CAMPAIGN - Natural Gas Pipeline

     Yesterday morning, a reporter from the News-Review asked me my position on the proposed liquefied natural gas pipeline between Klamath County and the Oregon coast. The pipeline would pass through southern Douglas County. I told the reporter that I was not 100 percent committed to either side, although at this point I was leaning in favor of the pipeline.
      The proposed pipeline has already been through the review process and was tentatively approved for construction. But now, the one thing that's changed is the DIRECTION the gas will be flowing through the pipeline. The issue up for review now are the merits of importing versus exporting natural gas.
      In other words, the only issue that should be debated is the economic viability of natural gas. Other issues that have been debated and decided should not have to be decided a second time. I don't believe it's productive to re-hash the same arguments, unless there is vital new information that was not considered during the initial review process.
     I want to emphasize that I am not insensitive to some of the concerns expressed by opponents of the pipeline. While I was employed at KOBI-TV, I visited a farm in eastern Jackson County where the pipeline would have its "halfway" point. Not only would the pipeline cut through the rancher's property, but the proposal called for a pump station facility that would include bright lights and loud noises 24 hours a day.
     Clearly in this case, the issue of eminent domain was unjustified. A pipeline would cause minimal disruption to a rancher's operation. But a massive pump station would clearly interfere with the person's ability to make a living. In situations like these, adjustments need to be made to the pipeline proposal. A new route, perhaps a few miles away, needs to be established so that a person's right to live in peace and earn a living are not infringed upon.
     So, do I favor the LNG pipeline? Yes, under the right circumstances. And because the initial pipeline proposal has already been approved, I support the decision that was made, unless new critical information is revealed that was not considered before.