Other articles by Daniel Scarpinato:

Dems' dreams go down in flames Giffords, Grijalva seek $5B for new entry ports Political Notebook by Daniel Scarpinato : Obama's inaugural to include AZ flavor Grijalva, Giffords frequently part ways Lawmakers to hand out gold: Obama- event tickets City's vote on gay marriage Giffords' clear win raises question: What's it mean? Political Notebook by Daniel Scarpinato : Napolitano is mum on attorney general talk Governor won't talk about the Cabinet Observers don't see McCain riding into sunset

Health Care
Freedom Manor
Caregivers General
Prestige Maintenance USA
Area Manager General
GROUNDS CONTROL
LANDCAPE FOREMAN & LABORERS Technical
Yavapai College
Analyst Banner Programmer Education
Yavapai College
Teachers Health Care
Carondelet Foothills Surgery
Pre-Op Nurse Health Care
SOUTHERN ARIZONA ENDODONTICS I
NSURANCE PROCESSOR

PHOENIX — The fight about whether to build a rail yard near Picacho Peak could easily fall down the classic Democratic-Republican split.

It's big business versus the little guy. And there are environmental concerns, because the rail yard would be located near the Central Arizona Project canal that supplies water to Southern Arizona. Picacho Peak is about 35 miles northwest of Tucson, near Interstate 10.

But with the Legislature moving toward creating another hurdle for Union Pacific in its attempt to build the switchyard, legislative action is winning unexpected support — and surprising opposition. It's also pitting a group of Tucson lawmakers against one another.

After months of retooling, debate and pressure from lobbyists on multiple sides, the Legislature will decide on a bill this week that would allow the Arizona Corporation Commission to review railroad proposals that include acquiring land through eminent domain or at auction — and let it hold public hearings.

Farmers from Yuma and Picacho have complained that Union Pacific hasn't made an effort to listen to their concerns, a point that railroad officials dispute.

At the Legislature, the issue hasn't been so cut-and-dried.

The bill is sponsored by one of Tucson's most conservative Republicans, Rep. Jonathan Paton, who has rounded up support from Republicans on a property-rights argument.

On the Democratic side, many members support the bill based the potentially negative environmental impact.

But opponents of the bill include Tucson Democratic Reps. Steve Farley and Tom Prezelski — who typically are at the forefront on environmental issues. They're joined in opposition by some Republicans who are inspired by the thought of protecting the property rights of farmers, though those same conservatives are skeptical about giving added influence to the Corporation Commission.

Farley and Prezelski say that what Paton wants to do oversteps state boundaries, because railroads are overseen by the federal government.

Farley, in particular, says Paton's bill could derail efforts to develop a Phoenix-to-Tucson commuter rail line.

"We should be trying to work with the railroad," Farley said.

There also are union interests involved in the debate, and Farley and Prezelski say the rail yard could boost job growth in Pinal County, an area that already is seeing a huge surge in housing development.

The yard could provide 290 jobs, including about 90 new positions and 200 workers relocated from Tucson operations.

"The jobs are a big part of this," Farley said.

Originally, the bill said the commission could prevent the railroad from condemning private property. The measure now says railroads must hire independent experts to study the impacts of their expansion plans. At that point, the commission could suggest, but not require, the company to use a different site.

Rep. Lena Saradnik, D-Tucson, said the key issue is that Pichaco Peak is a state landmark that should be preserved.

"I think we should allow public input, even though, in the end, the feds control the railroad," she said.

In addition, Saradnik is concerned about the proposed rail yard's close proximity to the CAP canal.

Farley and Union Pacific representatives said that with increasingly strict state and federal rules, contamination would not happen.

Still, Paton said Farley and others are being hypocritical.

"He represents a district that has a strong tradition of neighborhood involvement in a number of issues, and that's all we're developing for the railroad," Paton said. "You can't have it both ways. You can't say if it's a heavy-use railroad, it's a bad thing to have community involvement, but if it's Wal-Mart, it's a good thing."

But Farley said Paton is creating a false perception that the public will have input.

"It's a bad thing to have community involvement if nothing's going to come of it," Farley said.

In addition, Farley said supporting rail development could be environmentally beneficial because it could reduce truck traffic on Interstate 10.

Prezelski said he would rather see the issue resolved at the federal level.

"I would like to see the rail yard built if it can be done responsibly," he said.

But Paton said he's not necessarily opposed to the rail yard; he just wants to ensure there will be community input. To that end, he said the public pressure from a forum could have an impact.

Paton said the legislation already has produced results, because Union Pacific has backed off from plans for a rail line through the Yuma Valley, which angered farmers there.