• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Farmers fight Eminent Domain

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Farmers fight oil firm's eminent domain petition
THE WASHINGTON POST



LE ROY, Ill. — This expanse of central Illinois is as flat as a pancake, with corn and soybean fields stretching to the horizon, interrupted only by a smattering of small towns.

But it is also a 175-mile missing link in Enbridge's Alberta-to-Texas pipeline network to transport gooey, thick bitumen oil sands to Gulf Coast refineries.

By connecting the southern Illinois oil transport hub of Patoka with an Enbridge pipeline near Pontiac, Ill., the Canadian firm, in partnership with Exxon Mobil, could beat out other companies that have also announced plans for pipelines connecting Canada to the Gulf Coast.

Several farmers are standing in Enbridge's way, however, refusing to let the company build the pipeline through their land. At a public meeting, Bob Kelly, 81, called Enbridge "highway robbers." He said there is no way he will allow the company to tear up farmland that has been in his family for 125 years. "It's not for sale at any price," he said.

Enbridge is offering to pay farmers market value for use of a 120-foot-wide strip of their land, plus fees for crop loss and soil damage.

The farmers would retain the rights to their land, and the company said they could continue farming on top of the pipeline, which would be 5 feet underground once completed. A number of farmers have signed on.

"It should be seen as progress to bring some crude oil down here to central Illinois," said John Gramm, 76, of Gridley. "It's good for business and labor, and it makes us less dependent on foreign oil."

Arguing that the pipeline would provide a public benefit, Enbridge has petitioned the Illinois Commerce Commission to grant it the power of eminent domain. About 250 regional landholders have filed with the panel as "interveners" to argue against the petition.

One of them is Carlisle Kelly (no relation to Bob), a Le Roy farmer who owns one of the area's rare wooded, hilly patches of land. He bought the land a decade ago to nurture wild turkeys and other wildlife, and he took advantage of federal grants to plant thousands of trees and thousands of acres of prairie grass. He said he was "more than furious" when Enbridge representatives told him the company had bought a defunct pipeline that runs through his land and needed to survey the area for the new pipeline.

"I bought this land with my hard-earned money from working all my life on the railroad," said Kelly, 54. "If they pay enough they'll find people willing to sell, and they can build their pipeline in a zigzag pattern. But they can't force me to give up my land."

In 1997 the Illinois Commerce Commission rejected a request by Lakehead Pipe Line, an Enbridge subsidiary, for eminent domain to build a pipeline in northern Illinois.

"This is not a public agency carrying out a public project like a highway," said Howard A. Learner, president of the Environmental Law and Policy Center, based in Chicago. "It's a private Canadian company moving oil to make a profit."

Farmers said they are concerned about a fire along an Enbridge pipeline in Minnesota that killed two welders in November and incidents on Enbridge pipelines in Wisconsin, including a 126,000-gallon spill in February that contaminated the water table. They also worry that the pipeline would interfere with the underground tile drainage system needed to keep their once-swampy land farmable.

Enbridge spokeswoman Denise Hamsher said that there would be little danger from the pipeline and that farmers would be compensated for any damage.

Thomas J. Pliura, a Le Roy attorney for residents opposed to the petition, said locals think they would get no direct benefit from the pipeline.

"The irony is you have a Canadian foreign company coming in here demanding eminent domain to take American land to transport oil that could then be sold to China," said Pliura.

The 36-inch-diameter Pontiac-Patoka pipeline would transport 400,000 barrels of diluted oil sands daily, with the capacity for 800,000 if pumping stations were added.
 

Bill

Well-known member
Sandhusker said:
Farmers fight oil firm's eminent domain petition
THE WASHINGTON POST



LE ROY, Ill. — This expanse of central Illinois is as flat as a pancake, with corn and soybean fields stretching to the horizon, interrupted only by a smattering of small towns.

But it is also a 175-mile missing link in Enbridge's Alberta-to-Texas pipeline network to transport gooey, thick bitumen oil sands to Gulf Coast refineries.

By connecting the southern Illinois oil transport hub of Patoka with an Enbridge pipeline near Pontiac, Ill., the Canadian firm, in partnership with Exxon Mobil, could beat out other companies that have also announced plans for pipelines connecting Canada to the Gulf Coast.

Several farmers are standing in Enbridge's way, however, refusing to let the company build the pipeline through their land. At a public meeting, Bob Kelly, 81, called Enbridge "highway robbers." He said there is no way he will allow the company to tear up farmland that has been in his family for 125 years. "It's not for sale at any price," he said.

Enbridge is offering to pay farmers market value for use of a 120-foot-wide strip of their land, plus fees for crop loss and soil damage.

The farmers would retain the rights to their land, and the company said they could continue farming on top of the pipeline, which would be 5 feet underground once completed. A number of farmers have signed on.

"It should be seen as progress to bring some crude oil down here to central Illinois," said John Gramm, 76, of Gridley. "It's good for business and labor, and it makes us less dependent on foreign oil."

Arguing that the pipeline would provide a public benefit, Enbridge has petitioned the Illinois Commerce Commission to grant it the power of eminent domain. About 250 regional landholders have filed with the panel as "interveners" to argue against the petition.

One of them is Carlisle Kelly (no relation to Bob), a Le Roy farmer who owns one of the area's rare wooded, hilly patches of land. He bought the land a decade ago to nurture wild turkeys and other wildlife, and he took advantage of federal grants to plant thousands of trees and thousands of acres of prairie grass. He said he was "more than furious" when Enbridge representatives told him the company had bought a defunct pipeline that runs through his land and needed to survey the area for the new pipeline.

