(Capitol Media Services circulated the following story by Howard Fischer on May 3.)
YUMA, Ariz. — Expansion plans by one of the nation’s largest railroads is drawing a fight from farmers, landowners and some environmental interests.
Union Pacific wants to lay a second set of tracks along its existing line from Yuma through San Simon, in hopes of increasing the amount of freight it can move through the state. That is causing some heartburn in rural communities like Willcox over whether road crossings will be at-grade or elevated.
However, the most controversial provisions are plans for a new 6-mile-long switching yard in the shadow of one of the state’s scenic landmarks and a new rail line from Yuma south to the border to bring up goods from Mexico.
Foes are unable to block those plans completely thanks to laws giving the federal government regulatory power over railroads, but some state lawmakers are trying to throw roadblocks in the transportation company’s path.
Central to the battle is the question of what, if anything, the Legislature can do.
A Union Pacific spokesman said Arizona legislators have no legal right to interfere and should just butt out.
Chris Peterson said the U.S. Surface Transportation Board, the federal body in charge of regulating railroads, has exclusive jurisdiction on the question of where railroads locate.
But their right of eminent domain – the ability to take property needed – is granted under state law. That is where some lawmakers are looking to enter the fight.
Laying tracks in Yuma?
The version of House Bill 2020 approved by the Senate Appropriations Committee would require railroads that want to legally take land from owners who won’t sell to first get the approval of the Arizona Corporation Commission.
That five-member body would assess whether the railroad has examined all impacts, from environmental to landmarks, in deciding which land to take. The railroad also would have to show that its plan minimizes negative impacts.
However, lawyers raised questions and senators agreed to a watered-down version. The measure now says railroads must hire independent experts to study the impacts of their expansion and that the Corporation Commission would be allowed to suggest – but not require – that the company pick alternate sites.
But defining the impacts will be the trick.
Paul Muthart, owner of Pasquinelli Produce Co. in Yuma, said produce buyers worry about even potential hazards. If the new line from Mexico goes through or near the 7,000 acres his company farms, he told lawmakers, customers may not want produce that might have been exposed to railroad engines’ diesel exhaust.
Muthart said requiring Corporation Commission input gives landowners “an equal-sized gorilla … so the communities will get a fair shake in the deal.”
Peterson said it’s too early to tell where the line will go – or even whether it will be in Arizona or California – until Mexican officials firm up their plans. But the Yuma County Board of Supervisors has already voted to oppose any line through the community.
Battle over Picacho Peak
The rail yard near Picacho Peak presents different issues.
Jean McGrath, a member of the Central Arizona Water Conservation District, noted that the site the railroad wants for its huge new switching yard sits above a water recharge site. She fears that leaking pollutants would make the underground water unusable.
But Peterson argues that the site near Picacho Peak is the only realistic option because it has the necessary flat ground and sufficient acreage. The Pinal County Board of Supervisors also agreed to rezone the land in hopes of generating jobs.
Lobbyist Nick Simonetta, who represents nearby landowners, countered that Union Pacific could move the yard a couple of miles away with the only difference being, he said, that the company might have to spend some money leveling the land.
Moving the yard away from the mountain’s shadow would certainly please the owner of a nearby recreational-vehicle park who says acres of trains and attendant industrial activity would ruin the scenic beauty of the area.
But questions remain whether the bill, in its current form, will be able to change the railroad’s plans at all.
Rep. Jonathan Paton, R-Tucson, conceded the state would lack the power to actually force the railroad to do anything, but he still thinks it would make a difference.
“I think you’re really discounting the idea of angry citizens sitting there with pitchforks and torches,” he said, citing the opposition to having that kind of facility near a scenic state park.
Simonetta also said hearings will “shine a light” on the impact of the proposals. And that, he said, should at least get the attention of the federal Surface Transportation Board.
Another issue is whether even this version of the bill is legal. Peterson insisted it is not, saying the Surface Transportation Board has “exclusive jurisdiction” over location of railroads.
“The federal courts ruled a similar South Dakota law to be pre-emptive, and this legislation could face a similar challenge,” he said. “So what the state may be buying is an expensive federal lawsuit.”
Legalities aside, Peterson said the legislation is a bad idea.
“This costly, time-consuming regulatory review of real estate purchases will discourage the rail industry from adding capacity in Arizona,” he said.