My blogging has been slow lately as I attended two PUC public hearings on the Keystone pipeline issue. I have also started a list of links regarding the TransCanada pipeline on my sidebar. My family’s land is in the path of the proposed pipeline, so my coverage will be biased. But I do have to admit that after attending the two PUC meetings, TransCanada employees seem like a bunch of well-intended professionals. Still the risk of oil spills is there.
I think there should be general interest in this issue as eminent domain has now entered the picture. This is from yesterday’s Mitchell Daily Republic:
TransCanada will consider beginning eminent domain proceedings this fall to acquire right-of-way for its crude oil pipeline if private negotiations with landowners have not been wrapped up, a project official said Tuesday.
L.A. "Buster" Gray, an independent contractor working with TransCanada on the pipeline project, spoke to The Daily Republic by phone Tuesday while he was en route to a Public Utilities Commission hearing in Clark. He said the company will continue negotiating with landowners as long as possible but would consider invoking its right of eminent domain "somewhere toward the fourth quarter," which begins in October.
Gray added that private negotiations with landowners would not have to end with the filing of eminent domain paperwork.
The report adds the big corporation versus the small individual battle associated with eminent domain:
On the other hand, the eminent domain process would consist of TransCanada, a corporate giant with billions in revenues, filing petitions in South Dakota circuit court against individual landowners. Those landowners would need lawyers and money to wage legal battles that, according to TransCanada lawyer Brett Koenecke of Pierre, would probably take five to eight months.
Assuming a judge agrees that TransCanada is a "common carrier" with the right of eminent domain, court proceedings could progress to a jury trial to determine the amount of compensation TransCanada must pay for the land it wants to take. The verdict could be appealed to the state Supreme Court.
In the meantime, TransCanada officials say they are trying to secure fair easements and avoid going to court.
"We hope we don’t have to do it at all," Koenecke said. "It’s certainly the company’s policy to negotiate with landowners and achieve arm’s length bargains with them that are satisfactory."
Even though TransCanada is putting forward a plan that should minimize the possibility of a leak, and agrees that they are responsible for all damages, they may not be around forever, whereas the easements do, as they are perpetual. So what happens when the pipeline is no longer needed, and TransCanada or any future owners of the pipeline are insolvent? Will the line be abandoned and residual hazardous material remains four foot below the surface of the landowner’s property? These questions have been asked, but not adequately answered during the two sessions I attended.
By voluntarily signing the easements, the landowners may be held accountable for not only agreeing to a hazardous material to be in their land, but receiving compensation for it. They may indeed be held culpable if there is a major problem. And the easement is filed with the court house and stays with the land. It goes with the land when it is sold. Certainly potential buyers may balk. Even though TransCanada is offering full vale for the 50 foot permanent easement, the entire property may suffer a decrease in value. Especially if there has been problems with leaks. And TransCanada documentation filed with the PUC state that the like number of leaks over a ten year period to be 1.4. And that probability assumes no earthquakes. My family experienced an earthquake in 2005 in the area in the path of the proposed pipeline. There have been recorded earthquakes over the years along the path of this pipeline. Another issue that has not been adequately answered during the public hearing at Alexandria, SD.
Stay tuned for more updates.
Recent Comments