Oregon Court Rejects Bradwood Landing LNG, Again

Earlier today, the Land Use Board of Appeals ruled in favor of the Sierra Club, Columbia Riverkeeper, and other partners,  rejecting the Clatsop County approval of land use permits for the Bradwood Landing Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) facility.  This is a crushing blow to the company, as state law prohibits them from securing state environmental permits or certifications without county land use approval.

You can read the full LUBA opinion at: http://www.columbiariverkeeper.org/public/headlines/luba%20opinion%204.12.10.pdf

Currently, there are three proposals to locate LNG facilities on the Oregon Coast and the Columbia River, coupled with associated proposals to construct hundreds of miles of new natural gas pipelines throughout Oregon.  To find out more about the Sierra Club’s efforts to stop these reckless LNG proposals in Oregon, visit us online at: http://oregon.sierraclub.org/goals/lng.asp


For immediate release:

Oregon Court Rejects Bradwood Landing LNG, Again

The Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) rejected Clatsop County’s approval of the Bradwood Landing liquefied natural gas (LNG) terminal on the Columbia River. LUBA found the LNG terminal violates state and county laws designed to protect endangered salmon and traditional fishing areas.

“This is a crushing defeat for Bradwood Landing.  With the legal requirement to protect endangered salmon and traditional fishing areas, I can’t conceive of a way this LNG project moves forward,” stated Brett VandenHeuvel, Director of Columbia Riverkeeper, who argued the case to LUBA.  “This is the second time we’ve won on these issues.  Bradwood has run out of options.”

Long-time Columbia River commercial fisherman, Jack Marincovich stated, “No matter what Bradwood says, this project will harm salmon and set us back as fishermen.  It’s good to see the court stepping forward to protect salmon and fishermen.”

“This is an important victory over LNG on the Columbia River.  It not only makes the Bradwood project less viable, but it also sends a message to the other proposed LNG projects: destroying salmon habitat and the livelihoods that depend on them will be rejected,” stated Brian Pasko, Director of the Oregon Chapter of the Sierra Club.

In a concurring opinion LUBA stated, “the county must ensure that any damage to those resources will be no more than de minimis.  In other words, any such damage must be trivial.”  Bradwood Landing’s proposal to dredge 46 acres of critical salmon habitat

In addition, LUBA rejected Clatsop County’s decision that the LNG terminal was “small to moderate” in scale, as required by county law to protect the Bradwood area of the estuary.

“The Commissioners made a mockery out of county law.  The unprecedented damage caused by the LNG terminal is far beyond small to medium,” stated Astoria resident and retired school librarian, Cheryl Johnson.  LUBA found that the county erred by failing to consider the dredging area and construction areas.  The county lost on this same issue before LUBA in 2008.

Petitioners include Columbia Riverkeeper, Columbia River Business Alliance, Oregon Chapter of the Sierra Club, and the Columbia River Clean Energy Coalition.  After prevailing on the same claims in 2008, this is the second victory for petitioners.   Houston-based NorthernStar Natural Gas proposed the Bradwood Landing LNG terminal, located 20 miles upstream from Astoria, Oregon, in 2005.  Legal challenges and the inability to obtain needed state permits have significantly delayed the project.

Brett VandenHeuvel of Columbia Riverkeeper and Jan Wilson of the Western Environmental Law Center represented the successful petitioners.

2 Responses to Oregon Court Rejects Bradwood Landing LNG, Again

  1. Vonda Kay Brock says:

    Of the 20 plus issues put before LUBA by Bradwood Landing the two which are the bottom line, the substructure, the losing equations are the two which LUBA has once again addressed. Protection in a vital arena of the Columbia River Estuary of its fish, and trying to fit an “Opera fat lady” into a twiggy dress. With the LNG market in flux now because of the many shale plays in this country and the potential for many more abroad it is difficult for this writer to comprehend how the money movers and speculators could consider investing billions of dollors in an LNG project when grabbing leases or outright buying shale realestate would be the better long term profit maker. Especially in the U.S. I think we now have an Edsel here.

  2. Governor Bill Bradbury would continue to fight to keep LNG pipelines and terminals out of Oregon. LNG would ruin the wine industry and farms by putting the line right through the middle of fields, making them useless, polluting the aquifer and eventually exploding, killing people and livestock and igniting forests and and grasses in a 7 mile diameter circle. LNG is swamp gas, methane. It comes from peat bogs and swampy wetlands. When the gas is extracted, water levels drop. Then, with much more exposed dead vegetation, CO2 emissions multiply drastically, sending tons of greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere as the wetland is shrunk and dries up.

%d bloggers like this: