“This risky, costly, and radical proposal would have undermined the laws that protect Maine’s environment and communities,” said NRCM Advocacy Director Pete Didisheim. “Despite a massive effort by lobbyists to force this dangerous bill through the legislature, a bipartisan majority held firm and refused to support it. Common sense won the day over ideology.”

The original bill would have allowed property owners to receive payments from the State Treasury to compensate them for claimed losses in property values resulting from future land use regulations. Property owners would be allowed to ignore Maine law if the
State did not make the compensation payments.

Such proposals have been broadly defeated nationwide based on concerns about their high costs and negative consequences, and previous takings bills have been rejected by the Maine Legislature at least five times since 1995.

In March, a majority of the Judiciary Committee rejected LD 1810, and proposed a complete substitute that would avoid the litigation, costs, and harm to the environment that would have resulted from the bill. But supporters of the original bill worked relentlessly to keep their proposal alive. These efforts peaked during the week of April 9, when the Majority Report from the Judiciary Committee was blocked in the House, and the Minority Report was voted on instead, passing by a one-vote margin. (See http://www.downeast.com/georges-outdoor-news/2012/april/knight-beating-takings)

Lobbyists then attempted for several days to force the bill forward in the Senate, but they faced a bipartisan block of 20 Senators—including Republican Senators Tom Saviello, Roger Katz, Chris Rector, and Earl McCormick—who were firmly opposed to the Minority Report. The Senate adjourned at 2:30 a.m. on April 14 without taking a vote on LD 1810, leaving it to be considered when they reconvened May 15. When the bill finally was scheduled for consideration in the Senate, it was clear that supporters of the Minority Report had failed to recruit any additional support, so they offered a motion to “indefinitely postpone” the bill—and the House followed suit.

“We greatly appreciate the strong leadership provided by both Republicans and Democrats who saw the takings bill for what it was—a thinly veiled attempt to prevent the Legislature from passing laws in the future that will be needed to protect our communities, wildlife habitat, and the character of Maine,” said Maine Audubon’s Staff Attorney Jenn Burns Gray.

The Majority Report proposal from the Judiciary Committee was drafted by Rep. Brad Moulton (R-York) and Rep. Charles Priest (D-Brunswick), with input from Sen. Tom Saviello (R-Franklin), Rep. Bob Duchesne (D-Hudson) and other lawmakers. This proposal would have created a Regulatory Fairness Committee to evaluate the impact of regulations on property owners and initiate legislative solutions. The motions to indefinitely postpone the bill had the result of blocking adoption of the Majority Report.

“The takings bill finally hit the brick wall of reality,” said Sean Mahoney, Maine Director of the Conservation Law Foundation. “The Minority Report was so complex, convoluted, costly, and extreme that it would have been a disaster if passed into law. We’re very pleased that a majority of Maine legislators understood this and voted to kill the bill.”

Maine taxpayers would have had to pay millions of dollars over time to fund implementation of the Minority Report. The fiscal note over the first three years alone was pegged at $1.28 million, and this estimate did not include any of the funds that would be needed to pay possible compensation payments of up to $400,000 per case.

In the very few states in the U.S. that have adopted legislation anything like the Minority Report, studies have revealed that corporate interests, large-scale developers, and attorneys have been the primary beneficiaries. Former State Senator Peter Mills made this point to legislators this year, saying “The primary impact—and its intended impact—is to stymie regulation for the benefit of large landowners with ample resources to paralyze state agencies. That is, in fact, how takings laws have been used in the few states that have enacted them. It’s not a statute for the little guy.”

“The Minority Report would have created multiple paths for developers to receive waivers from Maine law, allowing them to build developments that otherwise would be illegal,” said Didisheim. “Such waivers would have caused an unraveling of the laws that protect Maine’s environment and triggered lawsuits by people who suddenly learned that a massive development, waste dump, or energy project was landing next door to them because the developer had received a waiver from the law.”

“The Minority Report posed a major threat to Maine’s environmental safeguards,” said Maine Conservation Voters Executive Director Maureen Drouin. “That’s why defeating the bill was a top priority for people and organizations throughout Maine who love our clean air, clean water, and healthy communities.” The Maine Clammers Association, Congress of Lakes Association, Maine Municipal Association, and all of Maine’s major conservation and environmental organizations opposed the Minority Report for LD 1810.

Passage of takings bills like LD 1810 has been a high priority for the ultra-right-wing American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), which has promoted model legislation to state legislatures since the early 1990s.

Last night Canadian pipeline giant Enbridge announced plans for a massive increase in pipeline capacity to bring dirty tar sands oil from Canada to global markets via the United States. One of the biggest components of the plan is to reverse the flow of its entire crude oil pipeline between Ontario and Montreal, for the purpose of transporting tar sands crude oil east. This would be the full build-out of Enbridge’s portion of the so-called “Trailbreaker” pipeline project in development for several years. This announcement could bring tar sands oil nearly to New England. The rest of the original Trailbreaker plan would bring tar sands oil by also reversing the flow of an existing pipeline from Montreal to Portland, Maine.

“This announcement reveals Enbridge’s true intentions to bring tar sands oil to our region,” said Dylan Voorhees, Clean Energy Director for the Natural Resources Council of Maine. “This is exactly why NRCM and others have been raising concerns since last August about dirty and dangerous tar sands coming our way. This announcement brings one of the world’s dirtiest fuels one step closer to Maine.”

In August 2011, Enbridge filed for fast-track approval of “Phase I” of this pipeline reversal. That fast-track request was rejected after NRCM and other groups opposed it, arguing that Enbridge was purposefully breaking a large pipeline project into smaller phases to attempt to hide their intentions. After months of preparation, the National Energy Board of Canada is scheduled to hold hearings next week in Ontario about the “Phase I” reversal. Given the new announcement of further expansion, it is unclear what will happen with these proceedings limited to “Phase I.”

“This announcement seems to prove that Enbridge was pursuing a deliberate strategy by Enbridge to avoid complete environmental review and public scrutiny for the full project,” said Voorhees. “Enbridge repeatedly said that it is no longer pursuing Trailbreaker, but their intentions are now obvious—the only thing that has changed is the name. Even now the public doesn’t have an honest picture from Enbridge and the Portland-Montreal Pipeline Company about the plan to bring tar sands oil from Ontario to Portland for export to global markets. This entire scheme deserves full scrutiny from environmental regulators and from the public.”

In April, 41,000 citizens from the U.S. and Canada, including several thousand from Maine, wrote comments to the Canadian Energy Board opposing “Phase I” of the Trailbreaker project and requesting a broader environmental review.

“This announcement is a massive proposal to bring huge amounts of one of world’s dirtiest fuels out of Canada to North America,” said Voorhees. “Not only does it have huge implications for U.S. energy policy and efforts to curb global warming, but tar sands could threaten Maine’s environment directly.” The oil pipeline from Montreal to Portland passes right alongside Sebago Lake, the drinking water supply to the entire Portland area. Tar sand oil is a thick, gooey substance that is more corrosive and acidic than conventional oil, making those pipes more susceptible to corrosion and bringing a higher risk of spills. And tar sands oil spills themselves are more toxic and difficult to clean up.

Yesterday’s announced expansion includes a proposed doubling in size of Enbridge’s Michigan pipeline, which in 2010 spilled 1.2 million gallons of tar sands crude into the Kalamazoo River—a massive spill that has still not been cleaned up and is still affecting local communities.

“What if a spill like the Enbridge Kalamazoo River fiasco happened here in Maine next to Sebago Lake?” asked Voorhees. “Maine people deserve to know the facts, not only about the full scope of this pipeline reversal, but about what kind of oil would flow through the pipeline and a clear assessment of the risks to Maine people and places.”

