New Pipeline Threatens East River, But Keystone XL May Go Away!

9 Comments

  1. I would like to bash daugaard more, so isn't his pro-KXL stance an election issue? also, I noticed in the debate yesterday he didn't claim Atlas mitigation as one of his phenomenal natural disaster response achievements. did the state eventually make all nice with the stranded ranchers, or "was that a federal matter"? :)

  2. This was my response last March. Forgive me for repeating it.

    Obama does not want to have the refusal available as fuel for the Republicans during the midterm election cycle. Therefore, any delay he or other Democrats can create is to the good.
    Cowardice? Naah. Simple political manuevering. Taking the heat for not making the decision is small potatos.

    So who is going to start screaming "Not in my backyard!" next? Those nice Canadians.

  3. Maybe I missed this somewhere but I am curious as to how many landowners/farmers and ranchers are fighting this going directly across their land. Anyone know? What percentage?

  4. Cory notice the comments diminish here and on other more pressing South Dakota threads you have put considerable time into due to the hijacking by this fella Angelo on the Betty Olson thread? Conversations regarding differing opinions is one thing but this is crazy. What's next some attention starved white supremacist or Neo Nazi?

  5. If we South Dakotans come out of all this pipeline nonsense both safer and wiser, I'll give my oceanfront property in Minnesota to whoever saved our collective patootie.

  6. Lynn, in 2008 when TransCanada first came into the area threatening ranchers with eminent domain Dakota Rural Action stepped forward and organized landowners into a group, Protect South Dakota Resources, that negotiated directly with TC to obtain a fairer easement. Our PSDR members controlled about a third of the 313 miles going through SD. These landowners had a strong presence at the PUC hearings on the Keystone XL permit hearings. Because of our participation in the hearings the PUC added an additional 50 conditions onto the permit. Because of grassroots opposition to the KXL the pipeline permit expired after four years with no construction being done. Now TransCanada must certify to the PUC that all these original permit conditions are being satisfied and that their permit should be renewed. Dakota Rural Action, landowners, tribal allies, and others will be at these hearings testifying that conditions have changed in the past four years and that the PUC should not renew the permit.

  7. Paul that's great! I lived out of state during the time of the 1st TransCananda pipeline. I'm curious if what they promised in tax revenue, jobs and economic benefit for school districts, counties and the state ever came true? Have there been issues with the 1st pipline so far?

  8. Author

    And your comment section is closed, Ken, so I can't respond there. Darn it! Nonetheless, glad to hear from you!

    And I concede none of my arguments against the pipeline. It is unnecessary and harmful no matter which way it runs. I am saying that if all my rhetorical might is insufficient to stop the pipeline from happening, then yes, I would rather it run somewhere other than South Dakota. I would rather that the country that stands to reap most of the benefits host as many of the externalities as possible rather than foisting those externalities onto South Dakota, which gains little of anything from the pipeline.

Comments are closed.