Thread: Keystone XL Pipeline in a Ron Paul world

Alright Ron Paul supporters, here's a question for you. If we do away with environmental legeslation to protect the U.S. citizens and instead rely solely on property rights how would one protect themselves from being adversely effected? Below is an article for you to consider. Notice, in Texas, Oklahoma and Kansas the situation of no environmental regulations is currently in place with citizens only recourse to sue via the courts, that is if they have the money to take on Trans Canada. To me this is a perfect example of how RP's approach to environmental legeslation is extremely flawed.

http://www.hcn.org/articles/on-keyst...start:int=0&-C

Here's the first page of the article for those too lazy to click the link...

If the Keystone XL oil pipeline were approved today, residents in the six states along its route would not receive equal treatment from TransCanada, the company that wants to build the project.

The differences are particularly striking when it comes to tax revenue and environmental protection. States with stronger regulations have won protections for their citizens, while other states sometimes focused more on meeting TransCanada's needs.

In Kansas, for example, lawmakers gave TransCanada a 10-year tax exemption, which means the state won't receive any property tax revenue from the pipeline. Meanwhile, each of the other five states—Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska, Oklahoma and Texas—would earn between $14 million and $63 million a year, according to U.S. State Department estimates.

When it comes to route changes and protection for landowners, residents of Texas, Oklahoma and Kansas have fared the worst, because their states haven't created any regulations to safeguard their interests.

"All the power is in the hands of the pipeline companies," said Chris Wilson, an independent environmental consultant from Texas who opposes the Keystone XL. Landowners along the route "are really screwed…there's no one in the government they can call for help."

The Obama administration put the Keystone XL on hold in November, saying it needed another year to reassess the environmental risks the project could pose. Republican lawmakers, meanwhile, are trying to force the president to make his decision by February 21. The pipeline would move oil from the tar sands of Alberta to the U.S. Gulf Coast.

Because the Keystone XL would cross state boundaries, both federal and state agencies are involved in its regulation. The U.S. Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) handles safety issues, such as pipeline thickness and operating pressure. Individual states are responsible for pipeline siting, the process that determines a pipeline's exact route within state borders.

But only the state of Montana has chosen to exercise that power, leaving citizens who object to the pipeline's path in other states no option but to shell out money for a court battle, or appeal to local officials who often lack the resources and experience to challenge a major corporation.

In Montana, however, the state's Department of Environmental Quality used a decades-old siting act to minimize environmental damage along the route. TransCanada has rerouted more than 100 miles of the Keystone XL in response to agency and landowner concerns. If the pipeline is approved, the company also must post a bond so funds are available to repair construction-related damage.

DEQ staffer Greg Hallsten, who worked on Keystone XL siting, said that although TransCanada sometimes objected to the agency's reroutes, its complaints were overruled.

"We have [siting] authority in the state," he said. "Our authority's never been challenged along those lines."

TransCanada spokesman Terry Cunha said the vast differences in pipeline regulation reflect the political landscape of each state. "We appreciate that each state has their own guidelines," he said. "It's not up to us to modify or create legislation. We're working with the state governments to meet [their] guidelines and get this project approved."

Other states could follow Montana's lead by pressuring their legislators to create pipeline regulation, said Pat Parenteau, a Vermont Law School professor who studies land use and environmental policy. "If there's a popular enough demand," it can be done, he said.

That's what happened in Nebraska, where residents worked for years to persuade their lawmakers to reroute the Keystone XL out of the ecologically sensitive Sandhills. Farmers and ranchers picketed the governor's mansion, traveled to Washington, D.C. and repeatedly called for a special session to draft siting regulations for interstate pipelines. As the momentum grew, TransCanada offered Nebraska a $100 million dollar spill bond for the Sandhills region—a protection it didn't offer any of the other states.

Nebraska Gov. Dave Heineman finally called a special session in November, where bills were passed to move the pipeline out of the Sandhills and to give the Public Service Commission authority to site future oil pipelines (excluding Keystone XL). TransCanada is now working with state environmental officials to establish a new route for its pipeline.

What Nebraskans have done is very significant, said Mary Boyle, a spokeswoman for the nonpartisan watchdog group Common Cause. Legislators won't act unless they feel outside pressure from constituents, she said, so getting those bills passed is "no small accomplishment…Nebraska citizens clearly proved this can be done."

Would eminent domain even exist in an RP world? Property rights uber alles, and such?

It's a perfect example of how the far right has been able to convince the American middle class to vote against their economic and environmental self-interest.

It's genius. Diabolical genius, but genius nonetheless.

I think (hope) it's changing and people are beginning to wake up and pay attention to these klowns who would be king.

Originally Posted by Dexter Rutecki

Would eminent domain even exist in an RP world? Property rights uber alles, and such?

