Document text
Our View: Document removal was out of bounds Sunday Jun 25, 2017 at 12:01 AM After the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission declined to schedule a public hearing in Jackson County on the newest proposal for a natural gas pipeline across Southern Oregon, a spokesman for project applicant Jordan Cove LNG made a point of saying the company has no objection to more meetings. But that declaration of openness apparently does not extend to sharing public documents on the company's previous application, which FERC denied last year. Jordan Cove officials removed binders of documents about the previous proposal from public libraries in four counties, including documents provided by federal regulatory agencies. At the Coos Bay Public Library, they succeeded in removing everything they could find — after Paul Addis, a reference librarian, told them they could take only those documents their company provided. Most of the documents were provided by federal agencies, he said. Jordan Cove LNG spokesman Michael Hinrichs said the materials removed were obsolete and not relevant to the new proposal because they contain details that have changed, and releasing them could be "completely confusing to the public." Nonsense. If, as Jordan Cove says, 50 pipeline route changes have been made to accommodate landowner requests and account for new geological data, and plans for the proposed export facility in Coos Bay modified, the public should have the opportunity to compare the old pipeline route with the new one, and study the changes to the export facility, too. That should result in less confusion, not more. Moreover, a private company removing from a public library documents provided by government agencies is presumptuous and potentially illegal. Those documents belong to the public library, and by extension to the public, not to Jordan Cove. Removing them without permission could be considered theft of public property. We question the reference librarian's willingness to let Jordan Cove remove even those documents the company itself provided. Even if they don't reflect the project's current form, they are part of the historical record, and should be part of any open discussion of the proposed project.