US Clean Water Act contains many sections

From an Article by John McFerrin, WV Highlands Conservancy Voice, July 2022

States, including West Virginia, have gained more control over the issuance of permits under the federal Clean Water Act.

Under the federal and state Clean Water Acts, anybody who wants to undertake a wide variety of activities which have an impact upon water must have a permit. These include discharging water into a stream, filling a stream, or crossing a stream or a wetland. Most recently this requirement has meant that both the Atlantic Coast Pipeline and the Mountain Valley Pipeline have been required to have permits for pipeline construction.

These permits are issued by federal agencies. Under the law as it historically existed, even when federal agencies issue permit decisions, states still had a role. Under Section 401 of the federal Clean Water Act, federal agencies could not authorize projects in a state unless that state certifies (called a 401 Certification) that the project will not violate state water quality standards.

Our most recent experiences with this are the Mountain Valley Pipeline and the Atlantic Coast Pipeline. With those two pipelines, or any other project where federal agencies issue water permits, West Virginia could have stopped the project by refusing the 401 Certification. If it did not want to refuse the 401 Certification outright, it could have conditioned its approval on the pipeline developers taking certain steps to protect water quality.

The reason for this requirement of state certification were explained during the original debates on the federal Clean Water Act. Senator Muskie explained on the floor when what is now §401 was first proposed: “No polluter will be able to hide behind a Federal license or permit as an excuse for a violation of water quality standard[s]. No polluter will be able to make major investments in facilities under a Federal license or permit without providing assurance that the facility will comply with water quality standards. No State water pollution control agency will be confronted with a fait accompli by an industry that has built a plant without consideration of water quality requirements.”

In the spring of 2020, the United States Environmental Protection Agency issued a new rule dramatically reducing the authority that states have to refuse certification or demand conditions on permits. This was in response to complaints about other states imposing too many conditions upon pipeline construction or refusing certifications altogether. For the reasons mentioned below, there were no complaints about West Virginia authorities.

Now the United States Environmental Protection Agency has changed the rule back to what it was historically. The states once again have the authority to review federal permits and certify that a project will not cause a violation of water quality standards. If a project needs conditions to protect state waters, states can demand those conditions.

Does West Virginia really care?

If recent experience is any guide, regaining this authority will not make any difference to West Virginia. Both the Atlantic Coast Pipeline and the Mountain Valley Pipeline had to have permits to cross streams and wetlands in West Virginia. Through the 401 Certification process, West Virginia could have prevented the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission from finally approving the pipeline as well as the United States Army Corps of Engineers from approving the stream crossings, etc. that the pipeline will entail until we had assurance that West Virginia’s water would not be damaged. West Virginia had the opportunity to either stop the project entirely or, more likely, place conditions upon it that would make it less damaging to West Virginia waters.

Instead of reviewing the projects and either rejecting them or placing conditions upon them, West Virginia waived its right to do so. For the details, see the stories in the December, 2017, and January, 2018, issues of The Highlands Voice.

While the restoration of authority might make a difference in some states, it is not clear that it will make any difference in West Virginia. When the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection had the authority before, it did not use it. There is nothing to indicate that having it back will make any difference. The current West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection has no interest in using the right which the Clean Water Act grants it anyway.

######£+++++++#######+++++++#######

The West Virginia Highlands Conservancy is a non-profit corporation which has been recognized as a tax exempt organization by the Internal Revenue Service. Its bylaws describe its purpose:

The purposes of the Conservancy shall be to promote, encourage, and work for the conservation — including both preservation and wise use — and appreciation of the natural resources of West Virginia and the Nation, and especially of the Highlands Region of West Virginia, for the cultural, social, educational, physical, health, spiritual, and economic benefit of present and future generations of West Virginians and Americans.

MVP pipeline has violations and court challenges

From an Article by Laurence Hammack, Roanoke Times, May 14, 2019

Developers of the Mountain Valley Pipeline have agreed to pay a fine of nearly $266,000 for violating environmental regulations in West Virginia.

The agreement, outlined in a consent order from the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection, marks the first financial penalty for problems with storm water runoff caused by building a 303-mile pipeline that will also cross the New River and Roanoke valleys.

Photographs included in the 179-page document show a “drastic change” in streams since work on the buried pipeline began last winter, said Angie Rosser, executive director of the West Virginia Rivers Coalition. “These are clear-running streams and they have been forever,” Rosser said. “And you look at the photos now and they are just brown.”

Mountain Valley faces similar issues in Virginia. A lawsuit filed in December by the Department of Environmental Quality alleges more than 300 violations of erosion and sediment control measures. Online court records indicate the case is still pending.

In West Virginia, 26 notices of violation filed from April to November of last year were resolved by the consent order.

The agreement, signed May 6 by Robert Cooper, Mountain Valley’s senior vice president for engineering and construction, states the company will pay a fine of $265,972 and submit a plan of corrective action to state regulators.

A public comment period on the agreement runs through June 20.

Most of the violations “were the result of unprecedented rainfall throughout the spring and summer of 2018,” Mountain Valley spokeswoman Natalie Cox wrote in an email.

“MVP appreciates the oversight of the WVDEP and the MVP team will continue to work closely with project inspectors to maintain its high standards of safety and environmental stewardship,” the email said.

The $4.6 billion project is still scheduled for completion by late this year, Cox wrote. However, at least two members of the five-partner venture have said in recent financial reports that a delay is likely, considering legal challenges that led to suspended permits.

Rosser said the fine, which represents well less than 1% of the project’s cost, is unlikely to lead to significant change. “The concern is that paying the fine is cheaper than doing it right in the first place,” she said.

