More

Keystone Pipeline Hearing: Small Nebraska Town Prepares For Controversy

Nebraska Keystone Protest

By GRANT SCHULTE   09/29/11 09:06 PM ET   AP

ATKINSON, Neb. -- Bruce Boettcher strolls over a hilltop in desolate Nebraska ranching country, stares down at the tightly packed sand around his boot, clenches his jaw and kicks a fistful into the breeze.

Four generations have worked the land where 55-year-old rancher tends cattle. His rolling, sunburnt 480 acres sit atop the Ogallala aquifer, an underground water supply that has become ground zero in a national fight over the Obama administration's environmental and economic priorities.

The latest showdown unfolded Thursday in a high school gymnasium in the north-central Nebraska town of Atkinson, a farming and ranching community near the Keystone XL pipeline's proposed route. The line operated by Calgary-based TransCanada would carry tar sands oil over the Canadian border and through six states on its way to Texas refineries. U.S. State Department officials are holding hearings this week in Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska, Oklahoma and Texas before they decide whether to grant a federal permit.

Boettcher said he is angry that TransCanada, in his view, has pitted neighbors against one another and tried to quietly rush the project toward approval. A U.S. State Department environmental report has found no major concerns with the project, but opponents question its objectivity.

"They have scientists, they have geologists, they have the EPA, and they find nothing wrong here," Boettcher said. "But the people who live here know more. It's not because we have some title and a name tag. We work with this land. We know what you can do and what you can't do. And this is not one of the things you should not be doing."

Pipeline supporters point to U.S. State Department studies and other water experts who insist the project is safe. Business groups and unions have welcomed the project as a major job-creator that will reduce the nation's dependence on Middle East oil. But the pipeline has drawn fierce opposition from an unlikely coalition of farmers, ranchers and environmental groups who fear it will leak and contaminate the Ogallala aquifer, which supplies drinking and irrigation water to eight states.

Supporters and top TransCanada executives have said the criticism is baseless, and an attempt to stir fears for political gain.

About 300 spectators filled the West Holt High School gymnasium on Thursday, hoping to sway State Department officials before they decide whether to allow the $7 billion project to proceed.

Ron Kaminski, business manager for the Omaha-based Laborers' Local 1140, said calls to reroute the line were a stall tactic. Union supporters arrived in busloads from Nebraska and other states. Pipeline critics have said TransCanada paid the union members to attend, an allegation several members declined to confirm.

"We believe deeply in the jobs this will create," Kaminski said. "We believe deeply in the relationship we have had with TransCanada for years. Unfortunately, not everyone in this room has had the opportunity to work with TransCanada."

On Thursday, as both sides held back-to-back press conferences, Terry Frisch rumbled through the Sandhills in a red, dust-caked Chevy pick-up. The 64-year-old Republican and part-time rancher said he seldom agrees with environmentalists, and has never participated in such a large political fight.

But Frisch said he joined the opposition because parts of his land sit within inches of the top of the underground water table. In the summer, he said, his property often floods.

"It isn't going to affect us near as it's going to affect our kids and their kids," he said. "It's going to be a long-term effect."

Frisch pulled into a pasture with a fellow rancher, Todd Cone, to show how close the water sits to the surface. Cone jammed a post-hole digger into the sandy soil, tossed several loads aside and pointed to the water 18 inches below.

University of Nebraska scientists have differed on whether the pipeline poses a risk. John Stansbury, a water resources engineer, has urged the State Department to deny the permit because of environmental concerns. But emeritus professor Jim Goeke, a hydrogeologist, has said critic claims are false and the pipeline is safe.

The Atkinson hearing, the second and final one in Nebraska this week, showed a divide far larger than other states where the pipeline would run.

Supporters in South Dakota far outnumbered opponents among the crowd of about 250 in Pierre, partly because of Minnesota-based unions that bused in members to testify in support of the project.

Jim Doolittle, a rancher in northwest South Dakota, said he supports the project even though it would cross four miles of his land.

"It's going to be really a boost for the local economy. It's going to be good for the U.S. getting oil from a friendly North American neighbor," said Doolittle, former director of the Black Hills Community Economic Development organization, a member of a business coalition that supports the project.

He added: "I guess we wouldn't support it if we didn't think it was a safe way to transport oil."

___

Associated Press reporter Chet Brokaw contributed from Pierre, S.D.

FOLLOW HUFFPOST GREEN

ATKINSON, Neb. -- Bruce Boettcher strolls over a hilltop in desolate Nebraska ranching country, stares down at the tightly packed sand around his boot, clenches his jaw and kicks a fistful into the br...
ATKINSON, Neb. -- Bruce Boettcher strolls over a hilltop in desolate Nebraska ranching country, stares down at the tightly packed sand around his boot, clenches his jaw and kicks a fistful into the br...
Filed by James Gerken  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 16
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
04:56 PM on 10/03/2011
There is absolutely no doubt in the world that this pipeline WILL leak at some point and will contaminate the largest natural aquifer in the world, a priceless natural resource that is right here in the United States. Not to mention tearing up some of the most beautiful land in Nebraska, the Sand Hills. Look at what happened with the oil spills. That wasn't supposed to happen either. But it did, and we know why.

