A D V E R T I S E M E N T
A D V E R T I S E M E N T
ADVERTISEMENTS
Saying that proposed natural gas pipelines threaten the the city’s water supply and increase the nation’s reliance on fossil fuels, the Forest Grove City Council on Monday unanimously went on record opposing a proposed liquefied natural gas terminal on the Columbia River near Astoria.
Pipeline critics say the council is the first local government to go on record opposing the project, which would require 211 miles of pipeline to be laid, much of it between the Coast Range and Highway 47 in western Washington County. A section of the project path would cross the city’s watershed and as the pipes that carry drinking water for Forest Grove and several other Washington County cities.
The council action came just hours after the four Democratic members of Oregon’s congressional delegation sent a letter to Joseph Kelliher, the chairman of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, expressing their concern about the licensing process used by the federal agency.
See a related LNG story in the Sustainable Life section
Forest Grove’s resolution, crafted by Councilor Pete Truax, is just 12 paragraphs long, but captures most of the criticisms of the project, noting a litany of concerns over the environment, public safety, private property rights and a dependence on fossil fuels.
“I worked for 20 years on clean air and clean water,” said Councilor Victoria Lowe, “and this [project] fails both miserably.”
Lowe and others on the council noted that the proposed pipeline path runs through hillside property that has been identified as susceptible to landslides.
“To mix high-pressure gas-line anywhere near that is absolutely ludicrous,” she said. “I will be voting for this and working to block it.”
If anybody knows about high-pressure gas, it's the FG City Council...
(email verified)
Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 08:45 AM
Forest Grove citizens should be proud of a city council that takes a firm and obviously resolute stand against this project. Many other concerned citizens from other areas of Oregon and Washington who will be impacted by the terminal ,ergo the gas lines, have not been so fortunate. I would think one would rather live in a city whose elected officials have such foresight, rather than the hindsited wisdom that is bound to evolve if ,or when LNG infrsatructure is allowed in the Pacific Northwest. Good job City Council Members!
(email verified)
Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 01:51 PM
OK, back to candles. But that should only help the mood. At $1,000/hr.
(email verified)
Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 02:18 PM
Oops. I can't even spell my own name.
(email verified)
Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 02:25 PM
No problem Forest Grove, we'll just site a nuclear reactor in the middle of the city and the area will be okay. Oh, wait, you don't want that either? And you don't want cars, you don't want horses (they produce methane you know), squirrels and mice on wheels are out for the same reason - no burning ANYTHING because it gives off 'pollution'. Sit in the dark and contemplate your navel - whack jobs.
(email verified)
Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 11:33 PM
[i]...noting a litany of concerns over the environment, public safety, private property rights and a dependence on fossil fuels.[/i]
So the Council is taking up the subject of Illegal Aliens?
(email verified)
Wed, Mar 12, 2008 at 01:56 AM
I'm fine with communities not supporting LNG, as long as they support alternative fuels like nuclear. So many people believe energy should be clean and free, unfortunately physics doesn't allow us to get "something for nothing".
If Forest Grove wants to ban cars and electricity from the city, this is probably a good start :-)
(email verified)
Wed, Mar 12, 2008 at 02:26 AM
I'm glad that someone is standing up to it. It's apparent that the Clatsop County Commissioners want the plant to go through, no matter what. I'm sure that the citizens (vast majority of) do not want it. It makes me wonder if they're getting kickbacks for passing it through, as forceful as they are about it. I sure wouldn't want the pipeline going through my property.
(email verified)
Wed, Mar 12, 2008 at 03:57 AM
"Chris" You are correct in your assement about something for nothing. In fact the initial price of a new energy footprint may be costly. More for less however is a good short term reason to bite the bullet and go for renewables. Some generation has to start the stopping of fossil fuels as the PRIMARY energy source. The longer we wait the harder the up hill climb. And to those of you who are spitting sour lemon juice in regard to the need for change, horses, carriages and candles are poor analogies and just prove that you don't know how to make lemonade out of a natural product. Remember when computers used to cost a great deal more? Not everyone could afford one one but over time the costs came down and now just about everone has one. Starting something new that threatens an entrenched infrastructure always brings out the nay sayers. Pay them no heed. After all we did find out that the world is not flat.
(email verified)
Wed, Mar 12, 2008 at 04:24 AM
Browse archive
The Portland Tribune
News feed
Find a paper
Enter a street name
or a 5 digit zip code
Our Portland website design and marketing company created custom websites for these top providers of Portland pest control services, Portland cleaning services and Portland florists.
Search engine marketing, website templates, portland web design and website promotion by Webfu // 503.381.5553
New down and fleece north face jackets. The largest selection of North Face Jackets available online. Free shipping on orders over $40.00
See the latest styles of ski jackets and backpacks from The North Face.
Become a Naturopathic Doctor. Developing future leaders in health care. Named by The Princeton Review as one of the best med schools in the country. Bastyr University.
Facebook
Digg
Del.icio.us
Newsvine
Stumbleupon
Reddit
Re: Forest Grove council opposes LNG project
I vote that this pipeline go thru Joseph Kelliher's house.
"Concerned Forest grove Citizen"
(email verified)
Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 04:47 AM