Mountain Valley and other pipelines being built in West Virginia have all encountered the same problems, Rosser said, and it’s becoming apparent that state-approved plans to control erosion are not working.

“It’s a lot of erosion and a lot of sediment that doesn’t belong in our streams,” she said. “Looking at the photos, you just can’t deny that these pipelines affect water quality.”

Critics say the worst pollution will come when crews begin to run the 42-inch diameter pipe through streams and wetlands. Water body crossings have been on hold since October, when the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals threw out a permit issued by the Army Corps of Engineers.

Mountain Valley hopes to obtain new permits from the Corps later this year.

But the project must also get renewed approval to cross through the Jefferson National Forest — a process that was complicated by a separate opinion from the 4th Circuit that invalidated a U.S. Forest Service approval for the crossing of the Appalachian Trail by a similar project, the Atlantic Coast Pipeline.

About two-thirds of the pipeline, which will transport natural gas from the Marcellus and Utica deposits to a pipeline in Pittsylvania County, is in West Virginia, where problems with construction were first documented by state regulators.

The consent order from West Virginia documents a variety of improper steps taken by Mountain Valley to control erosion. Sediment-laden water often left the construction sites and made its way into nearby streams and rivers, the order states.

Other violations included a failure to clean debris from adjacent public and private roads, a lack of temporary stabilization of areas where construction was dormant for more than 21 days, and no reseeding of denuded areas where vegetation had failed to take root after 30 days.

In a written defense to the lawsuit claiming regulation violations in Virginia, lawyers for the company blamed the problems on “extraordinary, high-intensity storm events and flooding beyond MVP’s control.”

They also wrote that the company would be willing to settle the Virginia case.

Stream & wetlands disturbances are severe and long lasting

Prepared by the West Virginia Rivers Coalition, Fact Sheet, 2/19

Background Information Summary

The WV Department of Environmental Protection (WV-DEP) agreed to permit the construction of the Mountain Valley Pipeline and Atlantic Coast Pipeline through streams and wetlands according to a Nationwide 12 permit issued by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. In 2017, WV-DEP established certain special conditions that must be followed for projects subject to a Nationwide 12 permit to protect the environment. Now, WV-DEP is proposing to change those conditions and are accepting public comment on proposed modifications through March 4, 2019. Comment here.

Key Revisions Proposed by the WV-DEP

The following proposed modifications raise concerns for our rivers and streams:

>>> Allowing exemptions to the 72-hour stream crossing restriction. This condition helps to minimize impacts to water quality and aquatic life. Prolonged dewatering of streambeds can have severe impacts to the life in a stream. Agencies like WV Division of Natural Resources rely on this 72-hour restriction to determine if construction during fish spawning seasons will have ill-effects on fish populations.

>>> Allowing temporary impediments to fish passage. This condition helps to minimize impacts to fish species by preventing structures that impede fish passage. WV-DEP is changing this condition to allow structures to impede fish passage as long as they are not permanent; however the length of time that fish passage will be prevented is not defined.

>>> Waiving the requirement for an individual water quality certification for large pipelines. This condition is in place to assure that stream and wetland crossings for large-scale pipelines (over 36” in diameter) get the careful analysis and individualized plans required to better ensure protection of water quality.

>>> Allowing for the removal of any permit conditions with no public scrutiny. Standard and special permit conditions are in place to make sure that when a nationwide permit is used there is a baseline of protections that will be enforced. These conditions become meaningless if the regulatory agency is allowed to remove or waive them, especially without any requirement for public notice and comment.

The WV-DEP states the modifications are necessary so that companies are not prevented from using more environmentally protective methods. This simply is not true. WV-DEP currently has the authority to reject coverage of large-scale projects under a one-size-fits-all Nationwide permit, and can instead come up with protective methods customized to the needs of the project through an individual permit.

How to Comment to the WV Department of Environmental Protection

Comments can be submitted online here, via email at WQSComments@wv.gov, or by mail to:

401 Water Quality Certification Program
ATTN: Nancy Dickson, WV-DEP
601 57th Street SE
Charleston, WV 25304-2345

Steep terrain also an erosion issue

From an Article by Laurence Hammack, Roanoke Times, February 15, 2019

The Mountain Valley Pipeline is under criminal investigation into possible violations of the Clean Water Act and other federal laws, one of the companies building the project has confirmed.

EQM Midstream Partners, the lead company in the joint venture, made the disclosure in an annual report filed Thursday with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. EQM Midstream was formerly EQT Midstream.

Since construction of the buried natural gas pipeline through Southwest Virginia started last year, crews have repeatedly run afoul of regulations meant to keep muddy runoff from contaminating nearby streams and rivers.

Although Mountain Valley has been named in enforcement actions brought by the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality, and in a lawsuit filed by Attorney General Mark Herring, this week’s filing is the first confirmation of a criminal investigation.

On January 7th, EQM received a letter from the U.S. attorney’s office in Roanoke stating that it and the Environmental Protection Agency were looking into criminal and civil violations related to pipeline construction, according to the SEC filing.

About a month later, a grand jury subpoena was issued “requesting certain documents related to the MVP from August 1, 2018 to the present,” EQM reported in the filing.

“The MVP Joint Venture is complying with the letter and subpoena but cannot predict whether any action will ultimately be brought by the U.S. Attorney’s Office or what the outcome of such an action would be,” it said.

Last month, two attorneys told The Roanoke Times that they had asked the EPA in November to investigate what they called “a substantial body of evidence” gathered by Preserve Bent Mountain, an organization they represent.

Photographs and other documentation from construction sites indicate that work in streams and wetlands continued well past Oct. 5, 2018, when a permit for such activity was suspended by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Charlie Williams and Tom Bondurant said at the time. It was not clear Friday if their request prompted the investigation mentioned by EQM in its SEC filing.

