(The following article by Mary Jo Pitzl was posted on the Arizona Republic website on March 23.)
TUCSON, Ariz. — Trying to slow what they see as an oncoming train, a legislative panel wants to require railroads that acquire land in Arizona to submit to a thorough state review.
The move was spurred by the Union Pacific Railroad’s effort to build what is being billed as the sixth-largest switching yard in the nation, near Picacho Peak. Potential railroad expansion in the Yuma and Willcox areas also has prompted concerns about heavy-handed rail development.
The legislation would require the Arizona Corporation Commission to review any such proposal for a range of impacts, from environmental to economic, as well as to hold at least one public hearing before any land acquisition could be completed.
It’s an attempt to rein in the eminent-domain power that railroads have held since statehood, something that rail officials argued is in conflict with federal law.
Backers of the state legislation, mostly landowners in the areas where Union Pacific is working, point to potential negative environmental and economic effects.
And they say the switching yard’s location across Interstate 10 from Picacho Peak, a well-known state landmark, is an example of the downside of the project. The rail yard could mar views from atop the peak, which is popular with hikers, and the rail activity could impair the park’s tranquillity, they say.
“I think the Union Pacific Railroad has been an extremely bad actor in this,” said Sen. Chuck Gray, R-Mesa. “They’ve kind of picked on the little guys, in my view.”
Gray joined his colleagues on the Senate’s Natural Resources and Agriculture Committee on Wednesday in voting unanimously for House Bill 2020.
Union Pacific is installing a parallel track to its Sunset line, which crosses Arizona, as well as applying to buy state trust land for a switching yard in southern Arizona, near Picacho Peak State Park.
The railroad also may bid on a project to construct a rail link between a planned port off the Mexican coast and Interstate 8 that would traverse lettuce fields in the Yuma area.
These projects have riled local residents, who feel they have little influence over them.
But Chris Peterson, government-affairs director for Union Pacific, said the railroad has gone through various public hearings and community meetings on the projects.
The most controversial, the six-mile-long switching yard, won the approval of the Pinal County Board of Supervisors and was also aired before that county’s Planning and Zoning Commission.
In addition, the state Land Department can put restrictions on the use of trust land before offering it at auction or selling it, Peterson said.
He also said the railroad has never used its land-condemnation powers to acquire land in Arizona and tries to use that authority sparingly.
But lawmakers, wary of that power, say they believe there should be more accountability to the railroad’s actions.
The legislation, introduced by Rep. Jonathan Paton, R-Tucson, would require the Corporation Commission to determine whether a rail project is located in an area with the least impact on the environment, water supply, natural resources and the economy. It also would require the five-member commission to decide the impact of a project on historical, archaeological or geographic landmarks.
The commission would have to hold one public hearing on the project.
Corporation Commissioner Kris Mayes said her colleagues share some skepticism that the move could be unconstitutional. But, she said there is interest among some of them in taking on the responsibilities outlined in the bill.
The commission is conducting public-comment sessions across the state on the railroad’s expansion. The first meeting is being held today in Willcox.