[Vision2020] Megaload Law Would Put Heavy Load on Citizens

[Tom Hansen]

Courtesy of today's (March 23, 2011) Spokesman-Review.

-------------------------------------------------------

Megaload law would put heavy load on citizens

Dick Harwood says he’s very concerned about commerce in Idaho.

Linwood Laughy says he’s very concerned about the same thing.

But Harwood and his fellow Republicans in the Idaho House of
Representatives ain’t all that concerned, really, about Laughy, who owns a
business along U.S. Highway 12 with his wife. Or about the other
businesses and residents along that route who object to what have become
known as the megaloads.

The businesses these pro-business lawmakers are fighting for are a little
bigger than these little Idaho concerns. Think ExxonMobil. ConocoPhillips.
Anyone with a few billion dollars who wants to clog up Highway 12, the
gorgeous scenic route that follows the same path Lewis and Clark took back
in the days before frivolous lawsuits tied up everyone’s commerce.

Harwood has proposed a new law that would require citizens to put up a
bond equal to 5 percent of a load in order to file a lawsuit opposing a
transportation project – as Laughy and others along the route did. Though
their suit ultimately was not successful – based on jurisdictional
questions – there’s now another suit filed by an environmental group.

All of which Harwood deems, on its face, frivolous. Frivolous because it
cost the state money. Frivolous because it caused a corporation distress.
Frivolous because the people involved might have an environmental bone in
their body.

What Harwood wants to do is redefine “frivolous lawsuit” to mean “pretty
much any lawsuit.” A majority of the House agreed, passing the bill
Monday.

“My reason for bringing it is we can’t let groups tie up commerce in this
state,” Harwood said Monday. “It costs the state of Idaho a lot of money
to fight these lawsuits.”

Well, it cost the Catholic Church a lot of money to fight lawsuits, too.
That doesn’t mean you start charging people to sue.

I give Harwood some credit for calling me up and debating this. He’s a
timber-country guy, and his monochromatic view of lawsuits come from his
long history of seeing timber sale after timber sale tied up by lawsuits,
he said.

Yet he seems unwilling to grant the possibility that a person with an
environmental opinion might be a citizen. With rights.

Why should someone who can afford a 5 percent bond have a right to sue,
while someone who can’t doesn’t? What does that 5 percent represent,
exactly, that makes a plaintiff more legally valid than one who doesn’t?

“I can understand where you’re going with that,” Harwood said. “But we’ve
been doing that for a number of years.”

Idaho law already allows the requirement of a bond for people to sue over
timber sales and nuclear shipments, he said. The bonds can be used to
offset the state’s costs if the case is thrown out.

Why not just allow a judge to determine what’s frivolous and what’s not?
Harwood said you can’t trust the judges, because some of them have ruled
in ways he disagrees with. Like Judge John Bradley, who initially ruled in
favor of Laughy and his fellow plaintiffs.

“Judge Bradley – he’s an environmental judge,” Harwood said. “He’s very
supportive of breaching the dams. 
 (Environmental groups) get people who
think like they think and do what they want them to do.”

But back to Linwood Laughy. Laughy and his wife, Borg Hendrickson, have
lived on Highway 12 for years, running a small publishing business and
leading excursions in the area for “history tourists.” They are Idaho
citizens and business owners. They’re continuing to fight, convinced that
these monstrous loads will damage the roads, hurt the scenic and historic
nature of the river corridor, block response time for emergency vehicles,
and generally put the interests of huge multinational corporations ahead
of those of the citizenry.

Wonder where they got that idea.

“Both Borg and I are pushing 70,” Laughy said. “I’ve never before been in
a protest march or been involved in a lawsuit. I’ve yet to get my first
traffic ticket. We’re a grandma and a grandpa, but we’re not going down
without a fight.”

It’s important to remember they lost their lawsuit, though Laughy doesn’t
like to look at it that way, because a larger legal battle is continuing –
filed, yes, by an environmental group – and because he’s done a lot to
bring attention to the issue.

Meanwhile, the loads have started moving. The initial delays have been a
mere four times what they were supposed to be. And more and more oil
companies are casting long, lascivious looks at the scenic Highway 12 as
the cheapest route to oil sands.

Laughy and other opponents say they’re not giving up, and I wish them
well. If you’ve driven along that route, it’s hard to imagine that you’d
want to see it become the Oil Sands Thru-Way. But if all you’re worried
about is commerce, then think about this: Tourism brought more than $166
million into north-central Idaho in 2005, the state’s last report on
travel spending.

“(Harwood) said something like, ‘Anytime an individual can stop our
commerce from flowing, it’s not a good thing,’ ” Laughy said. “I agree
with you, Mr. Harwood, completely. These megaloads are stopping our
commerce.”

------------------

Hearing set

The Idaho Department of Transportation has scheduled a “contested case”
hearing on the planned ExxonMobil oversize shipments for April 25 in
Boise. The hearing, before retired judge Duff McKee, will allow opponents
of the megaloads to present evidence and testimony. A time and location
have not been set.

-------------------------------------------------------

Seeya round town, Moscow.

Tom Hansen
Moscow, Idaho

"This is the 'Mouse that Roared,' 'David and Goliath' and 'Avatar' all
rolled into one.  We must remember that the thousands of citizens involved
in this effort to protect their personal and family safety, their
businesses and their lifestyles are confronting some of the largest
international corporations in the world."

- Linwood Laughy