Chainsaw crews began cutting trees in February 2018, clearing a 125-foot wide swath for the 303-mile pipeline through West Virginia and Southwest Virginia. By spring, heavy equipment had moved in to grade land along steep mountainsides and dig trenches for the 42-inch diameter steel pipe.

Herring’s lawsuit, filed on behalf of VA-DEQ and the State Water Control Board, alleges more than 300 violations of erosion and sediment control measures, beginning as early as May 2018. The criminal probe appears to be focused on events that began later in what is expected to be a two-year construction period for the $4.6 billion project.

In their January letter to Mountain Valley, federal prosecutors directed the five companies that comprise the joint venture — along with their contractors, suppliers and other entities involved with construction — to preserve any relevant documents dating back to September 1st. The grand jury subpoena, which came a month later, was for documents going back to August 1st.

Environmental groups and other pipeline opponents were saying last summer that the worst environmental damage was yet to come, when Mountain Valley would begin blasting bedrock and digging trenches along the bottoms of streams to bury the pipe.

A lawsuit filed by the Sierra Club and others challenged a permit issued by the Army Corps of Engineers that allowed stream crossings in West Virginia. The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals vacated the permit October 2, 2018. Based on that ruling, a second Army Corps permit that covered Southwest Virginia was suspended three days later.

If Mountain Valley continued to work in streams and wetlands after losing its authorization from the Army Corps, that could constitute a criminal violation, Bondurant, a former federal prosecutor, said earlier.

Publicly traded companies are required by law to report any legal proceedings that might affect their operations to the SEC, which is responsible for protecting investors and maintaining public trust in U.S. markets.

In past filings, EQM has documented a number of lawsuits, most of them filed by environmental groups against regulatory agencies that granted permits or certifications to Mountain Valley.Thursday’s filing marked the first time a criminal investigation was mentioned.

On the same day, executives with EQM held a teleconference to discuss 2018 year-end results with financial analysts. They talked about the loss of several permits due to legal challenges, but did not bring up the criminal investigation.

Despite all the regulatory and legal difficulties to date, company officials said the project is still on schedule to be completed by the end of the year, when it will begin to transport natural gas to customers in the Mid-Atlantic and Southeastern regions of the country.

Path of Mariner East II Pipeline borders many private residences

From an Article by Scott DiSavino, Stephanie Kelly, Reuters News Service, November 28, 2018

MEDIA, PA — Energy Transfer LP and its Sunoco pipeline subsidiary have racked up more than 800 state and federal permit violations while racing to build two of the nation’s largest natural gas pipelines, according to a Reuters analysis of government data and regulatory records.

The pipelines, known as Energy Transfer Rover and Sunoco Mariner East 2, will carry natural gas and gas liquids from Pennsylvania, Ohio and West Virginia, an area that now accounts for more than a third of U.S. gas production.

Reuters analyzed four comparable pipeline projects and found they averaged 19 violations each during construction.

The Rover and Mariner violations included spills of drilling fluid, a clay-and-water mixture that lubricates equipment for drilling under rivers and highways; sinkholes in backyards; and improper disposal of hazardous waste and other trash. Fines topped $15 million.

Energy Transfer also raised the ire of federal regulators by tearing down a historic house along Rover’s route.

The Appalachia region has become a hub for natural gas as it increasingly replaces coal for U.S. power generation, creating an urgent need for new pipelines. But the recent experience of residents and regulators with the two Energy Transfer pipelines has state officials vowing to tighten laws and scrutinize future projects.

“Ohio’s negative experience with Rover has fundamentally changed how we will permit pipeline projects,” said James Lee, a spokesman for the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency.

Problems with Mariner prompted Pennsylvania legislators to craft bills tightening construction regulations, which have drawn bipartisan support. “Any pipeline going through this area is going to face resistance which it would not have faced before,” said Pennsylvania State Senator Andy Dinniman, a Democrat.

Energy Transfer spokeswoman Alexis Daniel said the firm remained committed to safe construction and operation and at times went “above and beyond” regulations for the two projects.

Construction of the 713-mile, $4.2 billion Rover started in March 2017 and was planned to proceed at about 89 miles a month, while work on the 350-mile, $2.5 billion Mariner East 2 started in February 2017 and was planned at 50 miles a month, according to company statements on construction schedules. Both were targeted for completion late last year.

Regulators and industry experts said the pace of both projects far exceeded industry norms.

The four other projects examined by Reuters were mostly completed at a pace averaging 17 miles per month. Reuters selected the projects for comparison because, like Rover and Mariner, they cost more than $1.5 billion, stretched at least 150 miles and were under construction at the same time.

Construction on both Energy Transfer pipelines was ultimately slowed when state and federal regulators ordered numerous work stoppages after permit violations. Energy Transfer completed the last two sections of Rover in November and said it expects to put Mariner East 2 in service soon.

In February, Pennsylvania fined the company $12.6 million for environmental damage, including the discharge of drilling fluids into state waters without a permit. After further problems, including the sinkholes, a state judge in May ordered work halted on Mariner East 2.

Administrative Law Judge Elizabeth Barnes wrote that Energy Transfer’s Sunoco unit “made deliberate managerial decisions to proceed in what appears to be a rushed manner in an apparent prioritization of profit over the best engineering.”

While pipeline construction schedules vary, the planned timelines for Rover and Mariner were ambitious, said Fred Jauss, partner at Dorsey & Whitney in Washington and a former attorney with the U.S. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), which regulates interstate gas pipelines.

