One of the ugliest realities of new proposed pipelines for the Susquehanna Watershed is the threat of eminent domain.
When interstate pipelines receive certain permits from the Federal energy Regulatory Commission, they often have the power to – and history proves have in fact – taken private land for industrial use. The proposed Atlantic Sunrise Pipeline Project promises to be no exception.
The Atlantic Sunrise Pipeline, or the Central Penn Lines North and South, would create a shortcut between the existing Transco Leidy Line in Columbia County with the Transcontinental Gas Pipeline in Lancaster County. It is a greenfield pipeline, meaning it would create a new Right-Of-Way (ROW). If constructed, Atlantic Sunrise will be 178 miles long, with at least 2 new compressor stations in Susquehanna and Columbia Counties, Pennsylvania.
Unfortunately, federal agencies often won’t disclose lists of private citizens potentially affected by proposed pipeline projects. Disclosing impacted landowner lists is not only vital to informing local citizens about potential eminent domain threats, but to informing the general public about potential federal agency actions that affect community and environmental health, well-being, and safety.
Lower Susquehanna Riverkeeper is working to ensure full transparency from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and Transco as the application process moves forward. In particular, we use tools like the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).Stay tuned for more updates as we continue to advocate for transparent, scientifically-vetted, and accountable decisionmaking from federal agencies, all towards the goal of protecting community health and water quality in the Susquehanna.
The Freedom of Information Act establishes a general philosophy of full agency disclosure. Congress enacted FOIA in 1966 to ensure the public’s right of access to information regarding the conduct of government affairs. The basic purpose of FOIA is to ensure an informed citizenry, vital to the functioning of a democratic society, needed to check against corruption and to hold the governors accountable to the governed.As the Supreme Court has declared: “FOIA is often explained as a means for citizens to know what ‘their Government is up to.’” NARA v. Favish, 541 U.S. 157, 171 (2004) (quoting U.S. Dep’t of Justice v. Reporters Comm. for Freedom of the Press, 489 U.S. 749, 773 (1989). The Court elaborated that “[t]his phrase should not be dismissed as a convenient formalism.” Id. at 171-72. Rather, “[i]t defines a structural necessity in a real democracy.” Id. at 172. In enacting FOIA, Congress was “principally interested in opening administrative processes to the scrutiny of the press and public.” Renegotiation Bd. v. Bannercraft Clothing Co., 415 U.S. 1, 17 (1974).
Jun 17
Comments on Proposed Chesapeake Bay LNG Export Facility
Letters & Petitions, Official Statements
by LowSusRiverkeeper
On June 16th, 2014 we submitted this technical comment letter detailing why the proposed Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) Export Facility in Lusby, MD cannot move forward because of significant flaws in its environmental review.
The comment letter was submitted to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), the federal agency with authority over proposals to export and import natural gas. As we’ve discussed in previous posts, FERC is the federal agency that is responsible for assessing the environmental impacts of LNG export proposals pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).
The proposal to export LNG from the Chesapeake Bay via the existing, Lusby MD import terminal is bad news for upstream watersheds and communities like the Susquehanna. This is because LNG export from the Chesapeake is specifically tied to development of shale gas reserves like the Marcellus and Utica, shale reserves which underlay much of the Susquehanna River Basin and Pennsylvania.
Development of these shale plays is and continues to occur via the use of hydraulic fracturing, an inherently polluting industrial practice that, in order to extract shale gas, disturbs wide swaths of intact forest, meadow, and farmland, disturbs headwater creeks and vital fisheries habitat, and threatens groundwater supplies with its deep-earth injections. Furthermore, its infrastructure – like new and expanded pipelines, compressor stations, and the like – is already converting valuable cropland and threatening public safety and well-being throughout the downstream Lower Susquehanna. For instance, the proposed, controversial Lancaster Co. natural gas pipelines are part and parcel of helping bring gas from upstream watersheds to the export facility in the Chesapeake.
These and other environmental impacts associated with shale gas development in the Susquehanna and Mid-Atlantic are what FERC’s environmental review should have considered. Unfortunately, FERC has turned a blind-eye to these types of impacts, and refused to consider them as it moves forward in trying to authorize LNG export from the Chesapeake Bay. In fact, FERC not only refused to consider impacts to upstream communities like the Susquehanna, it also refused to even perform a robust study, choosing to perform an abbreviated review – called and Environmental Assessment – instead of a thorough, probing review – called an Environmental Impact Statement.
Lower Susquehanna Riverkeeper will continue its strong, science-based advocacy to ensure decisionmakers rightfully consider the full-range of impacts that an LNG export facility in the Chesapeake will mean for upstream communities and watersheds like the Susquehanna.
Tags: chesapeake bay LNG export, comment letter, FERC, LNG export, pipelines Susquehanna, Susquehanna fracking