As further evidence of the piecemeal approach to Trailbreaker, Enbridge affiliates had separately applied for a permit to build a pumping station near the Vermont-Quebec border for the purpose of reversing the flow of oil between Montreal and Portland, Maine. That permit was initially denied in March, but a re-application by the company is expected.

“Congress should pass this amendment and send a strong signal to the VA and to the Pentagon that we recognize what a serious problem sexual assault in the military is,” Pingree said. “But mostly it sends a message to the victims that we recognize what they have gone through and we won’t stand for it.”

Pingree has been pushing the Department of Veterans Affairs to relax the standards of proof for victims of sexual assault who are seeking benefits, and has introduced a bill with bipartisan support to force the VA to make those changes.

Pingree says VA officials claim to have already eased standards of proof for victims, but she’s heard from many veterans who are having a very different experience.

“Even when victims of sexual assault have ample evidence that they are suffering from PTSD because of the attack, the VA is often demanding unreasonable levels of proof before granting benefits. They are asking for court martial convictions or documentation that just doesn’t exist,” Pingree said. “We know that many victims don’t report the attacks for fear of retribution and even when they do the perpetrators often don’t get prosecuted. But that doesn’t mean those victims don’t still deserve benefits.”

Pingree, a Member of the House Armed Services Committee, introduced the amendment to the defense authorization bill today. The amendment creates a Congressional resolution telling the VA to allow alternative forms of evidence for sexual assault victims. Although not a binding measure, the amendment will put continued pressure on the VA to make it easier for victims to get benefits.

“I met with Secretary Panetta recently and I know he understands the problem and I’ve met with VA officials and I know they do, too,” Pingree said. “But we can’t just call that good enough and we really have to keep up the pressure.”

Pingree is also a cosponsor of an amendment to today’s defense bill that provides oversight of the way in which the Pentagon deals with the problem of military sexual assault.

A vote on the amendment and the National Defense Authorization Act is expected later today.

BRUNSWICK — Two state lawmakers-turned-lovers, Reps. Alex Cornell du Houx and Erin Herbig, have reached a private agreement to settle their legal differences.

Both legislators declined to discuss the details of the pact, which was reached late on May 11.

On Monday, May 14, Herbig, a Belfast Democrat, withdrew a request in Belfast District Court for an order of protection from abuse against Cornell du Houx, who announced he had requested a leave of absence for the last few days of the legislative session.

“Last week, before we came to an agreement, I informed leadership that I will be taking an excused absence for the next few days,” the Brunswick Democrat said.

Herbig and Cornell du Houx were involved in a romantic relationship, but when the relationship went sour, Herbig claimed Cornell du Houx stalked her and invaded her privacy in various ways, despite repeated warnings from legislative leadership and Herbig’s attorney, Chris MacLean.

Maine State Police opened an investigation into her allegations, but they closed the case on May 11.

“It’s over,” spokesman Stephen McCausland of the Maine Bureau of Public Safety said. “There will be no enforcement action.”

Herbig and Cornell du Houx have each said they intend to seek re-election this year.

“I’ve dedicated myself to the people of Brunswick as a lawmaker and to my country as an officer in the Navy,” Cornell du Houx said. “I am looking forward to continuing to serve in the Legislature and running for office.”

Cornell du Houx recently ended a three-year stint at the Truman National Security Project in Washington, D.C., where he said he traveled the country to recruit and train future leaders, elected officials, their staff, nonprofits, and others involved in national security issues and climate change.(for more on Cornell du Houx’s work at Truman click here.)

On May 9, his sister, Rebecca Cornell du Houx said that Herbig had contacted the Truman Project in an effort to discredit him.

“Erin called his boss in D.C. and told him she thought Alex had (Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder). I find that unconscionable. … It’s awful this has happened, and totally unjustified.”

Cornell du Houx said he voluntarily left the Truman project.

“I left the Truman National Security Project to focus on my re-election efforts,” he said.

Cornell du Houx made his first public appearance in Brunswick after the controversy, when he attended a ribbon-cutting ceremony Monday for the town’s new train station.