I don't know...that's where things get confusing with RP...and more than just eminent domain tho...I'm curious if what is happening in KS, OK and TX what the RP folks see as viable way to move forward in lieu of environmental regulation. It seems like if you happen to be wealthy enough to take on Trans Canada then you could take the course of action that some property owners have done to reroute the pipeline...otherwise you're sort of in a tough spot. Plus the lack of even a safety plan for those folks that live in remote areas is a little alarming. The concept of "we won't build it unless you let us do this without any regulation" is very persuasive to some folks apparently.

What keeps Texas, Oklahoma, and Kansas from getting siting laws on the books, other than not electing someone to do it?

Oh right, nothing.....

And in the RP world eminent domain is not constitutional so each landowner along the route (and potentially water right owner) could negotiate individually or collectively as they saw fit.

They average republican has been voting against their own self-interest for many many years, I don't see any reason why they will change now.

Originally Posted by flyman683

What keeps Texas, Oklahoma, and Kansas from getting siting laws on the books, other than not electing someone to do it?

Oh right, nothing.....

And in the RP world eminent domain is not constitutional so each landowner along the route (and potentially water right owner) could negotiate individually or collectively as they saw fit.

Assuming they have the means to do so via the courts.

Originally Posted by Dexter Rutecki

Would eminent domain even exist in an RP world? Property rights uber alles, and such?

A good example of how utterly disfunctional Libertarianism is in the real world would be the current Tea Party dominated state legislature in Montana.

Last year saw TeaBagger vs TeaBagger as two very wealthy groups came head to head over property rights and eminent domain.

The huge energy companies who want to run high-tension power lines and Canadian oil pipelines through Montana vs. the wealthy ranchers who do not want that shit crossing their land.

The Tea Party could not make up their mind which group of wealthy people to listen to.

Eminent domain was so much easier when it was just those low-income Mexican home owners that George W. Bush kicked out using eminent domain to build the Texas Rangers stadium.

Originally Posted by Adolf Allerbush

Assuming they have the means to do so via the courts.

Do what? Negotiate?

Originally Posted by Tuckerman

Do what? Negotiate?

Yup.....

Why the courts? Why not directly (and maybe collectively if owners band together)?

I don't the sue in court to buy a car at the dealer, or a house... Why not use those principles here.?

I'm not saying that's the optimal solution but trying to understand why courts would be involved. Court is for resolving breach of contract, violations of law, etc - they are not arbitration hearings.

Originally Posted by flyman683

Why the courts? Why not directly (and maybe collectively if owners band together)?

I don't the sue in court to buy a car at the dealer, or a house... Why not use those principles here.?

I'm not saying that's the optimal solution but trying to understand why courts would be involved. Court is for resolving breach of contract, violations of law, etc - they are not arbitration hearings.

I think that would work for directly purchasing private property or leasing portions of property from owners maybe, but what I was thinking of are the other circumstances. For example, what if you're concerned about a pipeline leak on your property and want to negotiate in the event of that happening. What's the negitiated price for that? How does one negotiate an unknown? And what if the pipeline owner simply says something like "it'll never leak" or if your'e a farmer you might be concerned with some migratory patterns of say honey bees or something that is critical to your crop, and you're worried the sound or something else from the pipeline might disrupt these patterns, the upfront property negotiations may not be enough. The pipeline operator might request that you prove that your livelihood could be affected. So then you're on the hook for a biological assessment/acoustical assessment to quantify how much to negotiate for, or the operater on the hook for the studies. Or if you want to demonstrate that pipelines leak, you'd have to hire a consultant to demonstrate how often or proove in a court that this is an issue that you want included in the negotiated price of your property access. Stuff like that. I can see it being difficult to negotiate every eventuality of potential environmental degredation from the pipeline upfront. And my understanding of the RP approach is such that once signed into you're sort of F'd. Beyond that proof of environmental degredation from the pipeline at properties where the pipeline is not immediately located would be difficult. So if oil leaks and seeps into a water table affecting a wide area it would would be up to the affected property owners to come up with funds to fight the pipeline operator in court for compensation.

I guess RP's ideas might work....but is it an imporovement over the current set up? In my opinion it's not. Why not have some laws in place to protect folks from financially powerful companies.

Ron Paul wouldn't oppose or attempt to deregulate these protections other states have put in place.

I think looking at what Nebraska did for their state is great testament to what citizens can accomplish at the state level. We have a lot of sway over our local governments, compared to practically none over the federal government. (What could we do to stop the bailouts, the undeclared wars?) That's why I support Ron Paul, the things he and I disagree on, I get to fight at the state level (abortion rights, environmental regulation, prayer in school).
Another very important thing to consider here: Ron Paul won't talk to lobbyists, that takes away a lot of the power big oil has on our corrupt federal government. Thanks for the post, these types of open discussion via alternative media is exactly what our country needs!