Oil and water does not mix

SB190 was hoghoused yesterday by the South Dakota Senate Republicans:

A proposal that would have put a fee on crude-oil pipelines to pay for cleaning up any leaks was rejected Tuesday by the South Dakota Senate after an opponents said it would amount to over-regulation.

The fee was killed when senators completely changed the bill, taking out the fee and replacing it with language that would require companies to work with the state Department of Environment and Natural Resources to prepare emergency response plans before building oil pipelines.

The rewritten version of the bill also would require a pipeline company to clean up any spill, no matter who caused the problem. It also would set up a task force to review state laws and regulations on underground pipelines for oil, gasoline, natural gas, ethanol and water.

The Senate voted 19-16, mostly along party lines, to send the new version of the bill to the House for further debate. Democrats supported the fee measure, while Republicans backed the rewritten version.

Dave Knudson, Senate Majority Leader who also voted against the Bill in committee said this:

Senate Republican Leader Dave Knudson of Sioux Falls won the Senate's approval to remove the fee and replace it with language regulating how companies devise and use emergency response plans.

Knudson said an oil pipeline would benefit South Dakota's economy, and he is unaware that any other state has imposed a fee such as the one proposed in the original bill. South Dakota needs to balance its encouragement of economic development and its protection of the environment, he said.

"This pipeline is good for America. This pipeline is good for South Dakota. We don't need to over-regulate and overreact," Knudson said.

Cory Heidelberger responded with this:

Does anyone else see the irony?

1. Our state Senate Republicans argue that running an oil pipeline through the state to refineries in Illinois and Oklahoma is so essential to our economic development that we don't dare tax its hazardous contents;
2. Our Republican President decides that building a water pipeline to eastern South Dakota and all the economic development it makes possible deserves zero funding.

Oh well. We can always drink oil.

Assuming we do continue with the Lewis and Clark Water Project, how much of the project will cross over the TransCanada crude oil pipeline? Perhpas we will be drinking the oil. Below is the proposed Lewis and Clark water project:

Current rural water representatives, most vocal has been Kurt Hohn, have huge concerns over contamination risks to East South Dakota water resources. Landowners and others have huge concerns over oil contamination risks in regard to aquifers. And all the Knudson and Governor Rounds want to talk about is "economic development". But is this pipeline in line with South Dakota’s agricultural and wildlife enterprises that rely on quality water resources? And as I have already pointed out, there are existing refineries who can expand to deal with the tar sands crude. Perhaps this is one economic development idea that South Dakota should take a pass on. After all, water and oil does not mix.