“They aren’t taking their time … we’re all concerned about it,” said Pennsylvania State Senator John Rafferty, a Republican, referring to other state politicians, constituents and first responders.

Energy Transfer spokeswoman Lisa Dillinger told Reuters the schedules were “appropriate for the size, scope, and the number of contractors hired.”

Other companies that planned slower construction of comparable projects have finished mostly on schedule with almost no violations. Canadian energy company Enbridge Inc., for instance, recently finished a $2.6 billion, 255-mile pipeline – following a path similar to Rover through Ohio and Michigan – with just seven violations. Enbridge did not respond to a request for comment.

HAZARDOUS SPILLS

Energy Transfer, now one of the nation’s largest pipeline operators, encountered large protests led by Native American tribes and environmental activists over the route of its Dakota Access crude oil line in North Dakota in 2016 and has seen protests of Mariner East 2 in Pennsylvania, where opponents have highlighted its safety record on existing pipelines.

The company has had a relatively high incidence of hazardous liquid spills and other problems, according to a Reuters review of data from the U.S. Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA).

Energy Transfer’s Sunoco unit ranked third worst among all pipeline companies in average annual incidents between 2010 and 2017, according to the PHMSA data. In total, Energy Transfer and its affiliated companies released more than 41,000 barrels of hazardous liquids causing more than $100 million in property damage, PHMSA data shows.

Bibianna Dussling of Media, Pennsylvania, joined a group of activists protesting Mariner East after learning the project’s route would pass near her daughter’s elementary school. “The violations are really meaningless to them,” she said. “You do so much to protect your children day-to-day, and to face something like this, that you feel is so much out of your hands.”

Energy Transfer’s Dillinger said incidents have been sharply reduced since the merger of Sunoco Logistics and Energy Transfer Partners into one company, Energy Transfer, in the spring of 2017. Incidents this year are “trending below industry average,” she said.

HISTORIC HOUSE DEMOLITION

The Rover pipeline attracted additional federal scrutiny when Energy Transfer demolished a historic house along its route.

After Energy Transfer bought the 1843 Stoneman house in Ohio, FERC staff in February 2016 required the firm to come up with a plan to prevent adverse effects on the property, according to a staff’s environmental report.

Instead, the company tore down the house in May 2016 without notifying FERC or the Ohio State Historic Preservation Office. That led FERC to deny Energy Transfer a so-called blanket certificate that would have allowed the company to construct Rover with less oversight, noting the demolition convinced regulators the company “cannot be trusted” to comply with environmental regulations.

Energy Transfer said in a statement that it had “resolved all outstanding issues” with the demolition and donated more than $4 million to the Ohio preservation office.

DAMAGED WETLANDS

Once Energy Transfer started building Rover, FERC and West Virginia regulators required the company to halt work on parts of the project after violations, including the release of an estimated 2 million gallons of drilling fluid into wetlands near the Tuscarawas River in Ohio in April 2017.

>>> For a breakdown of Rover’s 681 federal violations, see: tmsnrt.rs/2PUGmYr

In Pennsylvania, Mariner East 2 has received more than 80 notices of violation from the state’s Department of Environmental Protection, mostly for accidental release of drilling fluids. Drilling fluids can impair the natural flow of streams and rivers and harm an area’s ecosystem, said Lynda Farrell, executive director of the Pipeline Safety Coalition.

The Ohio Attorney General filed a lawsuit in November 2017 seeking about $2.6 million from Rover and some of the construction companies building the pipeline for the alleged illegal discharge of millions of gallons of drilling fluids into state waters, among other things. That lawsuit is ongoing.

Energy Transfer’s Dillinger said the company was “disappointed” that the Ohio AG sued after the company tried to resolve issues amicably and that it would continue cooperating with regulators. “We continue to work closely with both state regulators to resolve any outstanding issues related to our construction,” she said.

Rover Pipeline sediment pollutes adjoining land area

From an Article by Joe Napsha, Pittsburgh Tribune Review, November 13, 2018

A natural gas drilling company was fined $294,000 by the state for polluting the Monongahela River last year with about 4 million gallons of mine water when it punctured an abandoned mine as it was boring underneath Route 136 in Forward Township to install a pipe to carry fresh water for a drilling site.

The Department of Environmental Protection in Pittsburgh said Tuesday EQT Production Co. in Cecil paid the fine as part of a consent order and agreement covering violations of the Clean Streams Law in Allegheny County.

According to the DEP, EQT inadvertently pierced the abandoned Gallatin mine on January 17, 2017 as it was boring a hole underneath Route 136 to install a pipeline from the Monongahela River to its Rostosky drilling site in Forward Township, Allegheny County. It took EQT until Jan. 31 to stop the discharge through the waterline borehole to unnamed tributaries of the Monongahela River and associated wetlands.

EQT was aware when it applied for permits in July 2016 there were several abandoned coal mines in the area, the DEP said. EQT relied on regional mapping that generally described mine pools as “not flooded or unknown” but did not undertake any further investigation. There were seeps of orange water near the area of the waterline borehole.

Since the incident, EQT has constructed a collection and drainage system similar to what was in place when the water was discharged. EQT also agreed to establish a $100,000 fund with the Clean Streams Foundation to provide for the maintenance, operation, and replacement of the system.

In September, Commonweath Court upheld a $1.1 million fine levied against EQT Production’s parent company, EQT Corp. of Pittsburgh, for violating state environmental laws by failing to prevent significant contamination from a fracking water holding pond in Tioga County six years ago.

The state Environmental Hearing Board found that water from the drilling site in Tioga County continued to pollute area groundwater, even after the company emptied the pond.

