces on one side and steep banks to the river on the other.” He noted that it’s a designated scenic byway and wrote, “By anyone’s definition, it is a spectacular example of Idaho’s majesty.”

But, he wrote, “It is also a part of the federal highway system and is a significant commercial thoroughfare.”

McKee concluded that the giant loads, which would travel only late at night, would cause no more damage or disruption on the route that regular commercial trucks, given plans to pull the loads off at turnouts to allow traffic to pass every 15 minutes.

McKee wrote that opponents are essentially offering a “not in my backyard” argument.”

The Imperial/Exxon plan still awaits a court ruling in Montana, where plans to build additional turnouts to accommodate the big loads on that state’s portion of the route are being challenged in court.

Two comments on this story so far. Add yours!

• 

  RedCedar on June 27 at 11:27 p.m.

  The whole megaloads controversy should really be reduced to “how big is too big”. Instead, as usually happens in politics, the issue is polarized into the “no restrictions” and “no megaloads” camps. It doesn’t help that the “no megaloads” side has encumbered the issue with all sorts of tangential issues such as opposition to Canadian tar sands, dislike of oil companies in general, and potential risk of pollution in the river. On the other hand, the “no restrictions” side, which apparently includes IDOT, or at least it’s political instructions, seems to think that if you’re in favor of a strong economy, you can’t limit the loads at all.

  It seems to me that reasonable people on all sides can surely agree that there is some size of load in terms of tons and feet that is okay to haul on highway 12 and that there is some other size that is too big. No reasonable person would object to a load of say, 40 foot length, 8 foot width, and 50,000 lbs, since those roll all the time. On the other hand, few people would think that something 200 feet long, 40 feet wide, and 1,000,000 lbs should be transported on that highway. So, the only thing to argue about is where, in between those extremes, to draw the line. Maybe that comes to 12 feet wide and 400,000 lbs or 16 feet wide and 600,000 lbs, but that’s a reasonable thing to thrash out. Banning all megaloads or giving them all unrestricted access are not reasonable options.

  I think a reasonable place to draw the line is at a size of load that requires utilizing both lanes of the highway and blocking traffic. The highways are public highways and that means that the needs of all public users need to be balanced. By giving the road exclusively to the heavy haul guys for 200 trips, they are seriously impacting everyone else from tourists to logging truck drivers. Balancing these needs isn’t really something for the courts or even the administrative appeals process to decide. Those avenues only address whether the bureaucrats followed the correct procedure in making their decision, whereas the real problem here is that they followed the correct procedure but still made the wrong decision.

• 

  fortboise on June 28 at 9:37 a.m.

  Well said, RedCedar.

  Maybe you could get a job with ITD and bring a little more professionalism to their process?