 |
Thursday, September 02, 2010
|
|
| | Email this article • Print this article | Oil pipeline OK'd, landowners vow to continue to fight
By Gail Lipe
Even though Minnesota Pipe Line Company's certificate of need and route permit applications for a new crude oil pipeline were approved by the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission (PUC) on Thursday, many of the property owners along the route will be challenging that decision.
"We are very disappointed," said Ron Von Berge, who owns 160 acres that lie in both McLeod and Carver counties. The property has been in his family for 132 years.
Minnesota Pipe Line's MinnCan project will construct a new 24-inch, 304-mile pipeline from the Clearbrook Station in Clearwater County to the Twin City refineries. It follows the current pipeline's right-of way south about 119 miles in the counties of Clearwater, Hubbard, Wadena, Todd and Morrison.
It leaves the right-of-way near Cushing and continues through Morrison, Stearns, Meeker, Wright, McLeod, Carver, Sibley, Scott and Dakota counties.
It passes through about 18 miles of McLeod County, entering between Silver Lake and Lester Prairie on the north and leaving the county near Plato on the south.
The process has taken more than one year from applying for the certificate of need and route permit to the PUC approval last week. Minnesota Pipe Line says the new pipeline will strengthen Minnesota's energy future by alleviating growing concerns over tight oil supplies in the Midwest while decreasing reliance on oil reserves located in more unstable nations.
Now that both the route permit and certificate of need have been approved, construction could begin this summer. It will take about eight months to complete, and the pipeline should be fully operational in 2008, according to a press release from Minnesota Pipe Line.
The next step is for the PUC attorneys to draft the order with the conditions, which should take about three weeks, said Ken Wolf, PUC staff. Once the draft is approved, the official order will be released. Nothing can be done until that time.
After that, property owners can file a request for reconsideration, or a petition, with the PUC to open it up and look at their individual situations. Wolf said the pipeline company has the same right.
The PUC looks at those and decides whether it will reopen the discussion on the project or leave the order as approved, he said.
Another option for the property owners is filing an appeal in the court system, for which several of them are seeking legal advice.
John Carney, attorney for the Minnesota Public Interest Research Group (MPIRG), said appeals have to be filed within 30 days.
Nicholas Keener, field canvass director of MPIRG, said he felt pretty happy with the skepticism from some of the PUC commissioners about Minnesota Pipe Line's notification to property owners. One of the biggest issues throughout the process has been communication.
Many of the property owners were not given route notification in ample time to become a party in the process. Out of about 1,300 landowners, only one had enough information about the process in time to do something, said Donna Von Berge.
"People's rights were violated, and they never got their due process. It's wrong," said Ken Posusta. Posusta's brother, Jonathan, is a McLeod County farmer, and is purchasing 230 acres owned by their parents. That property is being affected by the pipeline.
"People's property is one of the most important things to their livelihood," said Posusta. "They (the pipeline company) need to be held to a higher ethical and moral standard."
In Posusta's opinion, the PUC did not base its decision on what happens to the public. Many property owners appeared and spoke at the all-day PUC hearing last Tuesday, telling the PUC about things like forging a signature on an approval to access property; telling property owners they would get less if the company has to go through the eminent domain process; people not receiving notification because of route changes; etc.
The PUC commissioners heard all those things, but did not take them into account, said Posusta.
Another frustration for many of the landowners has been the lack of help and information. They said the land agents were from a different state, knew nothing about the area and could not answer specific questions.
Donna Von Berge said she tried to get the PUC commissioners to understand that the company would not work with the landowners. The Von Berge's have had three different land agents since the process began who will not discuss, deal or budge on things like the easement purchase price.
Many properties are being crossed at a diagonal, and the property owners feel like the company will not work with them for better solutions.
We wanted to be able to deal with the company and work with them, said Donna Von Berge. The property owners wanted to "be treated like human beings."
She said approving the certificate of need was a "slap in our face. Now they (Minnesota Pipe Line) have the authority to take the easement away."
Not issuing the certificate of need was the only way to slow things down, she said.
Gerald Worm, who owns 143 acres on Zebra Avenue, said he does not see how a certificate of need could be granted. The company does not "need" the pipeline, it wants it for profit.
