Legislation would restrict railroad paths

The state House wants to put some new restrictions in the path of railroads that want to expand their operations in Arizona despite the possibility the measure might run afoul of federal law.

In a vote that could affect any plans to build a spur from Yuma to the Mexican border, the House gave preliminary approval to HB 2156, which would require railroads to notify the Department of Transportation of any plans for new tracks, rail yards or rail-switching facilities.

It also would mandate that the company assess the effects the project would have on air quality, water resources, areas of historic and geographic significance within two miles of the project, as well as the economic effects on surrounding communities.

But the real heart of the bill, at least from the perspective of its main sponsor, is a requirement that ADOT have at least one public hearing.

The legislation is aimed specifically at trying to convince Union Pacific Railroad to alter its plans to build a six-mile long rail yard near Picacho Peak, located along I-10 between Tucson and Casa Grande.

That move has drawn fire from a host of groups, ranging from nearby landowners and environmentalists to those who suggest the facility would mar the beauty of the site.

But it also would affect any plans to build a rail spur from Yuma to Mexico, which would link up with a rail line serving a planned megaport at Punta Colonet, Baja Calif., on Mexico's Pacific coast.

UP originally announced that it expected to bid on the project planned by the Mexican government, but last May the railroad announced it was abandoning the project. As late as last month, UP spokesman Luis Heredia said the project remained "off the table."

Nothing in the legislation actually would prevent the railroad from eventually going ahead with either project, no matter what that public input or any ADOT conclusion. But Rep. Jonathan Paton, R-Tucson, said he believes that hearing requirement might convince a company to modify its plans, especially as any of those public comments would be forwarded to any federal, state or local regulatory agencies that actually have some oversight.

The measure is somewhat scaled back from a version approved by lawmakers last year, one that was vetoed by Gov. Janet Napolitano. Paton said that's one reason he altered this year's bill to give review authority to ADOT, which is under the governor's control, rather than the elected Arizona Corporation Commission.

Whether that would satisfy the governor remains unclear.

In her veto message last year, Napolitano said she would "insist'' that railroads take environmental and community concerns into account. She said Paton's bill "would only complicate those efforts.''

But the governor may be only part of the problem. UP spokesman Heredia said his company is willing to work with the state to address any questions. But the bottom line, he said, is that the railroads are federally regulated - and the federal Surface Transportation Board has exclusive jurisdiction over expansion plans.

Heredia also said that agency has its own review and public input requirements. But he acknowledged that the plans to expand the rail yard adjacent to existing tracks are not subject to STB scrutiny.

He said, though, Union Pacific has other hurdles, including getting approval of the state Land Department which owns the property his company wants.

Paton acknowledged federal authority over railroads, which is one reason the measure does not allow the state to block the railroads from actually pursuing their projects. But he said legislative lawyers reviewed the bill and believe it would withstand a legal challenge should it become law.

And Paton insisted that, even without the state having veto authority, the legislation serves a purpose by setting up a process where the railroads have to at least listen to the objections of those affected.

"You shouldn't just be the bull in the china shop, being able to do whatever you want,'' he said. "You have to respect your neighbors and the people who are directly affected by it.''

UP officials have said the Picacho site is the only one suitable for the switching yard. They said it cannot be moved several miles one direction or the other because the company needs a flat area for the unattended rail cards.

But Nick Simonetta, who lobbies on behalf of area property owners, said there is no reason to believe that another site would be just as suitable with some minor grading.