The Molalla City Council decided last Wednesday to pursue drafting a resolution that would declare the city’s opposition to installing a gas pipeline anywhere in Oregon.

Originally, Palomar Gas had presented plans to construct a gas pipeline south of the Molalla city limits.

Although that option is still on the table, Palomar agreed to pursue an alternate route after the city of Molalla submitted a letter opposing the pipeline to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

The alternate route runs further south from the city so that it will not cross into land being considered for Molalla’s urban growth plan.

“We’re in the process of developing that route. What we’re trying to do really at this point is get information out,” said Michael Burke, assistant project manager for the Palomar Gas Transmission project. “We’re looking at a number of alternatives in a number of different areas.”

Several people living within the areas possibly affected by the pipeline project, both the original and new routes, addressed the council during the public comment period, encouraging the council to take action.

The council had already written a letter to FERC in November stating opposition to a pipeline anywhere in Oregon, but has not yet made a formal resolution.

About 50 people showed up at the March 26 meeting, many in hopes of encouraging the council to adopt a resolution similar to one written by the city of Forest Grove opposing the Palomar pipeline project.

Sha Spady, an Oregon City resident, read a statement encouraging the council to take action, even though the new proposition does not directly affect the city.

“Unlike the lucky citizens of Molalla, we have no one to represent our interests, no one to care for our well-being and future safety — no city, no county, no labor union writing on our behalf to move the pipeline off our land,” Spady said in her statement.

Spady owns Big Oak Stables on Toliver Road, which would be impacted by the pipeline if the original Molalla route is selected.

To construct the pipeline, Palomar would require a 50-foot-wide easement from property owners. Compensation to property owners would include any crop damages incurred in the process, Burke said.

Farmers would be allowed to re-plant over the pipeline, but not deep-rooting crops like orchards. Structures could also not be built over the pipeline.

“The Sawtell family has farmed and lived and raised their families around Molalla for the last 155 years,” said Wallace Sawtell at the March 26 meeting.

Sawtell lives on Herman Road, where the new proposed pipeline would run.

“This is the very same field where my three children want to build their houses for their retirement,” Sawtell said. “We are adamantly opposed to this line, we will always be opposed to it — we have a reason to be because it cuts right through the middle of our farm.”

The proposed line would travel 220 miles, starting east of Maupin, Ore. where a main pipeline already exists.

The pipeline project is still in the early stages of planning, Burke said. Palomar plans to submit an application to FERC at the end of this year.

Palomar hopes FERC will make their decision by the end of 2009. If the pipeline is approved, there will be another public comment period before construction begins.

Oregonians have raised concerns that the gas transported by the pipeline is not intended for use in this state, but will actually be sent down to California. Burke said that the gas’ destination will be determined by the gas companies — Palomar’s customers - rather than Palomar.

“We’re in the pipeline business, so we transport gas that other people own,” Burke said. “We would have customers on our pipeline who would pay us to move their gas.”

Some argue that Oregon has no need for increased natural gas supply, but Steve Sechrist, a spokesman for Northwest Natural, said Oregon’s need for gas is debatable, citing that coal and hydro energy have lost popularity due to environmental concerns.

“The idea that there is not going to be a need for natural gas doesn’t really fair with reality,” Sechrist said. “People are afraid and they are not sure because it is the unknown. … Pipelines are so scarce in Oregon. There’s a need for energy supply and growth.”

The Portland area only has one pipeline system supplying its gas, Sechrist said.

“I think Portland and Seattle are the only two major metropolitan areas with only one interstate (gas) transport,” Sechrist said.

Regardless of the reasons, local landowners are not happy about pipelines being installed on their property.

After hearing the public’s comments, the Molalla City Council announced that they had discussed in their work session prior to the meeting to move forward on adopting a resolution. The council may finalize the resolution at their next meeting.

“I thought it was a really strong, positive response from a really strong community that is going to be impacted by this,” Spady said. “I think what was so impressive about tonight’s meeting was the willingness of the council to listen, their willingness to respond to this very real issue.”