Pipeline study continuation, land rehab proposed
The Natural Resources Committee heard testimony Feb. 16 on two bills related to oil pipeline routing and construction in Nebraska.
LB1161, sponsored by Papillion Sen. Jim Smith, would make changes to law enacted during a November special session called by Gov. Dave Heineman to regulate oil pipeline routing in Nebraska.
Concern over the state’s lack of oil pipeline regulation was sparked by TransCanada’s proposed Keystone XL pipeline, which is intended to carry crude oil from Canada to Gulf Coast oil refineries.
Lawmakers passed LB4 during the special session, authorizing the state Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) to collaborate with a federal agency or agencies in a review under the National Environmental Policy Act involving a supplemental environmental impact statement (EIS) for oil pipeline projects within, through or across the state.
The bill also specified that Nebraska would fully fund the state portion of the process and the preparation of the supplemental EIS, to avoid any appearance of impropriety.
Smith said LB1161 was introduced in response to action taken at the federal level since the November special session. TransCanada’s permit application for the Keystone XL pipeline was denied by President Barack Obama, citing insufficient time to study the environmental impact, Smith said.
“Unfortunately, we could not anticipate the actions that occurred at the federal level that have jeopardized our work,” Smith said.
Smith proposed an amendment to LB1161 that would broaden language regarding DEQ’s authority for studying proposed pipeline routes. As amended, the bill would allow a DEQ study to determine the route of an oil pipeline within, through or across the state to be included in an application to a federal agency or agencies.
Smith said the amendment would uphold the spirit of the agreement made during the special session because TransCanada intends to reapply for a permit to construct Keystone XL.
“This [bill] would make certain that Nebraska has provided the very best information on alternative routes,” he said.
The proposed amendment also would change the effective date of the Major Oil Pipeline Siting Act, passed as LB1 during the November special session.
Under the act, the Public Service Commission (PSC) is responsible for evaluating and approving pipeline siting applications, as well as holding public hearings to gather citizen input. In addition, an approved application is required prior to a company being granted eminent domain rights.
Under Smith’s proposed amendment to LB1161, the Major Oil Pipeline Siting Act would apply only to applications received after Jan. 1, 2013.
Robert Jones of TransCanada testified in favor of the proposed amendment, saying the company intends to refile for a permit for the Keystone XL and would like to proceed in the same manner agreed to during the special session.
“We need a process to make sure we can fulfill our commitment,” he said.
Mike Linder, executive director of DEQ, also testified in support of the bill. When the presidential permit for the Keystone XL pipeline was denied, the U.S. Department of State stopped working with Nebraska on the supplemental EIS, he said.
Linder said LB1161 and the proposed amendment would allow DEQ to continue its evaluation of an alternative route for the Keystone XL pipeline through Nebraska.
“The department has been unable to complete the task given us by the Legislature,” he said.
Ken Winston of the Nebraska Chapter of the Sierra Club testified in opposition, saying Smith’s proposals constituted “the unilateral repudiation” of the agreement reached by all interested parties during the special session.
“TransCanada now wants a special law passed to accommodate them since their application was denied,” Winston said.
Randy Thompson of Martell agreed, saying no valid reason exists for changing the laws passed in November.
“I think we’re getting on a very slippery slope when our lawmakers start reshaping and changing our existing laws just for the benefit of one company,” he said.
Ben Gotschall, energy director for Bold Nebraska, also testified in opposition to the bill. There is no pending pipeline permit, he said, so the conditions that prompted passage of LB4 during the special session no longer exist.
“If we start doing political favors for TransCanada now, where does it stop?” he asked.
A second bill, LB845, was introduced by Cedar Rapids Sen. Kate Sullivan and would address reclamation requirements following oil pipeline construction.
The bill would amend the Oil Pipeline Reclamation Act and require that:
• genetically appropriate and locally adapted native plant materials and seeds be used based on site characteristics and vegetation as determined by a preconstruction site inventory;
• final grading, topsoil replacement, installation of erosion control structures , seeding and mulching be completed within 30 days of backfill except when weather conditions, extenuating circumstances or unforeseen developments prevent it;
• all reclamation including choice of seed mixes, method of reseeding, weed and erosion control measures and monitoring be conducted in accordance with the Federal Seed Act, the Nebraska Seed Law and the Noxious Weed Control Act; and
• all seed mixes be state-certified seeds in accordance with the Nebraska Seed Law and mulch be installed as required by site contours, seeding methods and weather conditions or when requested by a landowner.
Sullivan said the bill’s provisions are based on reclamation requirements in Montana and South Dakota and reflect practices already used by large oil companies.
Dean Edson, executive director of the Nebraska Association of Resources Districts, testified in support of the bill, saying it is critical to protect the state’s natural resources from the disruptions caused by pipeline construction.
“This is something all landowners can and should reasonably expect,” he said.
No opposition testimony was given on LB825 and the committee took no immediate action on either bill.
