OCR Text |
Show Wesiern Resources WRAP-UP Pipelines, part 3 ETSI project and law suits p, Helen l Monberg Vernal Kxpress tthlni;tiin Correspondent t 0iiv$ton-Roadblocks luve been in the way of KTSt pipeline "vST(ers' pUnJo start construction of tsjl coal slurry pipeline early in 'm Wyoming 'l1 Ark.iiLv.ts, with V"$ d two law suits on Aug 18 by opponents juits were filed in the U S ict Cixirt in 1-incoln, Nob ...J, u suits alleged the federal ..-r.ment lacks jurisdiction to permits to KTSl allowing for ajjasin Aversion of 50.0rt acre-""i'.er acre-""i'.er ixit of Oahe reservoir on !-sn Rivtr 10 lrastvrt '1 by r$ pipeline. y as built by the federal t-r.ent, and it is managed and ti'.ed by th t'-S. Army Corps of hjrt.'And the suits alleged the -r.erilal impact statement iF.lS haired by the Bureau of Land I jfrr.ent iBLM ' the Interior I MiT.-Tfrt on the ETSI project and Ictf er.urormiental assessments of 1' departments were deficient. I v'j suit was filed by the Kansas "1 .vv-'.Vni Railway Co.. the Sierra I C. x shi'J tV II state chapters, and Nebraska. Iowa and Rocky laij-S (Colorado and Wyoming Izz'-t the atiorkl Farmers I sja-t ETSI and the federal I i--"er.S of the Army. Interior and I xVr suit was filed by the Lower I.jjvt Basin states of Nebraska. js-xri i"d Iowa against the same ;-sii:3 for substantially the same Liver thJ year the Black Hills iiict f:d suit in South Dakota ""' tht state of South Dakota and "Jrr. illS'-"t the allocation of 50. (XV) icsfeeti i Missouri River water out of I ii F.iservotr by the state of South M"a:u'.o ETSI -io!a'.ed Indian water "1 ETSI PROJECT I ETSI coal slurry pipeline project 7 1i je test kaown. most controversial " b;i:er to corstruction than any of iz :cir coal slurry projects under Tlic-ss::. ETSI claims, for example. . p i percer.t of needed nghts-of-w ay ji aoquirei So if necessary, it " I- pcei r.Jut federal eminent " II Ie$la'. :on. .rliTJ:di:s to be the "biggest single .p- r.r.en ever undertaken in the v",pr.ous l'r-.ed States" ie , outside ..t jiii It provides for construction I: l l.i'.C-rr.ile pipeline of 40-inch J ?.s pipe carrying 30 million tons " I: ripe: year from the Pow der River Uzjs: Gillette. Wyo . which would r.'JSe aU or parts of the states of t'"-5. Colorado, Kansas, lxzi and Arkansas. Near the l-tidi-Louisiana border, it would P-'t and the remaining coal rr--! shipped by barge on the C -2iKpi River to Baton Rouge. La serve coal-fired power plants F-Lsicca. Arkansas and Louisiana. TI'tOEove the pulverized coal ;Jr.:f a major problem since the :sp-'g for the five partners P'-g the ETSI joint venture: 'p Richfield (ARCO). Bechtel, "Netraska Natural Gas, "Itp3 Brothers Kunn Loeb. and ?'Jv as'ern- Initially they planned Water t0 m0 the COa' :1LT 'Zt Madison Formation, an !ip?zd aquifer, in Wyoming. v-'sf'-T1 Dakota shares the Madison "pi'ion with Wyoming, and it Fad a law suit against ETSI f HSI used some other source of f South Dakota was dead set ill ff; ETSI project using water FV Madison Formation because, f ;Abdnor, R-S.Dak., testified f-J"1 of the Senate Energy IT"" on June 8, "In pumping the raqafer, ETSI would have by L.'tes drawn down the water c2f;'V ''. -semont. S. Dak., by as much 't-'-'fi64- Taking an equivalent 0r-frtimLake Oahe will not even r The annual evaporation d jf f 8f .ooo acre-feet) from Lake & r5e a 16 times the amount ETSI r.' ' frorn 0ahe- bt0!- Wmiam Janklow, R.-S. 1 legal swords in the state l7'';ktof PiTe, Abdnor became C.'"4n f the Senate Water L.-c Subcommittee in 1981 . fi,f his election to the Senate Fy.?5 Subcommittee in 1981 ; l . his election to the Senate the in PlsKWembr- and he used his n a T'55 to push legislation -A x?ater use that ETSI didn't nair'c ln? was b't'-er between ntiw Dakota 0fficials in the ,J SOUTH DAKOTA T-n, u TER AGREEMENT f Z N'e"feld of the South p rtment of Water and fi t'K res told the Senate j:J'-.H,-vni,nitlee on June 8 how the 'tl'-'i-' gonists got together. d-'.f i'k'l May last year...ETSI's evi-.'l""561 (Jim Nelson of vpe-P 'i Dalt ' happened to run I 10r Janklow in the Capitol si M n Vrre. the Governor h r ; J". Am't nwd to get f.K.t There luus got to be some we can agW so that we don't have O B-t "olmgMion that is going to c,it ""Ihons erf dollars and may end up VP your project, which, other than the water supply, we really have no problems with,' That message was taken back to ETSI, and we began negotiations right around the first of June 1981," Noufold testifusl. I'nder the agreement that ETSI and South Dakota officials led by Janklaw workl out during the next few weeks ETSI agreed to use water out of Oahe reservoir and move it 270 miles from Uihe to Gillette via Western South Dakota The West River Aqueduct, as it is known, will contain enough water to meet ETSI's need for the initial coal slurry pip'line-:),0OO acre-feet-and 30,ikk) acre feet for a potential second coal slurry pipeline or other energy project. And it will move, without charge to the Western South Dakota communities, 4300 acre-feet of water to add to their water supply and upgrade the poor quality of their water. The West River aqueduct will be an underground pipeline which will be built early in the construction schedule for the coal slurry pipeline which is due to get underway in the second quarter of 13. Hugh Wood, ETSI manager of government relations, told Western Resources Wrap-up ( WRW) on Aug. 18. The contract was entered into bv South Dakota and ETSI on Dec. 