“I went to the Amtrak opening and it was very heartening when members of the community came to to voice their support,” he said. “I am extremely grateful for all the community support I have received.”

Herbig said that she, too, has been buoyed by public reaction.

“I want to thank my family, colleagues, constituents and people from all across the state for their support and encouragement in this very difficult process,” she said in a prepared statement following the agreement.

Cornell du Houx said he will be leaving on a trip to Australia to lead a delegation of veterans to foster international relations later this month, but that it is not a result of the agreement.

“That’s been in the works for about nine months,” he said. “I’ve done previous trips to Malaysia and Indonesia in a similar manner.”

by Matt Hongoltz-Hetling can be reached at matthh@theforecaster.net. Follow him on Twitter: @hh_matt.

UPDATE: for some unknown reason Hongoltz-Hetling edited his article on line taking out Rebecca Cornell du Houx’s comments of May 9, 2012

This is now how the article reads on the Forcaster’s website:

Family releases psych evaluation of embattled Brunswick Rep. Cornell du Houx

BRUNSWICK — Two state lawmakers-turned-lovers, Reps. Alex Cornell du Houx and Erin Herbig, have reached a private agreement to settle their legal differences.

Both legislators declined to discuss the details of the pact, which was reached late on May 11.

On Monday, May 14, Herbig, a Belfast Democrat, withdrew a request in Belfast District Court for an order of protection from abuse against Cornell du Houx, who announced he had requested a leave of absence for the last few days of the legislative session.

“Last week, before we came to an agreement, I informed leadership that I will be taking an excused absence for the next few days,” the Brunswick Democrat said.

Herbig and Cornell du Houx were involved in a romantic relationship, but when the relationship went sour, Herbig claimed Cornell du Houx stalked her and invaded her privacy in various ways, despite repeated warnings from legislative leadership and Herbig’s attorney, Chris MacLean.

Maine State Police opened an investigation into her allegations, but they closed the case on May 11.

“It’s over,” spokesman Stephen McCausland of the Maine Bureau of Public Safety said. “There will be no enforcement action.”

Herbig and Cornell du Houx have each said they intend to seek re-election this year.

“I’ve dedicated myself to the people of Brunswick as a lawmaker and to my country as an officer in the Navy,” Cornell du Houx said. “I am looking forward to continuing to serve in the Legislature and running for office.”

Cornell du Houx recently ended a three-year stint at the Truman National Security Project in Washington, D.C., where he said he traveled the country to recruit and train future leaders, elected officials, their staff, nonprofits, and others involved in national security issues and climate change.

Cornell du Houx said he voluntarily left the Truman project.

“I left the Truman National Security Project to focus on my re-election efforts,” he said.

Cornell du Houx made his first public appearance in Brunswick after the controversy, when he attended a ribbon-cutting ceremony Monday for the town’s new train station.

“I went to the Amtrak opening and it was very heartening when members of the community came to to voice their support,” he said. “I am extremely grateful for all the community support I have received.”

Herbig said that she, too, has been buoyed by public reaction.

“I want to thank my family, colleagues, constituents and people from all across the state for their support and encouragement in this very difficult process,” she said in a prepared statement following the agreement.

Cornell du Houx said he will be leaving on a trip to Australia to lead a delegation of veterans to foster international relations later this month, but that it is not a result of the agreement.

“That’s been in the works for about nine months,” he said. “I’ve done previous trips to Malaysia and Indonesia in a similar manner.”

Matt Hongoltz-Hetling can be reached at 781-3661 ext. 123 or matthh@theforecaster.net. Follow him on Twitter: @hh_matt.

Four bond proposals that would make needed investments in Maine’s colleges and universities, research and development, land conservation, and waste water and drinking water treatment gained initial support in the Maine House late this afternoon. Additional votes on these proposals and other public investments in improving roads and bridges are expected tonight.

Democrats urged strong support for the total $95.6 million in bond proposals before the House and Senate.

