March 21, 2011 in Idaho

Idaho House moves to block anti-megaload lawsuits

Betsy Z. Russell The Spokesman-Review

Tags:2011 Idaho Legislature

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 - The Idaho Legislature is moving to block citizen lawsuits over giant megaloads on the state’s highways, with legislation clearing the House Monday to require a big up-front cash bond from anyone filing such a lawsuit.

” I think it will stop frivolous lawsuits,” said Dick Harwood, R-St. Maries, sponsor of the bill. HB 193 would require anyone suing over a transportation project on Idaho roads to first post a bond equal to 5 percent of the insured value of the load. Harwood said his bill was prompted by the controversial hauling of giant megaloads of oil equipment on Highway 12, to which local residents and businesses along the route have objected.

Harwood said he included an emergency clause to block more lawsuits over upcoming megaloads; ConocoPhillips has hauled two giant truckloads across the twisting, two-lane highway, taking up both its lanes; ExxonMobil plans more than 200 over the next year.

“The emergency clause was put in there because we felt that there was going to be more lawsuits coming, and we felt that we needed to get this done,” Harwood told the House.

Rep. Marv Hagedorn, R-Meridian, said, “We have a number of frivolous lawsuits now that cost our state money, that don’t accomplish very much but delay our economic growth and viability.”

Rep. Shirley Ringo, D-Moscow, objected. “How are these individuals going to come up with the amount of money that is going to be necessary, which could be considerable amounts of money?” she asked. “To me, it puts in place sort of a David and Goliath situation.”

Rep. Wendy Jaquet, D-Ketchum, said, “I think the people that live on Highway 12 and the people that recreate on Highway 12, including the outfitters and guides, have a huge financial stake in this process. For that reason, I think there needs to be an open public process.”

The House vote 53-16 in favor of the bill, which now moves to the Senate. All 13 of the House’s minority Democrats voted against the bill; they were joined by three Republicans, Reps. Tom Trail of Moscow, Leon Smith of Twin Falls, who is the House Transportation chairman, and Lynn Luker of Boise.

Trail said the state’s current permit fees for giant megaloads don’t cover all its costs to process the permits. “So each one of those loads that goes over Highway 12 is partially subsidized by the Idaho taxpayers,” he said. “This legislation is very discriminatory against individuals and businesses along routes like this, as well as other citizens, who might have a legitimate gripe that they want to bring to the legal process.”

Rep. Lenore Barrett, R-Challis, said, “You need to cut to the chase. If we’re going to improve (and) retain what economy we have in this state, we need to get equipment from here to there, we need production. And in order to facilitate that, we need this lawsuit issue resolved. This bill does that. You may not like it, but it’s necessary.”

A week and a half ago, Idaho Rivers United filed a federal lawsuit challenging the ExxonMobil megaload permits.

16 comments on this story so far. Add yours!

