SALT LAKE CITY -- Members of a new coalition have formally asked El Paso Corporation to release the details of a $20 million contract between the company and environmental groups that wanted to stall the construction of the Ruby Pipeline.
County commissions from Utah, Nevada, Wyoming, Idaho and Oregon met at the Utah Capitol on Thursday to band together and figure out some way to respond to the recent news that El Paso entered an agreement with Western Watershed Project that many fear puts ranchers' grazing permits in danger.
El Paso will pay $15 million over 10 years, to form a sagebrush conservation fund, through a nonprofit third-party fund managed by El Paso, Western Watershed Project, and a third individual who has not yet been selected.
The other $5 million will be paid to the Oregon Natural Desert Association.
Ranchers who depend on the use of public land for livestock grazing are most concerned about a provision of the agreement that may allow the money to be used to purchase and retire grazing permits, with the intent to decrease grazing on public land.
Dave Eliason, of Tremonton, president of the Utah Cattlemen's Association, is a rancher who has faced Western Watershed Project in court on two different occasions.
(El Paso) didn't make a deal with a conservation group," Eliason said. "They made a deal with the devil."
Commissioners from 15 counties in all five states agreed that, while they remain in support of Ruby Pipeline's construction, they would like to see El Paso back out of the agreement with Western Watershed, but for now they issued a statement requesting a full copy of the agreement.
The statement gives Lincoln County, Wyo., special rights to those documents as a cooperating agency, and reserves the rights of individual counties to legally challenge the agreement after review or to join Lincoln County in pending litigation.
The statement also allows members of the coalition to reconsider conditional-use permits based on the contents of the agreement.
"While I understand your heartfelt wishes that we had not entered into that contract, we are not in the business of breaching contracts," said Jim Cleary, president of El Paso's Western Pipeline Group.
Cleary insisted he and his company have heard the concerns of commissioners and ranchers "loud and clear."
However, he told the group he firmly believes that grazing permits will never be purchased under duress.
"A 'willing' seller does not mean forced at the point of a gun or the sharp point of a lawsuit," he said.
Cleary admits the reaction to their contract has not been what the company expected.
In the past week, El Paso has offered to donate another $15 million to the Public Lands Council, an organization that has worked to protect ranchers' rights to graze on public land.
Like the agreement with Western Watershed Projects, the money could not be used for litigation.
Cleary said he would work with Western Watershed Project and Oregon Natural Desert Association and "seek with reasonable diligence" a release from the confidentiality clause in the agreement that prohibits either party from disclosing details about the contract.
In addition to the 15 counties that have expressed a willingness to work together on the issue, representatives of Utah's state and congressional leaders were in Thursday's meeting, as were the Utah Farm Bureau, the Western Legacy Alliance, and the Utah Association of Counties.
Each county will draft or has already drafted resolutions in opposition to the agreement between El Paso and Western Watershed Project.
Box Elder County has not yet drafted a resolution, but all three commissioners agree it is important to stand behind the ranchers in their community.
In a county meeting last week, they opted to wait until after Thursday's meeting to put together a resolution consistent with those adopted in other counties.
Comments