Dear Conservative Tom:
Thank you for contacting me about a proposal for a crude oil
pipeline between Canada and the United States. I appreciate
hearing your views on this matter.
On September 19, 2008, TransCanada Keystone Pipeline
LP submitted an application to the U.S.
Department of State for a Presidential permit to construct,
operate, and maintain pipeline facilities between the
United States and Canada for the transportation
of crude oil. This pipeline, often referred to as the
Keystone XL project, would transport crude
oil from the Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin
to areas in the United States, including Oklahoma
and Texas. This project would create
1,375 miles of new pipeline in the United
States and 327 miles of pipeline in Canada.
The Keystone XL project is subject to the
National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA), which requires the evaluation
of the environmental impacts of
projects submitted for a Presidential permit.
The NEPA requires the preparation of an
Environmental Impact Statement
(EIS), which includes the consideration
of reasonable alternatives to the project.
On April 16, 2010, the State Department, in
cooperation with several federal and
state agencies, released their draft EIS
on the Keystone XL project. The EIS
included the mandatory review of
the environmental impacts of this project,
such as the effect on fish and wildlife,
paleontological resources, surface water,
wetlands, vegetation, air quality, oil spill risks,
and socioeconomics. The EIS also
included several pipeline systems and route
alternatives. The draft EIS was available for
public comment until July 2, 2010. In
April 2011, the State Department offered
a supplemental EIS for public comment,
and subsequently announced a final
EIS in August 2011. However, a proposed
change in the pipeline’s route through an area
of Nebraska called for additional consideration.
On November 10, 2011, the State Department
announced it would seek additional information
about pipeline routes and their alternatives prior to
determining whether or not the project is in
the nation’s best interest. The State Department
estimated that a supplemental environmental
review for a new route alternative could be finalized
by early 2013.
Some argue that any delay in moving forward
with this project would hinder job creation,
while others argue that moving forward
more quickly would cause risk to the
environment. Congress passed the
Temporary Payroll Tax Cut
Continuation Act, which became law on
December 23, 2011 (P.L.112-78).
This legislation gave the Administration
60 days to either grant a permit for the
pipeline project or provide a justification
for why a permit would not be
granted. On January 18, 2012,
the President announced
that the State Department recommended
that the application be denied for the project
under these new time constraints, and he
agreed. The President's full statement can be read
online at [http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/
2012/01/18/statement-president-keystone-xl-pipeline].
Should this matter again come before the Senate,
I will certainly keep your views in mind.
Thank you for writing.
Sincerely,
Carl Levin
I am curious how you, as a conservative, view this federal project from a states rights perspective, given the people of Nebraska (and a bill in the Nebraska state legislature) do not want the pipeline built over the Ogallala Aquifer...
ReplyDeletehttp://content.usatoday.com/communities/ondeadline/post/2011/11/keystone-xl-pipeline-to-be-rerouted-from-nebraska-sand-hills/1
My understanding is that the pipeline company and the State Department have agreed to work out a plan to reroute the pipeline to avoid this problem, but the alternative route has not been developed and researched yet. From the states rights perspective, the other option is to simply ram the federal law (which was attached as an irrelevant rider to the pay-roll tax cut extension) down the throats of Nebraskans as a kind of "imminent domain" exercise (a concept Libertarians vehemently oppose on the basis of property rights and the 10th Amendment).
Anyway, I wanted to get your "take" on it from this perspective.
--David
David, the big issue here is that the government has had this project being reviewed for years. Why now do we hear about the issue with the Sand Hills, sounds like government at its best again. Why was that not an immediate concern? Why at this late date.
ReplyDeleteWhy don't they build a refinery in North or South Dakota to take the oil from Keystone and the Baake formation? It would limit the transportation and would be closer to the source of the oil?
As far as states rights is this not commerce, covered by the commerce clause in the Constitution?
Why is the state department in charge?
Nebraskans have a right to move the pipeline out of sensitive areas, but once again, why at this late date?
It is all politics!
Eminent Domain has been abused i.e. New Jersey case where private homes were taken by eminent domain to build a shopping center. This case withstood Supreme Court muster, I do not know how but it did. Eminent Domain is for building roads and other public works that will benefit the entire population. A shopping center does not meet that requirement.
I do not think that eminent domain was being used in this case as the pipeline might traverse private lands and to which the pipeline company would have access, it would not essentially change the character of the land after the construction was completed. I would assume that the land owners would receive a rental for the land.