“A jobs bond will give our economy a much needed shot in the arm,” said Rep. Emily Cain, the House Democratic leader. “The best way to improve our economy is by making more investments that will help small businesses, job training and public education.”

Maine has lost more than 1,000 jobs since 2011 and was recently rated 50th for personal income growth according to the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis.

Earlier today, Republican lawmakers rejected two Democratic bond proposals that would have made investments in revitalizing Maine’s downtown communities and increased energy efficiency.

According to the non-partisan fiscal experts from the Legislature’s Office of Fiscal and Program Review, the state has the capacity to make public investment in a bond package for voters to approve. Debt service payments from 2013 to 2015 will decline by nearly $30 million, lowering the state’s payments on debt and increasing the capacity to borrow.

“It’s clear we can afford to invest in a jobs bond,” said Rep. Peggy Rotundo the lead House Democrat on the Appropriations committee. “If we don’t make these public investments now, we will be missing an opportunity to create jobs. Public investment will create jobs now and grow good-paying jobs for our future.”

The Association of General Contractors said the state lost 500 construction jobs from February to March this year alone, according to Department of Labor statistics.

Democrats support a comprehensive jobs bond, including public investment in roads, bridges and rail; research and development; educational infrastructure; water and wastewater treatment; and land conservation.

Maine has a track record of conservative bonding and has historically paid down its debt quickly. The state typically bonds for 10 years, not 20 or 30 as other states do. Debt service is typically between 4-7 percent of the General Fund.

Bonds require two-thirds support of the members present and voting to pass.

“This law was passed and renewed twice without a fight because reducing violence against women has always been something everyone can agree on, but this time Republicans in the House have decided they want to play politics with it,” said Pingree.

Since the Violence Against Women Act was passed in 1994, domestic violence crimes have dropped by more than half. The law was reauthorized twice without a partisan fight and last month the Senate again reauthorized it, with bipartisan support including the votes of Senators Snowe and Colliins.

House Republicans are bringing their own version of the Violence Against Women Act up for a vote today, which weakens protection for immigrant women, women who are victims of domestic abuse on tribal lands and LGBT victims of domestic violence.

“For nearly twenty years the law has protected immigrant women from domestic violence and retaliation but the version of the bill the Republicans have introduced not only rolls back those protections, but would have government agents contact abusers and tell them their battered wives are seeking protection,” Pingree said. “It’s just plain shameful.”

Pingree has cosponsored the Senate-passed version of the bill in the House and has called on Congressional leaders to put it up for a vote.

“The Senate bill strengthens the Violence Against Women Act and the House bill weakens it,” Pingree said. “I guess the question comes down to just how much violence against women are politicians willing to accept?”

“Thankfully the Republicans saw the light and gave up their fight on passing a measure that would have cost millions of dollars to Maine taxpayers,” said Senator Phil Bartlett. “Worse, it would have hampered future legislatures from passing laws needed to protect Maine’s economy, environment, and communities.”

Democrats argued that LD 1810 would have increased lawsuits, pit landowners against taxpayers, and resulted in a financial windfall for special interest lawyers. The measure would have allowed state agencies and the courts to waive land use rules and regulations for any kind of development.

“This measure was the wrong way to address concerns with land use regulations,” said Senator Seth Goodall of Richmond. “A better approach is to make sure that we mindfully strike the right balance between protecting our natural resources while not overburdening property owners.”

The Senate ignored a bipartisan alternative, which earned the support of the majority of members vote of the state’s Judiciary Committee. The bipartisan proposal would have made last year’s Regulatory Fairness Committee a standing legislative committee. The panel would meet regularly to hear complaints about regulations and recommend legislation to address them.

“The only ones to benefit from this measure would have been the special interest lawyers and those who can afford to pay for them,” said Senator Cynthia Dill who also serves on the Judiciary Committee.

The Takings Study Committee Report, which showed that nearly 100 percent of permit applications to the DEP have been approved in the last 10 years.