############################

ROVER natural gas pipeline agrees to pay $430,000 penalty for water pollution violations

From an Article by Kate Mishkin, Charleston Gazette, June 12, 2018

Rover Pipeline LLC has agreed to pay the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection $430,000 for water pollution violations in the state, according to a consent order made public Tuesday.

The natural gas pipeline project and the WV-DEP made the deal May 15, documents show, but the public comment period for the consent order ends July 13.

The agreement is in response to notices of violation and cease-and-desist orders issued to Rover Pipeline dating back to April 2017, said Jake Glance, spokesman for the DEP. In all, the pipeline has received 18 notices of violation and two cease-and-desist orders, the most recent of which was issued on March 5, when the regulators said crews left trash and construction partially buried on site and failed to clean the roads around the construction site.

The DEP also issued a cease-and-desist order in July 2017 for similar violations.

Rover is just one of the major pipelines being built to tap into the region’s natural gas boom. Last month, the Mountain Valley Pipeline, another pipeline project, also received a violation notice from the DEP for violating water quality standards — problems environmental and citizen groups warned might happen.

“What Rover shows us is that pipelines do have water quality impacts and when you layer the steep terrain and the complex hydrology … you’re getting into uncharted territory and we fear we’re going to see more problems and possibly even worse than we see with Rover,” Rosser said. “We hope it’s not in repeated nature we’ve seen with Rover.”

The $430,000 agreed-upon penalty is substantial, but it’s a small sliver of the project’s $4 billion budget, she said. Plus, the DEP spends money to monitor the pipelines and inspect construction sites.

“So $430,000, I would suppose a great deal of that went to cover DEP’s ability to provide the oversight. And then you’ve got a hundred sites where the streams have been polluted, and how can you put a dollar figure on that?” Rosser said. “The chemistry of the streams has been changed and can’t be reversed to how they were.”

Construction on the pipeline was “essentially complete,” and the company is working with the WV-DEP to finalize the settlement, a spokeswoman for the company said. The consent order references violations dating back to April 2017, including failing to control erosion and keeping sediment water from leaving construction sites.

“The good news that I see is that [the] DEP was on top of it, that they did a good job documenting multiple violations and it shows the importance of oversight of these projects because this company did not appear to be acting in good faith,” said Angie Rosser, executive director of the West Virginia Rivers Coalition.

Energy Transfer Partners, Rover Pipeline’s owner, also owns the Dakota Access Pipeline — the subject of protests and heightened attention over its being built in North Dakota.

The 713-mile-long Rover Pipeline will move natural gas from processing plants in West Virginia, Ohio and Pennsylvania. Crews are building the pipeline in Doddridge, Tyler and Wetzel counties in West Virginia.

Rover is just one of the major pipelines being built to tap into the region’s natural gas boom. Last month, the Mountain Valley Pipeline, another pipeline project, also received a violation notice from the DEP for violating water quality standards — problems environmental and citizen groups warned might happen.

“What Rover shows us is that pipelines do have water quality impacts and when you layer the steep terrain and the complex hydrology … you’re getting into uncharted territory and we fear we’re going to see more problems and possibly even worse than we see with Rover,” Rosser said. “We hope it’s not in repeated nature we’ve seen with Rover.”

The $430,000 agreed-upon penalty is substantial, but it’s a small sliver of the project’s $4 billion budget, she said. Plus, the DEP spends money to monitor the pipelines and inspect construction sites.

“So $430,000, I would suppose a great deal of that went to cover DEP’s ability to provide the oversight. And then you’ve got a hundred sites where the streams have been polluted, and how can you put a dollar figure on that?” Rosser said. “The chemistry of the streams has been changed and can’t be reversed to how they were.”

##############################

FERC approves service on two (2) Rover Pipeline laterals

Reported from the Kallanish Energy News Service, November 5, 2018

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission has granted Rover Pipeline permission to begin additional service moving natural gas across northern Ohio.

The federal agency last week told the company it could begin service on the Sherwood Lateral, Sherwood Compressor Station, Sherwood Delivery Meter Station, CGT Lateral and CGT Delivery Meter Station in the Appalachian Basin (primarily in West Virginia).

They were the last parts of the Rover pipeline project that needed FERC approval.

############################

Federal agency cites Rover Pipeline for three (3) violations

Reported from the Kallanish Energy News Service, October 31, 2018

Rover Pipeline has been cited for three violations by the U.S. Department of Transportation’s Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration.

The violations are for improper testing of pipeline welds, failing to comply with specifications or standards on repairing dents to the steel pipe, and failure to build the pipeline to avoid stresses on the pipeline.

The agency said the company committed “probable violations.” The violations could have triggered multi-million-dollar fines, but the federal agency said no fines would be imposed. The company said it is not contesting the violations and has been working with the federal agency to correct the problems. It said it is “in general agreement” with the agency’s proposed compliance order.

The company has spent in excess of $11.5 million in correcting the problems, it reported. Those violations have prevented Rover Pipeline from beginning commercial service on its Sherwood and CGT laterals to move natural gas from the Appalachian Basin, the company acknowledged.

The violations were discovered in PHMSA inspections on January 25, March 19-22, May 8-11 and June 18. The violations were issued by the PHMSA on September 11 and came to light in a recent company filing with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission that oversees interstate pipelines.

Rover Pipeline, an Energy Transfer Partners’ subsidiary, on October 25 filed a request with FERC seeking to begin full operations on the Sherwood and CGT laterals prior to November 1. It said the problems with the PHMSA had been corrected.

It said its shippers “have urgently requested Rover to place these facilities in service to allow their stranded natural gas supplies to be transported to Midwest markets.” A similar request was filed last August.

