Reroute the High Voltage Powerline proposed through Clark County Neighborhoods

Consider going to the Clark County Council meeting on May 6th to state your concerns during the 3 min open speech portion of the meeting.

***PUBLIC COMMENTS TO THE ENERGY FACILITY SITE EVALUATION COUNCIL ARE DUE BY 5:00PST MAY 15! Together, we stand for our rights. Your voice counts! Please voice your concerns at: https://comments.efsec.wa.gov/draft-peis-comments by the deadline. Find more info here. Write your own message or copy and paste the template letter here. Note: We are not supposed to comment specifically on PacifiCorp’s project during this comment period. We are commenting on a governing document for the whole state.  Comments will be considered on policy, not stopping a local project. Some points to consider in writing your comment:

1.Due to fire and weather danger, health risks, environmental concerns, and community livability, requirements on path width minimums for 230kV lines need to be clearly stated and enforced with no exceptions regardless of design. Otherwise, power companies can do anything they want based on what they perceive to be engineered for safety within a narrower width. That essentially means they have no regulations at all. 

2.Based on a literature search, the minimum path width for a 230 kV line should be at least 200 feet and the required distance from dwellings even greater to avoid health risks of cancers, ALS, and other neurodegenerative diseases. Furthermore, the minimum distance from dwellings needs to be enforced.

3. Power companies should be required to analyze alternative routes regardless of whether or not they own easements in order to protect communities, neighborhoods, and environmentally sensitive areas particularly when the easement is unused and/or historic (50+ years old) in nature as population density and environmental standards change significantly over decades’ time.

4. If power companies plan on using an existing easement but the planned path for the proposed transmission line is incomplete, in order for them to obtain new land acquisition, they must make their case that such acquisitions are necessary including analysis of all alternative routes before permitting.

5. Power companies should be required to establish how they plan to maintain the vegetation along transmission lines when close to dwellings, wells, surface and groundwater as there is great risk to residents who are exposed to pesticides on a long term basis, particularly children and veterans.

ABOUT:

PacifiCorp’s proposed 230kV transmission line from Swift Dam to Troutdale OR is dangerous and unjustified. The fire danger, health risks, and the lack of adherence to important safety guidelines that this line poses cannot be disregarded.

It is vital to note that the easement is inaccurate. In some areas, due to discrepancies in survey data, it cannot be accurately ascertained exactly where the easement lies. Errors in the placement of the easement on some parcels renders the already too narrow path even narrower, requiring PacifiCorp to encroach on land outside the easement. Recent surveys show part of the easement route lies on parcels that have no easement in the deed.

PacifiCorp does not have rights to the full route and must pursue more land use rights potentially through the use of eminent domain in order to close easement gaps in the route around Camas and for substation placement. PacifiCorp should be required to investigate alternative routes. They currently have no plans to do so. This needs to be regulated. There are wider, established routes with transmission lines already in place along the I-5 corridor. There is also a route through the Gifford Pinchot Forest just to the east that would not plow through neighborhoods and environmentally sensitive areas which BPA found to be the preferred route for a similar transmission line in 2009.

The easement was obtained in the 1950’s when the route was drastically less populated. The draft states “A safe, minimum distance of 100 feet from transmission facilities is recommended to minimize the health effects of EMF” (pg 509) and yet the route runs over homes as close as 10 feet. Environmental Research Vol 178, Nov 2019 shows exposure to magnetic fields increases risk of leukemia, breast cancer, and brain cancer. Lou Gehrig’s Disease aka amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) is also linked to EMF exposure. 

Additionally, to control vegetation along lines, PacifiCorp uses numerous herbicides for line maintenance. Many people along the easement use wells for their drinking water and/or have streams on their property. Monoclonal gammopathy of unspecified origin (MGUS) is a presumed condition for ALL veterans exposed to toxic chemicals, a diagnosis with a statistically significant increased risk of the condition leading to Multiple Myeloma with continued herbicide exposure, specifically those used by PacifiCorp. These are all serious public health issues that need to be addressed.

There are many other problems with this route including but not limited to: corona-generated noise when the line is operating; disrupting environmentally sensitive areas including wetlands and severe soil erosion areas; clearing of native plant habitats (adverse effects to special-status plant habitat and species); permanent loss of general wildlife habitat; disruption to fish habitat (runoff and sediment delivery to streams and decreased riparian shade along streams); decreased property values, leading to loss of property tax revenue; adverse cultural resource disruptions/intrusion on historic viewsheds; severely impacted visual resources; additionally, increased traffic and risks of electrocution, fire, toxic material spills, and tree felling during construction.

The facts clearly show that the easement PacifiCorp is attempting to use is outdated, inaccurate, undersized, and poses significant public health and safety concerns which render this project unachievable.

You can join the Facebook group here: Stop the High Voltage Powerline Route through Clark County neighborhoods.

You can sign the petition here: https://chng.it/DXFX6WDFyd (Do not donate money through the petition; please do so though the GoFundMe see below)

There are alternative routes available: The impacts of a project to benefit taxpayers should be borne by public lands rather than involuntary condemnation of neighborhoods. Public lands should be first priority; open lands second. PacifiCorp should be required to use commercial timber land 5 miles east of the easement where land has already been roaded and clear-cut for timber management. In 2009, BPA concluded “after three years of public outreach, environmental analysis, and technical study” the path would affect too many properties along the easement and the best alternative is the more easterly route through public land. Some land to the east is already owned by PacifiCorp.  A second alternative is for PacifiCorp to partner with BPA to upgrade the existing 300 ft wide line running to the west of the easement along the established route of Lewis River Highway to I-5.

We need to fight for the rerouting of this proposed line that will plow through our neighborhoods!

To learn ways you can help: click here

Click here to see houses directly under the proposed route.

Click here to see the proposed route. And click here for an interactive map. To look up a rough estimate of where the easement lies: Go to the Clark County Website, in the Map Layers menu on the left, under “Land Records” option you will find an “Encumbrances” field with “Easements” as a sub-field.

Those with the easement on their property may contact the PacifiCorp project manager, John Aniello, to get a survey performed on their land to show exactly where the easement lies (at PacifiCorp’s expense). Reach out to him at [email protected] or 503-545-9539.

You can donate towards the cause here: https://gofund.me/fa9221d3 Funds will be used for legal and campaign costs.