Rezoning
Approved for Controversial Montana Coal-Plant Site
February
5, 2008
Long-time
locals hoping to sell their land to a Montana co-op that wants to build a
coal-fired power plant nestled in some of the state's best farmland were
granted their request for a rezone in late January, but plant opponents say
they're undaunted.
A
rezone of nearly 700 acres of farmland from agricultural to heavy industrial
was approved Jan. 31 by the Cascade County Commission in a two-to-one vote,
overturning its May 2007 decision to revoke the rezone it initially granted in
2006.
But
the issue remains far from settled, according to opponents of Southern Montana
Electric, the rural electric co-op that wants to build the 250-MW circulating
fluidized bed project, now the only conventional coal-fired power plant in
development in the Northwest, and one of only a few still being considered in
the West (see "Montana
Co-op Makes Last Stand for Coal Power," Sept. 18, 2007).
"We
knew that no matter how they voted, this was not the end of the road,"
said Tammie Lynne Smith, spokeswoman for a group of neighboring landowners
opposing the Highwood Generating Station. SME was expected to file suit, if the
county commission had rejected the rezoning request, Smith said.
Commissioner
Joe Briggs, widely viewed as the swing vote, said in a statement, "Beyond
any doubt, this is the single most difficult decision I have had to make as a
county commissioner."
Briggs
told Energy Prospects West that he had wrestled with the issue up until the
morning of the vote.
"Being
the swing vote is something I'm not used to," he said.
Briggs
explained in his statement that he made his final decision "based not on
personal feelings but on the laws of Montana," and after much
deliberation, found the zoning application in compliance with the county growth
policy and the state's 12-step criteria for a valid zoning request.
He
added that he felt a county commission wasn't the appropriate vehicle to set
environmental policy or to overrule the precedents of eminent domain.
However,
Briggs told Prospects he has problems with SME wielding eminent domain against neighboring
landowners for a seven-mile railroad spur and transmission lines because
"in this case, it's not being wielded by an elected body, it's being
wielded by an electric co-op that doesn't even service this area, so the people
who will be disrupted by eminent domain not only have no recourse against the
officials making the judgment, they don't even derive benefit from the public
necessity being created."
Briggs
added he also has concerns with the project's air permit, which is currently
being challenged by the Montana Environmental Information Center (see "Hassles
Abound for Montana Coal-Power Project," Jan. 22).
"[SME]
made the assumption that Particulate Matter 2.5 would have the same
distribution pattern as P.M. 10, and I find that hard to believe," he
said.
The
other vote in favor of rezoning was made by Lance Olson, a Republican who
announced in late January his bid for Great Falls' seat on the state Legislature.
In a written statement, Olson explained he voted for the rezone out of
consideration of the county's tax base and growth policy.
Peggy
Beltrone, the lone Democrat on the commission, voted against the rezone.
The
Urquharts, who had requested the rezone of their farmland eight miles east of
the city of Great Falls, were pleased with the commission's decision, "but
weren't elated that the neighbors felt about us the way they did,"
according to Mary Urquhart.
Mrs.
Urquhart, who declined to disclose the amount of money offered for their land
by SME, told Prospects that their decision to rezone the land and sell it for a
coal-fired plant wasn't about the money.
"The
reason we did it is for the community," said Mrs. Urquhart. "We
thought it would be a good gesture to put the coal-fired power plant and then
there'd be lots of jobs. It was our gift to the community."
But
other members of the community feel the prospect of a coal-fired power plant in
their midst isn't so much a gift, but a Trojan horse.
"How
could they interpret an old-technology coal plant as a gift to the
community?" said Smith. "The electricity is not going to stay here.
Nobody will benefit, and you have to disrupt all these other farmers' lands.
You're coming right through the middle of these adjacent fields with a railroad
with 100-foot easements on each side."
Smith
added that if the Urquharts had chosen to sell their land for a strip mall with
perhaps a post office and grocery store or to switch from dry-land farming to
irrigated, no one would have questioned their right to do so. And if they had
chosen to sell their land for a wind farm, "they probably would have been
cheered."
"The
neighbors realize Mr. Urquhart has private property rights, but they don't
believe their own property rights should be ignored or diminished in order to
protect his," she said.
J.C.
Kantorowicz, a wheat farmer who lives about four miles from the project site,
faces the prospect of a rail spur running through his land, either to service
the Highwood plant or to service a coal-to-liquids plant proposed for nearby
Malmstrom Air Force Base (see "Air
Force Eyes Montana for Coal-to-Liquids Plant," this issue).
But
while the rail spur for the Highwood station would cut off the end of one of
his fields, the spur for the CTL plant would run right where his newly built
house and outbuildings currently lie.
"It
would destroy my life," he said. "Still, I'd rather see the
coal-to-liquids plant than the Highwood Generating Station." He explained
that while the power plant would threaten "the finest farm ground in the
state," the CTL plant offered a value to society in terms of creating
thousands of gallons of fuel per day that would otherwise come from overseas.
Tim
Gregori, CEO and general manager of SME, said he feels good about the prospects
for Highwood, and as for landowner opposition, "there are processes in
place to deal with that systematically."
Gregori
added that SME would be working to put together the project's finance package
while a loan application was pending with the Rural Utilities Service (see "Enviros
Sue to Block Montana Coal Plant, End Financing Program," Aug. 7, 2007).
In
the meantime, SME would be waiting to see what happens during the automatic
30-day protest period, which started after the commission announced their
decision on the rezone.
"IÕm
not exactly sure what that means, maybe to let the decision sit there and
simmer for 30 days, then they take the issue back up again," Gregori said.
SME's
opponents, however, don't plan to let the issue simmer. Currently, they are
gathering signatures for a petition against the rezone. Under county
regulations, if they can get at least 40 percent of the agricultural
freeholders in the district to sign on, the rezone will be overturned and the
applicants will have to wait a year before they can reapply.
In
the meantime, the Salem Road and Area Landowners are preparing to file suit in
district court, on grounds that the rezone is an illegal case of spot zoning.
Montana Environmental Information Center will be a co-plaintiff.
As
for their prospects of ultimately defeating Highwood, Smith says her group has
never looked back and will continue to fight.
"How
do you eat an elephant?" Smith said. "One bite at a time."