Those two laterals are mechanically complete and the final grading and seeding have been completed, Rover Pipeline wrote. The company said it has also filed plans for additional ground-movement areas outside the construction right-of-way along the Sherwood and CGT laterals.

The Sherwood Lateral runs about 54 miles from eastern Ohio into West Virginia. The CGT line runs roughly six miles from the Sherwood line to an interconnection with a Columbia Gas Transmission line. They are among the last Rover laterals to be approved for commercial service.

The $4.2 billion twin pipelines had encountered trouble with leaks and spills from horizontal directional drilling in Ohio where drilling had been halted for a time because of concern by state agencies. Construction was also halted for a time in West Virginia because of erosion and sediment control problems along pipeline laterals.

The 713-mile pipeline will move up to 3.25 billion cubic feet per day of Utica and Marcellus natural gas to the Gulf Coast, the Midwest and Ontario. Initial service on the pipeline began August 31, 2017.

Sediment flow penetrates barrier from stormwater

From an Article by Kate Mishkin, Charleston Gazette, November 8, 2018

As battles over two major natural gas pipelines play out in court, state regulators have continued to cite the Atlantic Coast Pipeline and Mountain Valley Pipeline for environmental problems.

The Mountain Valley Pipeline has received 19 violation notices from the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection for failing to comply with the project’s West Virginia/National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System general water pollution control permit. The violation notices date back to early April, and the most recent was issued in early October, according to the DEP’s database.

The violations happened in several West Virginia counties, including Greenbrier, Harrison and Doddridge. The pipeline is approved to span 303 miles from Wetzel County, West Virginia, into Pittsylvania County, Virginia.

In many cases, a DEP inspector visited the site of construction and warned the site operator to take measures to comply with its permit. Then, the inspector wrote up a Notice of Violation, telling developers to provide a written response to the violation within 20 days. The violations don’t come with a monetary penalty.

In the most recent case, an inspector followed up on a citizen complaint in Monroe County and found sediment was flowing off the right-of-way. The inspector, Jason Liddle, issued a Notice of Violation, citing three sections of the permit the pipeline builders had violated. Liddle also wrote that developers had violated state legislative rules governing water quality standards by letting “distinctly visible settleable solids in pond and stream.” Photos that accompany the Notice of Violation show muddy water and sediment deposits.

The Atlantic Coast Pipeline, which would also start in northern West Virginia and span 600 miles into North Carolina, has been cited twice for problems in Upshur and Randolph counties. Neither pipeline company responded to inquiries about the violations.

These are the kinds of problems residents feared from the very beginning, said Joan Walker, senior campaign representative for the Sierra Club’s Beyond Dirty Fuels campaign.

“Absolutely, we saw it coming,” she said. “There’s no safe way to build these fracked gas pipelines in any terrain, especially in mountainous terrain in West Virginia and Virginia. This is not a surprise, this is what we warned about in hundreds and hundreds of public comments to FERC [Federal Energy Regulatory Commission], this is what we feared would happen and sadly it’s playing out that way.”

Both pipelines are part of a rush to tap into the region’s Marcellus Shale formation. And though they’re being built by different companies, they’ve followed similar patterns and fielded similar challenges in court.

Over the summer, the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the U.S. Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management has skirted environmental rules when approving work on the Mountain Valley Pipeline. One week later, FERC issued a stop work order.

Then, FERC stopped the Atlantic Coast Pipeline, citing the 4th Circuit’s order that said the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Park Service had also sidestepped environmental rules.

In September, a panel of judges on the 4th Circuit heard four back-to-back cases, half about the Mountain Valley Pipeline and half about the Atlantic Coast Pipeline. In each case, environmental lawyers brought up a similar theme: the pipelines were rushed. In one case, lawyers said the Mountain Valley Pipeline was violating its Clean Water Act permit issued by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,and the federal appeals court subsequently vacated the permit.

Wednesday afternoon, the same judges ordered a stay to the Atlantic Coast Pipeline’s water-crossing permit, too. “That’s why everything is stopping and starting is because the processes were flawed, the permits had such big holes and gaps in them,” Walker said.

In the case of both pipelines, citizens have submitted complaints advising the DEP of spills along the pipelines’ paths. “Hundreds more [have] been reported by community watchdog folks, so there’d probably be a lot more if the DEP had enough staff to check on those accusations,” Walker said.

There are diverse views of the Greenbrier River over its long length

From the Indian Creek Watershed Association, November 4, 2018

Mountain Valley Pipeline’s plan to cross the Greenbrier River at Pence Springs has been in the news recently, and in the courtroom. On Tuesday, October 23rd, arguments were heard by Judge Robert A. Irons in the Summers County Courthouse about whether the WV Environmental Quality Board (EQB) erred in upholding WVDEP’s approval of a West Virginia Natural Streams Preservation Permit for MVP to cross the GreenbrierRiver. No ruling was made at the hearing.

In August 2017 Indian Creek Watershed Association (ICWA) joined the Greenbrier River Watershed Association (GRWA) and three landowners as a party to this appeal. ICWA is writing now to update our members and friends on the case and to explain why we think it’s important.

As ICWA members and other local residents sat in the courtroom last Tuesday, we realized that this case is really about three questions: 1) What defines the “natural character” of a river? 2) Did WV-DEP fail to do its job? and 3) Is MVP being granted undue entitlement not only to blast ditches through private land seized through eminent domain, but to treat the Greenbrier River like just another ditch?

1: What defines the “natural character” of a river?

The West Virginia Legislature clearly expresses its intent in establishing the West Virginia Natural Streams Preservation Act: “In order to assure that an increasing population, accompanied by expanding settlement and growing mechanization, does not impound, flood or divert all streams within the State of West Virginia, leaving no streams designated for preservation and protection in their natural condition, it is hereby declared to be the public policy of this state to secure for the citizens of West Virginia of present and future generations the benefits of an enduring resource of free-flowing streams possessing outstanding scenic, recreational, geological, fish and wildlife, botanical, historical, archeological or other scientific or cultural values.”
WV Code §22-13-2.

In another section it says: “these [protected streams] shall be administered for the use and enjoyment of the citizens of West Virginia in such manner as will leave them unimpaired for future use and enjoyment as free-flowing streams, and so as to provide for the protection and the preservation of these streams in their natural character.”
WV Code §22-13-4.

In the Summers County courtroom on Tuesday, MVP’s attorney tried to limit the focus narrowly to whether the pipeline construction would impound, divert or flood the stream. However, if those were the only characteristics of a natural stream under protection, there would be little difference between a river and a ditch.

The Greenbrier River is not only the longest free-flowing stream east of the Mississippi. It is teeming with aquatic and botanical life and rich in so many treasured qualities that make up its “natural character”. If the bedrock of the Greenbrier is split open and trenched from riverbank to riverbank, the physical integrity of the streambed will be forever impaired and so will the Greenbrier’s condition as a natural stream.

2: Did the WV-DEP fail to do its job?

By not requiring MVP to conduct the tests and studies needed to determine the possible impacts that pipeline construction would have on the Greenbrier’s “natural character” — or even the safety of MVP’s proposed method — DEP failed to uphold the Natural Streams Preservation Act.

Despite strong requests and comments from many experts, individuals and groups, including ICWA, WV-DEP never required MVP to conduct studies such as sedimentation and turbidity analyses, borings and core samples, accurate velocity and scour calculations, or aquatic life and nutrient assessments, all important to understand the natural characteristics of the Greenbrier and determine the likely impacts of MVP construction.

Beyond those studies, what happens when the Greenbrier floods suddenly in the middle of construction while half of the river is blocked by MVP’s “cofferdam”? What happens when huge steel pipes tear loose and float (or race) downstream, crashing into structures and backing up the river when they lodge against a bridge or other obstruction? What happens when increased sediment and scour carves away the already-too-narrow bank that supports Route 12/3?

WV-DEP imposed two “special conditions” on this permit: 1) Boat passage must be maintained at all times during construction. 2) In case of severe weather which may induce flooding all materials must be removed from the river until flooding subsides.

What are MVP’s calculations and approved plans to anticipate and deal with the safety of boats at all times and the all-too-likely scenario of a fast-rising flood due to an unpredicted high-intensity precipitation event like June 23, 2016? Such storms are becoming more frequent, more intense, and more unpredictable.

As the GRWA attorney contends, the intact streambed is the natural character of the Greenbrier. “The obvious way to maintain the natural character of the streambed is for [MVP] to spend a little bit more … to do the studies they were supposed to do.” There are other options available to MVP, he emphasized, including boring under the river or finding a different route.

3: Is MVP being granted undue entitlement?

It was clear at the EQB hearing in Charleston in February that even members of the EQB thought that more studies should have been done. The EQB chairman asked the WV-DEP attorney to explain “why the DEP did not take those actions if indeed those actions should have been taken. … Why did the DEP not assume that role?”

WV-DEP’s excuse was that the studies were not specified in the statute. But, it is not the job of the Legislature itself to dictate exactly what studies should be required. They leave that up to DEP as the GRWA attorney argued persuasively: “The fact that there are no rules is not a reason to cut corners. The fact that this statute exists shows the Legislature wants to do everything you can to make sure that the natural characteristics of this stream are preserved.”

In the end, the EQB ducked responsibility, almost sheepishly finding in favor of DEP and MVP, and explaining that they felt EQB’s “purview” was limited to whether DEP’s actions adhered to the statutory requirements.

Now MVP appears on track not only to blast trenches across land seized through eminent domain, but to arrogantly extend that entitlement to treat the Greenbrier River like just another ditch. The fact that the MVP attorney did all the talking for DEP on Tuesday spoke volumes. A DEP lawyer was present but silent, even when asked if he had anything to add.

One ray of light: MVP’s pattern of assumed entitlement — of calling the shots — is starting to be noticed. In late July 2018, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond vacated the permits issued by the US Forest Service and the US Bureau of Land Management for MVP to cross the Jefferson National Forest. In early October 2018, the Fourth Circuit Court vacated the permit granted by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for MVP to cross streams and wetlands in West Virginia.

In both of these cases, the Fourth Circuit judges expressed interest and concern about why these agencies seemed to be bending their actions to accommodate MVP.

What’s Next for the Mountain Valley Pipeline?

Right now, no MVP construction is allowed in West Virginia or Virginia streams and wetlands following the ruling that canceled the Army Corps of Engineers permit in West Virginia. Unfortunately, the FERC has not halted other construction, even though it remains possible that MVP may not be able to complete the project along their projected route.

In Hinton last week, the GRWA attorney requested that the Circuit Court send the Natural Streams Preservation Act case back to the EQB with instructions to consider the river’s natural characteristics and alternative options like a conventional bore. The MVP attorney asked for the permit to be upheld as is. Both attorneys acknowledged that there was no time pressure for an answer from the judge, in part because of the status of the Army Corps permit, but also because MVP would not be able to begin in-river construction until next summer because of water levels.

This permit and this case will have a lasting impact. MVP’s crossing of the Greenbrier River is the first river crossing permit issued under the Natural Streams Preservation Act. Whatever is decided will set precedent for future cases, whether on the Greenbrier or any of the other four protected natural streams.