About 70 percent of the processed crude oil does not stay in Minnesota. Some of it even goes to eastern Canada and New England, he said.
With the current focus on alternative energy sources, especially ethanol, Worm said he does not see where Minnesota needs the extra crude oil.
Another issue property owners talked about is their land being surveyed without permission. In one instance, a property owner called the sheriff's department and reported trespassing.
"These guys are blatantly breaking the law," said Posusta. The only way to get justice is going through the courts.
Some of the conditions that are being placed on the permit are trying to address the communication, access and future development issues, said Keener. But Keener said the PUC and the Department of Commerce (DOC) were inadequate for advocating for the public interest.
"It is upsetting when we have a state entity that is supposed to protect the public in the same pocket as the oil companies," he said.
There needs to be someone in the government that is an advocate for the public to ask questions and find out what their rights really are, said Posusta.
"The current process is severely flawed," he said. There needs to be a process in place where if the utility company breaks the law, there are more "teeth" to the process. The only way to get that is through legislation.
Carney said that is one thing MPIRG plans to address. He said the law for transmission lines is stricter than for pipelines, especially in the notification area. He wants to push to put the same rules on pipelines.
He also said a lot of the land owners have not signed the easement agreements, so the pipeline company will have to start the eminent domain process, against which a vigorous defense is being planned.
Patty Dunn, Minnesota Pipe Line Company's public relations for the MinnCan project, said about 80 percent of the landowners have signed the easement agreements.
Since the PUC has approved the project, construction can begin as soon as the permits have been received from the Army Corps of Engineers and local governing bodies.
About 12 percent of the pipeline crosses through wetlands, said Carney. The Army Corps of Engineers has jurisdiction over all navigable waters, including rivers and tributaries and wetlands that affect them.
Dunn said the company hopes to hear from the Army Corps of Engineers in the spring.
MPIRG and many of the landowners believe there is a chance to stop the pipeline.
"We would not continue if we did not feel optimistic," said Keener.
"We are not giving up," said Carney. "We are opposed as ever to the project. This is just the second phase of the battle."
|
Reader Comments
Posted: Friday, March 09, 2007
Article comment by:
Scott Anderson
Minnesota property owners deserve protection
To the Editor:
As property owners sharing the suffering and hardships created by the MinnCan pipeline project, we urgently ask that you assist everyone in harm’s way by actively supporting the “Buy the Farm - Pipeline Act.”
MinnCan’s crude oil pipeline severely impacts the lives of over 1,000 property owners in Minnesota, by taking their land and offering to pay pennies on the dollar for their property loss.
The MinnCan pipeline will bring more than 165,000 barrels of oil per day across these properties, and create a risk of oil spills in our rich agricultural lands. Such a spill happened recently in Little Falls, where a different Koch pipeline ruptured spilling more than 134,000 gallons and permanently contaminated the land.
The “Buy the Farm — Pipeline Act” is based directly off an existing statute informally called the “Buy the Farm Act” (Minn.Stat 216 E.12).
“Buy the Farm” gives property owners the option to require proposers of high-voltage transmission lines to purchase their entire property rather than just an easement. The new law would simply extend this option to land owners that are affected by large crude oil pipelines.
We believe that this is a fair and reasonable option that enhances the rights of property owners who will be negatively impacted on a permanent basis because they were chosen to “host” the pipeline’s route. It also will become a viable tool in every property owner’s toolbox for constructing a fair settlement with the proposer.
This statute is directly in line with the overwhelmingly public support of eminent domain limits. While the recent eminent domain legislation unfortunately did not affect these types of utility takings, the above bill will bring some power back to Minnesota landowners who are impacted by utility development.
Please share this letter with others you know that are being affected by the proposed MinnCan pipeline route. We strongly urge all of those affected or support the property owners in harm’s way, to call, email, or write their representatives (To find out who represents you go to www.leg.state.mn.us/-leg/Districtfinder.asp), asking them to bring the “Buy the Farm — Pipeline Act” to the floor.
There is power in numbers, and the more interest the representatives receive, the more likely this bill will be heard.
Time is critical and these interests need to be expressed, now. They all need to be sent as soon as possible.
Thank you for your help in spreading the word and voicing your support!
Scott and Kristine Anderson
Farmington
|
Article Comment Submission Form
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
