Posted on 11/20/2014 11:34:43 AM PST by Bettyprob
LINCOLN, Neb.— For all the angst and anger over the Keystone XL pipeline in Washington, the project’s fate may lie here in Nebraska, where disgruntled landowners are challenging a state law that officials used to approve the pipeline’s path through their property.
After the U.S. Senate rejected a measure to approve the project Tuesday, Republicans who will control the chamber in January said it would be one of the first items on their agenda next year. A more immediate hurdle, though, is the Nebraska suit, which encompasses much of the legal and emotional core of the battle over Keystone.
“I worry that members don’t know there is a pending lawsuit that could take this whole thing back to square one in Nebraska,” said Heather Zichal, an energy consultant who was a top energy and climate adviser in the White House until about a year ago.
The Nebraska Supreme Court is expected to rule in the coming weeks on the case.
Earlier this year, a lower-court judge sided with a trio of landowners who said the state’s Public Service Commission, not the governor, has the authority to allow TransCanada to use the power of eminent domain to build a pipeline beneath their properties against their wishes. The state’s Republican attorney general, Jon Bruning, argues that the law does give the governor such power for certain major pipelines, including Keystone XL. About 200 miles of the 1,179 mile-project would run through Nebraska.
“Our goal is to make damn sure that our legislature and governor follow our constitution,” Randy Thompson, one of the landowners who is suing the Nebraska attorney general, said in an interview at his home outside of Lincoln, Neb.
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
I'm 100% with you on that, brother.
I support construction of the pipeline, but the law must be followed.
SO, Randy Johnson - who is affiliated with which party (and coached by the “energy consultant” for Obola’s White House) - is doing this to stop the pipeline, right?
Eminent Domain as a concept is fine.
I would implement it at 2x market rates and fully acquire the property.
Lease it back at low rates if the guy still wants it.
Kelo pretty much gives the government the authority to take your land for any reason or no reason at all.
In states that allow that. The Supreme Court said in their Kelo decision that states were free to pass laws banning eminent domain for revenue-generating schemes.
You would use taxpayer funds to purchase an entire ranch just to get a 100’ wide swath for a linear utility project?
Did you read the article?
And many did - including Nebraska.
Mr. Thompson, who has become one of the most well-known faces of the anti-Keystone campaign in Nebraska and throughout the U.S., said he doesn’t want the pipeline built at all, because of both its potential local environmental impact and the possibility it will deepen the nation’s dependence on fossil fuels.
TransCanada’s proposed route, which has been revised over the last couple of years, no longer goes through property Mr. Thompson’s family owns.
If you owned property along the pipeline route would you just GIVE them the easements and land they need for the project?
These land owners have been dealing with this issue a long time. they did not arrive on the scene yesterday to try to stop the project.
What does that have to do with the Kelo decision?
Where do you get taxpayer funds?
I’ve been on pipeline projects where we eventually had to use eminent domain for a small piece. The pipeline company pays, regardless if negotiated direct, or settled in the court.
Eminent Domain should NOT be used so cities can increase their tax base.
It doesn’t relate to the Kelo decision.
I should have posted it as a comment to “ALL” rather than direct to you.
Just info for the discussion.
The landowners get a LOT of money for the priviledge of letting the pipe be dug, then covered over. They lose nothing on the surface. The rest? The hype? All propaganda by the democrat-enviro’s.
The democrats will do anything to stop the pipeline. To them, it is a religion. Which, of course, they deny to the rest of us.
Yes. You are correct.
So the question becomes, would you use your stockholders money to buy and entire ranch just to obtain a 100’ swath for a linear utility project.
You did not answer my question.
Pretty much. You can then re-sell the bit you don’t use.
I hate the abuse of Eminent Domain. Usually, they screw the land owner. My suggestion eliminates that possibility.
That would depend on the size of the ranch and the selling price, versus expected court cost and delays.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.