Thursday I witnessed the testimony on SB 138, a bill that requires TransCanada to provide bonding for any problems with their pipeline. The prime sponsor was Franck Kloucek, and he had a impressive list of proponents there to testify:
Dennis Davis, SD Assn of Rural Water Systems
Silvia Christen, Dakota Rural Action
Lillian Anderson, self, Langford
Kent Moeckly, self, Britton
Curt Hohn, Web Rural Water
Jim Hendrickson, self, Roslyn
There were only two that testified in opposition:
Dennis Duncan, Trans Canada
Dawna Leitzke, SD Petroleum & Propane Marketers Association
And on a straight party line vote, the Republicans sided with TransCanada and the Democrats sided with the South Dakota proponents. Even though the bill died, there are plans to smoke it out, so now is the time to contact your Senator. Unfortunately, the Mitchell Daily Republic is reporting that the Governor is against the Bill:
Rounds does not agree with a bill that would require the TransCanada Corporation to create a superfund to pay for possible leaks on its proposed pipeline through eastern South Dakota.
SB 138 would mandate, for companies wishing to build pipelines across the state, "financial assurance guaranteeing the performance" of the pipes. SB 138 was before the Senate Ag and Natural Resources Committee Thursday, but was deferred to the 36th day.
Round said South Dakota already has financial safeguards in place should a pipeline ever fail and told reporters that "you don’t have to reinvent the wheel." Also, the state already is crisscrossed by oil pipelines, he said.
"For some people, the only answer is ‘please don’t change what we have right now,’ " the governor said, adding that he would rather have Canadian oil moving through the United States than crude from the Mideast or Venezuela.
I think those financial safeguards that the Governor is talking about comes from South Dakota taxpayers [Correction, later I found out that it is the refined product that provide the funds to take care of underground tanks at service stations. I was told that there is only a couple of million currently in the fund.] While I agree with the Governor regarding the merits of the project. We should not let Big Oil trample on property rights before the pipeline project is started, during its operation, and after the pipeline's useful life has ended. Cory Heidelberger has a post on this subject that makes an excellent point:
Why else would our governor have done absolutely nothing to help landowners threatened with eminent domain (and claimed he hadn't been aware he was supposed to do anything)? Why else would the Republicans on the State Senate Agriculture and Natural Resources kill SB 138, which would have required TransCanada and other pipeline companies to put up some guarantee of financial responsibility for any damage caused by a pipeline accident? (Note: Democratic Senator Tim Johnson and Representative Stephanie Herseth-Sandlin think such a requirement is perfectly reasonable.)
A quick glance north will demonstrate that we don't have to bend over backwards to accommodate TransCanada. North Dakota has been asking for some concessions from TransCanada and getting them. ND's Public Service Commission has gotten TransCanada to agree to lay thicker pipe near the Fordville aquifer and Lake Ashtabula. The City of Fargo played hardball with TransCanada and got them to add some safety features to protect the city's water sources. The ND Forest Service got TransCanada to agree to use horizontal drilling, a method that costs five times as much as regular trenching, and adjust the pipeline route to minimize its span across the Pembina Gorge area.
A few environmental regulations and resistance to eminent domain aren't going to stop TransCanada. They've got oil that's worth $90 a barrel now, twice its value five years ago, and will only increase in value as demand increases and supplies dwindle. Like any business, they want to maximize their profit, and their accountants could probably show us that it's worth the gamble for TransCanada to pay lawyers to try getting the land for cheap through eminent domain and to pay lobbyists to tell our legislators that bond requirements are an excessive financial burden. We all do that when we negotiate: we argue for the best deal we can imagine, then settle for a deal that works.
Almost nothing South Dakota can do regulatorily will make TransCanada say, "Ah, forget it, we don't really want to build this pipeline. We'll just leave this oil in the tar sands." We could bring back SB 138 and double the requirements.
I am most disappointed in the lack of concern over property rights by the leadership of the SD GOP. Yes, this is good for economic development, but I thought Senator Lintz was more supportive of the individual property rights of landowners. Like Heidelberger points out, we will not stop this project by simply doing what is right for the landowners of South Dakota (cuurent and future), South Dakotans who drink from the waters that will be in harms way (cuurent and future), and the taxpayers of South Dakota who may be stuck with paying for cleanup of a huge mess (cuurent and future).
Recent Comments