23, 1S2. after it had been approved by the state legislature. It will extend for 50 years, the life of the ETSI project. Before operation of the coal slurry pipeline begins. ETSI will pay South Dakota a total of $10 million. Therefore it will pay the state annually $9 million adjusted for inflation, according to ETSI In addition to delivering water free via aqueduct to the Western South Dakota communities, ETSI will put up SM.OX) to pay for a study of water problems in communities which are unable to take delivery of the 4.300 acre-feet of water earmarked for municipal use in the Western part of the state Thruout South Dakota the agreement between ETSI and the state was hailed as the greatest thing since sliced bread, one Senate aide told WRW. The reaction of the Lower Missippi Basin slates, notably Nebraska. Missouri and Iowa, was and remains close to outrage, which, in turn, outraged South Dakota officials. Rep. Thomas Coleman. R-Mo., quoted Janklow as saving. "We're going to end up as the Saudi Arabians of water w hen it's over." On seeing this in print, Janklow wTOtetoColeman accusing the Missouri Congressman of "distortions, fabrications and exaggerations." Equity alone dictated South Dakota's right to Oahe water, South Dakotans maintain. The Lower Missouri Basin states outlines their reasons forconcern at the June 8 hearing of the Senate Energy Committee. Nebraska Attorney General Paul L. Douglas highlighted some of the concerns of the Lower Basin states. When the Bureau of Reclamation considered the availability of water for energy from the Missouri main storage reservoirs in 1977, "it gave no consideration to the possibilities that Missouri River water might be required for aquifer regeneration in the High Plains of Western Nebraska and Kansas or for oil shale production in Western Colorado," Douglas noted. He pointed out that a joint study completed last year by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the High Plains Study Council indicated "nearly four million acre-feet of new water will be needed annually in Nebraska and Kansas alone by the year 2020" because of the depletion of the Ogallala Aquifer. "A leading proposal to remedy this serious problem is water diversion from Missouri mainstem reservoirs Douglas wrote to Assistant Interior Secretary Carrey E. Carruthers on Jan. 7. Other poin raised by the three states-Nebraska, Iowa and Missoun- by South Dakota set a precedent : in the sale of out of the Basin of a shared 4ource-the Missouri River; tha t .t appears water can be sold to the rights on the river; and that t was futile to date. FEDERAL PERMITS But nothing so rUeH p . the hree Lower Missouri Bas.r tes granting of federal permits. , .v,ot it has n hand all ot ETSI claims that it has in the federal permits J5 construction underway early next yea and it has entered into the necessary water service contract with the Bureau of Reclamation: -Joseph B. Marcotte, Jr., director of the Upper Missouri Region for the Bureau of Reclamation at Billings, Mont., executed a water service contract with ETSI to use water from Oahe reservoir to ship coal by a slurry pipeline, on July 2, 1982. -The District Engineer of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers on July 6, 1982, issued a permit to ETSI to allow the construction of an intake structure and the withdrawal of water from Oahe reservoir. The permit was issued thru the Corps' Omaha District. -Some 38.59 miles of federal land in Wyoming and Colorado have to be traversed by the ETSI pipeline, and the Regional Forester of Region II in Denver of the U.S. Forest Service granted rights-of-way and special use permits over the Forest Service portion (about 28 miles) on Jan. 8, and the Wyoming State Director of BLM granted rights-of-way and special use permits over BLM public domain lands (about 10'2 miles) on Jan. 14. BLM right-of-w ay decision is on appeal at the Interior Department Office of Hearing and Appeals, and the Forest Service has stayed its order pending the outcome of the Interior appeal. In the law suits filed by the three Lower Basin states and by the railroad, The Farmers Union and Sierra Club chapters in Lincoln on Aug. 18, the plaintiffs claimed that the "feds" clearly went beyond their authority to issue such permits and to enter into the Oahe water contract. They were based on inadequate data and issued without specific authority in law, according to these suits. Changes were made in plans for the pipeline as the studies were developed by ETSI and the federal studies required under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 did not take into account the changes made, the plaintiffs maintained. They seek to enjoin or hold up the issuance of all permits and contracts allowing the diversion of water from Oahe reservoir "until such time as defendants are in full compliance with the law." Violations of the Constitution and seven laws are alleged by ETSI and the "feds," Army, Interior, Agriculture. ETSI's Wood and William Linsenbard. ETSI's top attorney, told - WRW after the suits were filed on Aug. 18, "We anticipated this was going to happen." Linsenbard said ETSI's plans to proceed with construction would go forward. "It w ill be business as usual," he said. ETSI itself might sue the railroad on anti-trust grounds, he indicated. "Railroads have lost their anti-trust immunity. We'll be watching for imprudent business practices," Linsenbard told WRW on Aug. 18. |