ETP’s Misleading Notices and What Happens Next

This article by William Petroski was originally published in the Des Moines Register on January 8th, 2015. To view, go to http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/politics/2015/01/08/iowa-bakken-oil-pipeline-opposition-meetings/21449265/.

Des Moines Register: Activists say pipeline meeting notices were deficient

A coalition of Iowa environmental groups wants the Iowa Utilities Board to block a Texas company from filing a request to construct a pipeline that would transport crude oil from North Dakota’s Bakken oil fields through 18 Iowa counties.

The 13 advocacy organizations, led by the Iowa Chapter of the Sierra Club, contends Dakota Access LLC, a unit of Dallas-based Energy Transfer Partners, failed to give proper notice before conducting statewide public information meetings last month to explain details of the project.

The environmental coalition alleges the company published newspaper notices saying the pipeline would be buried at least 60 inches deep on farmland, but made presentations at informational meetings saying it would be covered by a minimum of 48 inches of soil on agricultural land.

In addition, the coalition says at least one landowner — and possibly others — was not given notice of public information meetings by certified mail. In another instance, a public meeting originally planned for Dec. 2 in Wapello County was rescheduled for Dec. 16 without providing proper notice to landowners, the coalition says.

Under Iowa law, Dakota Access can’t ask state officials for permission to proceed with the pipeline project until public information meetings are held in each county where the transmission corridor would be located.

“The described defects in notice are not mere technicalities,” wrote Wallace Taylor of Cedar Rapids, a lawyer for the Sierra Club, in a motion filed this week with the Iowa Utilities Board. “They affect the rights of landowners and members of the public to attend the informational meetings and learn about the pipeline project and to ask questions and express their thoughts about the project. It is clear that is the purpose and intent of the notice requirement” in Iowa law and state regulations.

The Iowa Utilities Board responded to the environmental coalition on Wednesday by seeking a response from all parties involved by Jan. 20 with replies permitted until Jan. 26. Board spokesman Rob Hillesland said Thursday that the board will investigate the coalition’s motion, but state officials have no comment at this time on the merits of the motion.

Vicki Granado, a spokeswoman for Dakota Access, said Thursday that the company is committed to following all of the requirements of the Iowa Utilities Board process and company officials believe they have done so to date. She said Dakota Access plans to file its state application for the pipeline project on or around Jan. 16, based on meeting all of the state’s pre-filing requirements, including requirements for information meetings.

“We are also committed to protecting the environment and agriculture resources in Iowa,” Granado said. “All the publications, discussions and presentations have clearly stated a minimum pipeline cover commitment, and no misrepresentation has occurred. This motion is clearly an attempt to slow down the review process of this critical energy infrastructure project, and the motion is disingenuous to protect the rights of the public or concerned landowners.”

The 18 pipeline information meetings throughout the state in December were heavily attended at packed meeting halls, according to news reports, with more than 300 people attending a meeting last month in Ankeny and about 200 people at Oskaloosa.

Environmental activists have vowed to fight the proposed pipeline, which could carry more than a half-million barrels of North Dakota crude oil daily while slicing diagonally through Iowa on a 1,134-mile route to a distribution center in Patoka, Ill. The project’s supporters say it would provide a safer alternative for transportation than railroad tank cars, and it would have a $1.1 billion economic impact in Iowa, keeping 7,600 workers employed in Iowa for a year. Critics contend the project’s economic benefits are overstated.

The use of eminent domain to acquire land for the pipeline could also become an issue during the upcoming session of the Iowa Legislature, which convenes Monday. However, Gov. Terry Branstad said Wednesday he opposes “political interference” by state lawmakers in the Utilities Board’s proceedings.

Who is involved

The 13 groups that filed the motion with the Iowa Utilities Board include: