(The following editorial appeared on the Arizona Daily Star website on June 28.)
TUCSON, Ariz. — Union Pacific Railroad’s plans to build a huge switching yard near Picacho Peak, some 45 miles northwest of Tucson, needs to be examined with a magnifying glass. Serious questions have been raised about the possibility that the project may lead to contamination of underground water.
The fears expressed by members of the Legislature, environmentalists and farmers may be groundless, but there is no way to know without detailed disclosures from the railroad and a wide distribution of the information uncovered.
Which is just one of the reasons we urge Gov. Janet Napolitano to sign HB 2020, a measure introduced by Rep. Jonathan Paton, R-Tucson, and overwhelmingly approved in the legislative session that just ended.
The bill was a response to concerns raised by business interests and a farmer, Herb Kai, whose family grows cotton and pecans on 1,800 acres of state trust land near Picacho Peak. Union Pacific has filed an application with the state Land Department asking that 1,500 of the 1,800 acres be sold at auction.
The department said the railroad needs about 600 acres for its switching yard and the remaining 900 acres for offices and a buffer. No decision has been made on whether to sell the land, but Kai assumes the state will move to do it and, as he put it, “Nobody can outbid the railroad.”
The switching yard would be six miles long and a mile wide, adjacent to Interstate 10 between Park Link Road and the Dairy Queen at Picacho.
Kai hired Nick Simonetta, a lawyer-lobbyist formerly employed with the Land Department, to fight the railroad proposal.
Simonetta said he and others crafted the bill sponsored by Paton, who sympathized with the need for greater accountability from the railroad. If signed by the governor, the bill will require the Corporation Commission to hold a hearing to determine whether the railroad project is located in an area where it would have the least impact on water, the economy and other natural resources.
The bill is largely symbolic. The federal government controls railroad rights of way, and the state is not legally empowered to block the railroad’s action regardless of how bad it believes the impact of its switching yard will be.
It is easy, then, to see the bill as useless. We believe, however, that there is value in compelling the railroad to divulge all aspects of its plan so that the public and policymakers have a clear picture of what will happen in their area, and how it may affect the health and welfare, as well as property values, in surrounding communities.
In short, more information is better than less information.
Paton’s bill attracted wide bipartisan support, as well as endorsements from the Sierra Club, the Corporation Commission and the state Parks Department, which is concerned about the impact of the switching yard on its popular Picacho Peak State Park.
The bill was opposed by Rep. Steve Farley, D-Tucson, a mass-transit advocate, who felt it would create ill will at a time when the state wants to negotiate with Union Pacific for the creation of commuter rail service between Tucson and Phoenix.
Chris Peterson, a spokesman for Union Pacific, was quoted in a Star story by Howard Fischer as saying Paton’s bill is illegal because the federal Surface Transportation Board has “exclusive jurisdiction” over the location of railroads.
While that may be true, it in no way diminishes the value of allowing the state to require environmental impact studies from the railroad. The state and the public may end up functioning in an advisory capacity. The railroad may indeed ignore any suggestions, but the process would still serve to illuminate industrial practices that may have broad implications.
Kris Mayes, a member of the Corporation Commission, called the bill now before the governor “a reasonable approach” to dealing with “a company that is used to getting what it wants and believes it shouldn’t be subject to any regulatory oversight.”
The Corporation Commission voted to support Paton’s bill, and we believe the governor would be wise to sign it.