Poor leadership nudged push for eminent domain (S Dakota)
Apr 20, 2008
Eminent domain is now front and center in the TransCanada Keystone Pipeline project.
Eminent domain, according to library.findlaw.com, is sometimes called "condemnation," and is the legal process by which a public body (and certain private bodies, such as utility companies, railroads, redevelopment corporations and -- in this case -- a pipeline company) is given the legal power to acquire private property for a use that has been declared to be public by a constitution, statute or ordinance.
TransCanada's pipeline project is currently waiting on the decision of a judge who will determine whether it's necessary for it to use that process to get 10 parcels of land in Marshall and Day counties.
TransCanada started condemnation proceedings against more than 15 pieces of land disputed in the two counties. Jeff Rauh, a spokesman for TransCanada, said some of the people against whom condemnation proceedings were started have since agreed to easements.
TransCanada needs 97 pieces of land in those two counties; it currently has easements covering 76 of them. That's really not a bad ratio.
Still, it's a shame that push came to shove regarding use of eminent domain. Though it stands to reason there will almost always be holdouts in situations like these, if TransCanada had shown better corporate citizenship or if Gov. Mike Rounds had demanded the company do more to support his citizens, the process might have gone more smoothly. There might have been less resistance and even fewer landowner holdouts.
Responsibly done, this pipeline, which could daily transport up to 530,000 barrels of Canadian crude oil from Hardisty, Alberta, to refineries in Illinois, could help wean the United States off the uncertainties of Mideast oil supplies. This is a good thing; one that few would argue with [sic].
The problem is that TransCanada came into South Dakota with all the subtlety of a bulldozer and all the charm of a Hell's Angel. Had the company approached South Dakotans with an open hand -- extended in support of local communities -- rather than a closed, threatening fist against landowners who questioned it or showed resistance, things might have turned out dramatically differently.
As we've said before, we're not going to debate the science part of this pipeline project. We believe that TransCanada has designed the pipeline infrastructure with technological standards that will minimize accidents. That's only good business on its part.
Still, we were glad to see the South Dakota Public Utilities Commission set 57 conditions with which the company had to comply and requiring a $12 million bond in 2009 to make sure money is available to repair any damages to roads and bridges during construction. Quite frankly, the PUC seemed more concerned about South Dakota citizens than its governor.
Gov. Rounds obviously supports TransCanada's efforts and wants to see the pipeline run through the state. That position is both acceptable and understandable. However, Rounds could have put pressure -- any pressure at all -- on the company to support his people; to take care of them in ways both small and large. Why not, for example, urge TransCanada to give back to communities by helping them with projects; help them build a pool or enhance a city park?
The governor -- our state's highest elected officer -- has been much too quiet.
We think that the pipeline project will happen just the way TransCanada wanted it to all along. It's just really too bad that some South Dakota landowners had to be relegated to second-class citizens in the process.
http://www.tradingmarkets.com/.site/news/Stock%20News/1398785/