"I bought this land with my hard-earned money from working all my life on the railroad," said Kelly, 54. "If they pay enough they'll find people willing to sell, and they can build their pipeline in a zigzag pattern. But they can't force me to give up my land."

In 1997 the Illinois Commerce Commission rejected a request by Lakehead Pipe Line, an Enbridge subsidiary, for eminent domain to build a pipeline in northern Illinois.

"This is not a public agency carrying out a public project like a highway," said Howard A. Learner, president of the Environmental Law and Policy Center, based in Chicago. "It's a private Canadian company moving oil to make a profit."

Farmers said they are concerned about a fire along an Enbridge pipeline in Minnesota that killed two welders in November and incidents on Enbridge pipelines in Wisconsin, including a 126,000-gallon spill in February that contaminated the water table. They also worry that the pipeline would interfere with the underground tile drainage system needed to keep their once-swampy land farmable.

Enbridge spokeswoman Denise Hamsher said that there would be little danger from the pipeline and that farmers would be compensated for any damage.

Thomas J. Pliura, a Le Roy attorney for residents opposed to the petition, said locals think they would get no direct benefit from the pipeline.

"The irony is you have a Canadian foreign company coming in here demanding eminent domain to take American land to transport oil that could then be sold to China," said Pliura.

The 36-inch-diameter Pontiac-Patoka pipeline would transport 400,000 barrels of diluted oil sands daily, with the capacity for 800,000 if pumping stations were added.

A Canadian foreign company? So it would be OK if it was a Canadian NON-foreign company such as well ............... hey, AMERICAN! :lol: :lol: :lol:

Of course we should raise the paranoia up a notch and throw the Chinese into the article as potential customers of that bad 'ol Canadian energy.
 

don

Well-known member
fine, don't build the pipeline. i'm sure you'd rather import more oil from the middle east - if the chinese haven't already bought it up. heck if you don't want the canadian product the chinese will probably take it too.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
don said:
fine, don't build the pipeline. i'm sure you'd rather import more oil from the middle east - if the chinese haven't already bought it up. heck if you don't want the canadian product the chinese will probably take it too.

Read the article again and ask yourself what it was really about. The title might be a clue.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
don said:
does it have something to do with the constitution?

Maybe if you read the Constitution, you could get into an intelligent conversation on what it covers. I wouldn't guarantee your conversation would be intelligent, just that actually reading the document would be the place to start.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Bill-Don-- you may not know it- but that is a huge political issue in the States right now-- the use of the power of Eminent Domain by corporate entities....Came to light with the courts backing the removal of many folks from their houses so some corporate conglomerate could put up a new Hotel Complex or something like that...

Many states have passed laws against it in just the last few years.....
 

don

Well-known member
sh: I wouldn't guarantee your conversation would be intelligent, just that actually reading the document would be the place to start.

likewise, i'm sure!
 

don

Well-known member
when you have quoted jurisidiction and powers of the branches of government i have gone and read thos sections. all it showed me is that you just don't understand it.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
don said:
when you have quoted jurisidiction and powers of the branches of government i have gone and read thos sections. all it showed me is that you just don't understand it.

And you brought what to refute me?
 

Bill

Well-known member
Sandhusker said:
Always a victim, eh, Bill? What's it like having everybody out to get you?

Look into your mirror Sadhusker.

Who brought the article here? Who is whining? Who is trying to use it to portray themselves as the victim?
 

don

Well-known member
well, i read that congress has the power to ratify trade agreements although the process has been somewhat changed so that the president has more powers than he used to but nowhere have i read that the constitution is being breached. now maybe you have been burning the midnight oil and have a brilliant strategy to show otherwise but even people against free trade agreements aren't arguing constitutional challenge so i'll just accept it's another wilda$$ claim of yours.
 

don

Well-known member
it's only going to get worse.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/20/business/20invest.html?ei=5065&en=a9653dd7c70ac837&ex=1201410000&partner=MYWAY&pagewanted=print
 

don

Well-known member
well then get on it and make your case there perry mason! look forward to seeing the press on your progress.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
don said:
well then get on it and make your case there perry mason! look forward to seeing the press on your progress.

I've tried to explain it to you several times before. You just claim that you don't think I know wht I'm talking about - without bringing anything that suposrts your claim. Why repeat myself? I know what the Constitution says and what it means. You're the foreigner that wants to argue, and I really couldn't care less if you understant it or not. You look up the answer if you want to learn anything.

Try to find out if those "changes" were legal. Remember, the Constitution is the highest law in the land.. It can be changed, though.
 

don

Well-known member
from earlier post: but nowhere have i read that the constitution is being breached

so make your case.

http://www.newswithviews.com/Spivey/phyllis2.htm

there's one that doesn't like nafta either but she isn't challenging the constitutionality of the process so i guess it's up to you.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Fine, let's use what you've brought.

What do you think "Constitutional Mandate" means? Remember, the Constitution is the highest law - the final word.

Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution states that Congress – not the president -- shall have the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations.

OK, don, here the Constitution - the highest law" says the Congress will regulate commerce. Any questions so far?

Congress retained that power until 1934, when it enacted "The Trade Agreements Act" and relinquished constitutional prerogatives to the president, then Franklin Roosevelt.

Now, here you have Congress relinquishing power that the highest law says is theirs alone. First question to you; When was the Constitution amended to allow that? It wasn't. Therefore, the President having authority the Constitution says is not his is unconstitutional. How simple can this be?

Article II, Section 2 requires that treaties be approved by two-thirds of the Senate.

When did GATT, NAFTA, etc... get approved by 2/3 of the Senate? Answer, they never were. How, then can that be legal and binding if the requirements for passage never happened?
 
Top