Are some mostly temporary jobs worth the irreversible destruction this pipeline will eventually cause? I don't think so. We should demand that the pipeline be routed around the aquifer. The Koch brothers can afford it.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
catz1515
11:15 PM on 09/30/2011
It has been two weeks since the Exxon pipeline ruptured into the Yellowstone River and there's still no end in sight for Montanans as they work to clean up the crude oil contaminating their land. Pastureland has been ruined, livestock have been forced to move, and ranchers and residents have reported symptoms of hydrocarbon poisoning.

But despite these continuing examples of the harmful consequences of our addiction to oil, another oil pipeline company, TransCanada, is pushing to build the Keystone XL, a mega-pipeline that would dwarf Exxon's Silvertip and also pass underneath the iconic Yellowstone River.

According to the report, a tar sands oil spill from Keystone XL into the Platte River in Nebraska "would form a plume of oil that could extend more than 450 miles, contaminating drinking water for people as far away as Kansas City, Mo." A similar spill in the Sandhills region of Nebraska "could pollute 4.9 billion gallons of groundwater with a plume of contaminants 40 feet thick, 500 feet wide and 15 miles long."

The other issue is that extracting, refining and burning tar sands oil for the Keystone XL pipeline produces 20 percent more carbon pollution than conventional oil. Building this pipeline would lock us in to a future filled with more pollution and fuel our oil addiction for decades to come, threatening our health, our environment and our economy.
06:15 AM on 10/01/2011
This is from the EPA website on the Yellowstone oil spill. "EPA sampling results for air, water, soil, and sediment data are still available on the EPA spill website. The data shows there are no levels of concern in the water and no elevated levels above instrument detection for volatile organic compounds. EPA site-specific soil sampling result letters went out to 40 landowners affected by the Yellowstone River oil spill. "

I am not thrilled with the keystone Pipeline because I don't like the carbon impacts of tar sands. But the overwrought description above prompted me to see what EPA says about Yellowstone.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
05:01 PM on 10/03/2011
The main problem is the fact that there WAS a spill. And you have to be very, very naive to believe there are no levels of concern. ANY level is a level of concern.
arb24529
Micro Bio? sounds like an abbreviated tweet
09:41 PM on 09/30/2011
They would not be doing this if there were refineries in the northern states, but since the greenies fight every refinery, this becomes the only other option. You can say that we need solar or wind but neither is actually able to operate without carbon based plants since you cant "store" the energy. The environmentalist that tout wind and solar somehow conveniently forget about the need for carbon plants to operate intermittently, to carry our needs during evenings and low wind periods, and existing carbon plants are not designed to be frequently started and stopped and cannot function in that manner.
As to this pipelinethe only thing I can see as a real problem is location, was it the cheapest, damn the landowners?, or was it the easiest? It seems to me that it should have paralleled a rail line to have an easy and low impact right of way.
06:26 AM on 10/01/2011
Arb24529, don't you understand piping oil thousands of miles to the Gulf is just so we can sell the oil to the Chinese?!!! Where do people on these posts get this stuff? Our refinery capacity is in the Gulf of Mexico, we will move the oil from Canada, to the Gulf, refine it and send it into world oil markets. Some of it will move up to the Northeast where consumers will pay alot for heating oil because the transportation costs are high. Most people probably don't understand that the generally liberal Northeastern and New England states, heat most of their homes with heating oil, a ridiculous use of oil. Now that's an issue we should really be working on.
09:10 PM on 09/30/2011
The pipeline will either come into the United States and Americans will get the oil, or the pipeline will go to the Pacific Ocean and the Chinese will buy the oil. Do we send the money to the middle east where many hate and kill us or the Canadians who mostly like us?
08:15 PM on 09/30/2011
First, it sure is convience that this pipeline will be operated by a Canadian company and probably alot of jobs will be held by Canadians contactors making high end income but not Americans.

Second, as quoted in article "But emeritus professor Jim Goeke, a hydrogeologist, has said critic claims are false and the pipeline is safe." Do you think that is what BP scientests said before the gulf disaster? You think?
arb24529
Micro Bio? sounds like an abbreviated tweet
09:34 PM on 09/30/2011
there is a big difference between a well a mile underwater and a pipeline on the surface of land, but maybe that little fact escaped you.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
olitenup
12:04 PM on 09/30/2011
MN bussed in union workers. Gawd, that is disturbing. Same old crap. The building of the pipeline will provide some short term jobs, locally. No one will have long term jobs. Give me a break.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
05:06 PM on 10/03/2011
Exactly, temporary jobs for what will, no doubt, result in permanent damage to the environment. The "jobs" argument does not fly.