In May of 2012 TransCanada informed me that the new Keystone XL pipeline route – a second routing necessitated by objections to the first route passing through so much of the Sandhills – would cross a portion of our farmland.  I explained that no, it wouldn’t because my family had drawn up a conservation easement held by the Nebraska Land Trust which attached covenants to our deed prohibiting this and other destructive activities on our property.  He had never heard of such a thing so naturally he scoffed.  Before long TransCanada sent us an offer of $15,000 to cross our protected property, an offer we refused.
In the coming months the Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) conducted a review of this new route and the public was invited to comment.  We submitted a copy of our deed with a letter explaining what a conservation easement is and why we had one.  Our property contains numerous Native American remains as well as environmentally sensitive wooded wetlands.  Over 100 species of birds have been identified there (many migratory) and at a time when this area is losing habitat at an alarming rate, these last remaining areas need protection.
We attended the meeting at the local Fairgrounds in December of 2012 and when we introduced ourselves to DEQ representatives they knew who we were.  They said they had held a special meeting about our property and that neither TransCanada nor the DEQ had any desire to disturb it.  They even thanked us for caring enough to legally protect our land.
But even though our property was spared I still opposed the pipeline for two reasons.  The first was because of the severe environmental harm that would result from a spill.  And though a smug TransCanada engineer had assured us the pipeline would never leak anywhere, I wasn’t so sure.  Pipeline spills have increased dramatically in recent years and most are the result of corrosion and faulty welds.  TransCanada got in trouble for bad welds and using damaged pipe on the southern section of the route from Oklahoma to refineries in Texas (refineries owned in part by Saudi Arabia) and had decided against using the latest leak detection technology.
Leaks would be all the worse because the Keystone XL pipeline would be carrying “Dilbit,” diluted bitumen, a substance so toxic that if it spills the vapors can kill.  And since it is heavier than water, any leak above the Ogallala Aquifer would sink, contaminating our water supply with cancer-causing chemicals.  Dilbit is so far removed from crude oil that the IRS doesn’t even classify it as petroleum.  This, in turn, exempts TransCanada from paying into the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund.  As a result TransCanada’s liability in the event of a spill would be limited to an amount far below potential cleanup costs.
My second objection was philosophical.  We fought the Revolutionary War to stop a foreign government from denying us our rights.  Yet here was a foreign corporation – not even a government – being allowed to condemn private property across the United States.  We were told we’d benefit economically, but promised tax revenues from the first Keystone pipeline were less than half of what TransCanada had predicted. And only 35 permanent jobs would be created by this second pipeline, many outside Nebraska.  This seemed scant reason to surrender individual property rights to a foreign corporation.
In rejecting the Keystone XL last week, President Obama noted that it was neither “a silver bullet for the economy” nor “the express lane to climate disaster.”  And I agree.  But for people living near the pipeline’s proposed route the risks clearly outweighed the benefits. I say good riddance and I hope we’ve finally heard the last of the Keystone XL.