2012 conventions 2012 election 2013 session 2013 special election arts arts and culture author ballot measures bomb books budget bullying business charlie hales children clackamas climate change coal courts crime culture culture club democrats drugs economy education environment family film fluoride food gay rights guns handguns health health care health insurance high school history housing immigration international internet kitzhaber law legislature lgbt literary arts living marijuana medicine mental health military minor parties mohamed mohamud movies music native americans news newspaper obama olympics oregon our town parenting pers photography police politcs politics port portland portland business journal portland mayor president prevention public safety religion republicans rnc romney rural salem sam adams sandy hook schools science shooting sports suicide supreme court taxes television terrorism theater third parties timber payments transportation union university of oregon violence washington water wildfire women

In 2008, I hiked the length of the 47 miles of the Palomar Pipeline that would cross over Mt. Hood National Forest. I walked through old-growth forests, boated across the Wild and Scenic Clackamas River and climbed up some of the steepest slopes in the national forest. As someone who loves the forests and rivers of Mt. Hood, I needed to see for myself what NW Natural was asking us to sacrifice. I can say, without a doubt, that this pipeline is unacceptable.

While I was hiking I kept wondering how they could possibly build such a project without breaking the environmental laws that protect our remaining wild places. If this project was a timber sale or a ski resort expansion, there is no way they could be logging in these areas. Well, in fact, NW Natural is trying to get an exemption from those laws. Why does an energy company get special treatment? Why don't we, the public, get a choice about whether we want these forests cut in the name of energy profit?

Since that hike, I have had the amazing pleasure of working with people from all over this area in resistance to LNG development. The proposals to develop LNG in Oregon are unethical. The directly impacted people of Oregon and Washington whose lives have been on hold for five years feel like if they even blink the companies will be another step closer to taking their land. These same people have worked together in a historic coalition to protect their land and agree on some alternatives. I hope that it is not too late to stop these destructive projects and seize a moment of informed engagement to begin discussing a real energy future.

Amy Harwood
Bark
You can see photos from my 2008 hike at http://www.flickr.com/photos/barkformthood/sets/72157608085808666/.

posted 3 years, 1 month ago
view in context

No matter how you look at the potential for safety risks, there are known risks to putting a 40 mile clearcut across Mt. Hood National Forest. The proposed pipeline for transporting LNG would cross some of our most important watersheds and the major river and stream systems Oregonians depend on for drinking water. Due to a long history of mismanagement and roadbuilding, that the Forest Service is now trying to rectify, we have unstable slopes that cause major erosion every year. The forests that this pipeline will cut down are some of the most important standing forests in Mt. Hood National Forest. Without them and considering an additional road system required for such a project, this pipeline is clearly a totally inappropriate and risky use of our public lands.

posted 5 years, 4 months ago
view in context