Ranchers, some environmentalists share in criticism of Ruby pipeline

SALT LAKE CITY — In a rare example of mutual opposition, some environmentalists, along with ranchers and rural county commissioners, say a company pursuing a planned 680-mile natural gas pipeline is going about it the wrong way.

"We do support a pipeline, but we are totally opposed to that agreement," said Uintah County Commissioner Mike McKee Thursday in a meeting of the Utah Constitutional Defense Council.

Uintah County and other rural counties in Utah have formed a multicounty coalition that also taps rural elected leaders from Nevada, Wyoming and Oregon to fight an agreement between El Paso, the parent company of the Ruby Pipeline, and the Western Watersheds Project.

The agreement calls for El Paso to dump millions of dollars — as much as $22 million has been reported — into a fund for the watersheds project to purchase conservation easements, grazing permits and other land along the route, which runs from Opal, Wyo., to Malin, Ore.

John Harja, Utah's public lands policy coordinator, told members of the council that the coalition is vehemently opposed to the agreement and may pursue legal means to stop it, if necessary. The fear is that the fund is "pay-off" to fuel the watershed project's desire to retire grazing permits.

Harja, however, said federal law prohibits the "retiring" of those permits, something the Grand Canyon Trust learned the hard way several years ago when that conservation organization purchased permits to curtail grazing.

"Now they're in the cow business," Harja said.

Nevertheless, impacted rural county leaders in Utah and elsewhere are discussing ways to force El Paso to rescind the agreement and discussed possibly changing or rescinding conditional use permits granted for the pipeline's construction and operation.

"The question is, do you want to stop the pipeline?" McKee asked the group.

Also on Thursday, the Center for Biological Diversity filed a motion for an injunction to stop construction of the pipeline, asserting the work should stop immediately until questions on its impacts to endangered fish are answered.

"The rush to build this pipeline is precluding options with lower impacts on endangered fish and other resources," said Noah Greenwald, endangered species program director at the center.

The environmental group asserts the pipeline will "trench" through more than 1,000 rivers and streams, affecting endangered fish and habitat. The company's "voluntary mitigation measures" are not enforceable and should not have been accepted by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the group argued.

"The Ruby Pipeline will cause severe damage to rivers and streams, sensitive habitats for a host of fish and wildlife species, and some of the most pristine lands in western North America," Greenwald said. The injunction follows a lawsuit the group filed in late July.

e-mail: amyjoi@desnews.com