Home » News » Editorial, 8/24: TransCanada should back off
News
Editorial, 8/24: TransCanada should back off
Opinion | Lincoln Journal Star | EDITORIAL | August 23, 2010
Read the full article on the originating site
TransCanada officials say their top commitment is to treat landowners on the route of the proposed Keystone XL pipeline “with respect.”
The mask slipped a bit when Nebraskans learned this month that the company already has threatened some property owners with eminent domain.
The company would use the proceedings to seek a court order giving it an easement to put the pipeline on the property of landowners who have not agreed to a deal voluntarily.
So much for courtesy and consideration.
TransCanada should back off.
At the very least, the giant energy and pipeline company should wait until the pipeline actually is approved before it starts throwing its weight around.
TransCanada wants to build the 1,980-mile pipeline to carry crude oil slurry from tar sands in Alberta, Canada. The proposed route would cross several states, including Nebraska, and connect with an existing pipeline in Kansas.
The proposed route has provoked a wave of protests in Nebraska because part of the route would cross the Nebraska Sandhills. Opponents fear an oil spill in those sandy, porous soils could contaminate the Ogallala Aquifer, the state’s underground storehouse of pure, fresh water.
Another concern is that the pipeline might jeopardize contracts some farmers have to grow seed corn. Seed companies are checking whether the pipeline will generate enough heat to affect the growth of the crop, farmers in the York area said.
Despite TransCanada’s threat to go to court to force landowners to sign an easement for the pipeline, federal approval is not assured.
The environmental impact statement for the project that was prepared by the U.S. State Department has yet to be approved, and a permit for the project has not been issued. The U.S. State Department is handling the process because of a quirk in law putting it in charge of pipelines that cross the U.S. border.
The draft of the environmental impact statement was criticized by the Environmental Protection Agency, which said that it should be revised before approval is granted. Meanwhile, the comment period has been extended to allow
90 days after the environmental impact statement is finished.
If TransCanada goes to court before the permit is issued, landowners will face the legal expenses and the investment of time necessary to argue their side in condemnation proceedings before they know whether such an effort is actually needed.
Reportedly, the deadline set by TransCanada in its letters is expiring near the end of this month.
If TransCanada really wants to show landowners respect, it will withdraw its deadlines and wait until a presidential permit for the pipeline is issued before turning to such heavy-handed tactics.
Tagged with: keystone xl, transcanada, environmental impact statement, landownders