fishinjay on March 21 at 10:37 a.m.
The State of Idaho is ensuring that we can get only as much justice as we can afford.
If the lawsuits were truly “frivolous” then the judge could easily dismiss them as soon as the operators filed motion to dismiss. Given that the courts don’t throw them out should tell you that there is a legitimate question to be decided. The actions of these legislators is nothing short of disgusting.
oneanddone on March 21 at 11:14 a.m.
Can’t believe for a second that such a specific law is constitutional, not to mention that it’s a total bend-over by the Idaho politburo for business special interests. It’s getting REALLY hard to stomach these politicians treating the PEOPLE’S gov’t as their own personal Monopoly game. Their corruption is unbounded.
misjustice on March 21 at 11:33 a.m.
Ahhh, Ideeho, where only the rich can afford to buy access to the courts; about par for the course, I’d say. And where the rich, also, get the best gubmint representatives that their money can buy; everyone else, not so much…
; )
mikeln on March 21 at 11:57 a.m.
Just a model for the rest of the country. It’s not the elected officials, it’s the already too rich that buy and sell these scumbags. If we don’t get off our butts the only court most people will see is the one that puts them on the work bus on its way to a private prison. Stock up it’s going to be a interesting year.
MrNatural on March 21 at 12:26 p.m.
So this means that justice can only be available to those who can afford to pay for it!?!
So if the insured value of the load is one million dollars then one must pony up $50,000 to contend with it…hmmm?
I understand that frivolous lawsuits are a tactic…and I would expect that issues taken without merit should have some liability…but this seems to go way too far toward serving even gratifying a special interest…
straighttalk on March 21 at 4:12 p.m.
This proposed law is nothing but unconstitutional and will be thrown out by the courts.
mtngardener on March 21 at 4:40 p.m.
Who has promised more jobs and production to Rep Lenore Barrett? And just how does she think that allowing loads which takes multiple days (well nights) to get through our state and which take up both lanes thus creating a rolling roadblock for other trucking is going to provide jobs for anyone but the state police. Why do large corporations get to essentially use the road when they want and without paying the full cost of their use? How is this fair to our in-state truckers? How does this do anything except cost the taxpayers? The woman has no clue. Neither does Rep Harwood. Oversize loads have gone on the roads before and will again. These are not simply oversize loads but megaloads. And apparently the ExxonMobile/Inmperial Oil improved upon the truth (lied?) to ITD in their application when saying these were irreducible loads as they are now taking many of them apart and shipping them over the interstates. Hmm.
PlanB on March 21 at 5:08 p.m.
This is so unbelievably unconstitutional. Way to go, Idaho.
eagleproducer on March 21 at 5:38 p.m.
Legislatures cannot restrict due process of law or access to the judicial system.
Jobs?
Spokane_Citizen on March 21 at 6:21 p.m.
You know, the rich always know what’s best for everyone (and what’s best for us is always what’s best for them)….end of story.
This basic scenario plays out everywhere, but nowhere as obviously (and openly) as Idaho.
bdr on March 21 at 7:05 p.m.
Excellent job those loads came and went so fast Idaho and Montanans had no idea they even passed through their towns.
The Idaho suits of past were nothing more than unsubstantial hillbillies assuming the end of the world would occur, But in reality 2 major loads and a 400 ton test load had past all tests with flying colors.
The Idaho suits cost conocophillips -4 million in delays and placed their haul in the middle of a blizzard adding another 1.5 million in work stoppage.
Frivolous suits ARE with out a doubt costing YOU that extra 77 cents at the pump!
vanman on March 21 at 10:37 p.m.
another fine move by those outstanding Republican hacks in Ideehoo…. they always look out for the little guy don’t they? They “look out” to make sure the little guy doesn’t get in the way of profits for the GOP “owners” — big corporate interests.
For all of you who ever thought about voting for the GOP — are you pleased with the neanderthalls you elected? On the other hand, you can carry a loaded sidearm to class at the Univ. of Ideehoo for free!!!!
mdriftmeyer on March 21 at 11:05 p.m.
Look what you get when your rail lines are crap, Idaho. You get your roadways torn up and a chance to dump the load all over the freeways.
Look what America gets when they allowed the Big 3 Auto to buy out 1700 rail lines and decommission them over the decades since the late ‘40s.
You get a substandard infrastructure that, if previously built out properly, would have easily transported the loads between states and require refineries to have a rail line to their front door.
But not in America. We need more freeways.
We used mostly asian slaves to create the great Rail lines [a heinous part of our past] and then we let them rot only to then cry about where all our lines went decades later.
That is truly American.
The cost per mile for a high speed heavy freight is a fraction of the cost per mile for new highways.
Spokane_Citizen on March 22 at 6:01 a.m.
mddriftmeyer…your comment is quite correct; America’s shortsighted abandonment of its rail system will rank among the worst energy and transportation policy blunders of all time.
eagleproducer on March 22 at 6:54 a.m.
If only we could get rid of people’s right to due process everything would be hunky dory.
In Koch Brother Land!
tired on March 22 at 8:28 p.m.
The only economic benefits that mega loads bring to Idaho are the state employees that will be required to repair the road when the loads are done. With Idaho, tax dollars. Work like pavement repair, sign repair etc. The crews do not sleep nor do they eat or buy fuel in Idaho. All they do is pass through and break up the roads. This makes good economic sense for Idaho? Your Idaho tax dollars at work, lining the pockets of Idaho legislators.