ICWA believes that the Greenbrier is a river worthy of the fullest protection offered under West Virginia’s Natural Streams Preservation Act. The DEP and EQB should not be allowed to shirk their responsibility, and MVP should not feel entitled to treat the GreenbrierRiver like a lifeless ditch.

>>> Indian Creek Watershed Association, indiancreekwater@gmail.com

NOTE: ICWA is a 501c3 non-profit organization. Contributions are tax-deductible. To support the Indian Creek Watershed Association send a check: Please make your check payable to Indian Creek Watershed Association or ICWA. Mail to: Indian Creek Watershed Association, P.O. Box 711, Union, WV 24983.

See also: www.indiancreekwatershedassociation.org

It takes a strong commitment to protect & preserve what we have!

An article of this title recently ran in the Wheeling Intelligencer. It represents a cave in by a significant environmental group that give the business oriented Intelligencer some thing to brag about. It is unlikely the report, “Improving Steep-Slope Pipeline Construction to Reduce Impacts to Natural Resources,” will meet the needs of our steep and rocky terrain.

It will be applied to the entire range of conditions from the soft soil and rock on the Appalachian Plateau through the folded Appalachian Mountains to the south and east. Through limestone karst, famous for caves and sinkholes and slopes up to and beyond 173% (60 degrees).

In places the fill will be the broken rock cut out to make the trench. This will make it impossible to divert the water off the right of way. It will divert water to flow down the broken rock in the ditches. In other places the long pipeline straight down the hill for hundreds of feet will have diversion ditches that deliver the diverted water off the right of way in additive fashion so large volumes will be aggregated in heavy rains. Pipelines in karst is asking for failure due to cave-ins and stream diversion.

If the pipe must go in, what is required is meticulous attention to local topography and geology and equally meticulous attention to small scale engineering. This is unlikely to occur due to the great cost involved.

The Nature Conservancy is doubtless well intentioned, but really not directed by people close to conditions involved.

>>> S. Tom Bond, Retired Chemistry Professor & Resident Farmer, Lewis County, WV

####################

Brief Comment on TNC Pipeline Project —

This is why I consider TNC foremost among the Shady Lady environmental groups, to put it politely.

They also collaborated with the gas industry on a study of how much methane leaks, with findings coming out much lower than independent studies. Looks to me like they aid industry much more than the environment, with this attitude that the pipelines must and will be built so we should do what we can to minimize the harm.

As far as I’m concerned, their main mission to collect funds to buy land which they then protect from development, is no better — I’ve seen allegations that they don’t always protect their lands and anyway this reinforces the idea that the rich legitimately own the Earth, and if we want any of it protected we have to buy it back from them.

>>> Mary Wildfire, Roane County, WV

####################

We might also consider this —

I believe TNC has a conservation easement that will be crossed by MVP and one of their motivators for this was to hold the company to a higher standard where they could, for their property.

Amy Mall, Land & Wildlife Program, National Resources Defense Council (NRDC)

####################

Letter to The TNC Magazine (August 13, 2018)

I am a retired mining engineer (B.S.; M.S.; P.E.) living in Rockingham County Virginia. I am writing in response to a “study” I just became aware of entitled “IMPROVING STEEP-SLOPE PIPELINE CONSTRUCTION TO REDUCE IMPACTS TO NATURAL RESOURCES” (link here).

This study was apparently a collaboration between the Nature Conservancy and 8 oil and gas companies. It’s unfortunate the input was so heavily weighted in favor of the companies that will profit from doing this type of work by externalizing the environmental costs to the public.

Your “study” seems to over simplify the issues involved in constructing a major natural gas pipeline through steep mountainous terrain, much of it containing karst. It fails to mention more active measures for monitoring pipeline stress and the installation of strain and displacement gages on and around the pipeline. Even with such measures, however, the construction of pipelines like the Mountain Valley and Atlantic Coast will cause significant and irreversible environmental damage. It will also cause significant economic losses to the people whose land is crossed by or near to the pipelines.

The installation of such fracked gas pipelines will also act as a driving force for further fracking of deep shale formations, which will cause even more environmental damage.

Your participation in the preparation of this document will be seen as a sellout and betrayal of the thousands of people who are opposed to such pipelines and whose lives will be so negatively impacted by them. I am disappointed in the position your organization has taken.

George M. Neall III, Rockingham County, Virginia

####################

Dear Friends,

I think any time you have a very large organization—and TNC is the largest environmental non-profit in the country if not the world—that does thousands of transactions and works globally, there are going to be problems that surface, whether they’re falsehoods, misunderstandings or actual wrongdoings. I know there have been misunderstandings when people have left land to TNC in their wills or by a donation while they’re living, with the incorrect assumption that TNC would manage the land as a nature preserve of sorts.

Like any company, TNC has to decide where to best devote its resources. Unless they’ve made a specific agreement with a donor to hold and manage their land a certain way, they are more likely to divest themselves of that asset and put the money toward higher-value conservation areas such as the rainforests or coral reefs.

They also have to make decisions regarding if and how they’ll work with industry. My experience has been that, right or wrong, they feel they can make more headway working with industry than against them. Their CEO is a former Goldman Sachs director, and not a conservation biologist, so that may sway how the organization makes decisions.

My gut tells me that TNC does far and away more good work than they get credit for.

Disclaimer: We have no relationship with TNC—and certainly no monetary relationship—besides jointly holding one conservation easement with them in Bedford County, VA, and running in some of the same professional circles as their Virginia staff.

David C. Perry, Executive Director
Blue Ridge Land Conservancy—An Accredited Land Trust
722 First St. SW Suite L, Roanoke, VA 24016
(540) 985-0000,
blueridgelandconservancy.org

Property rights need to be basic in the U.S.

Essay by George Neall, Rockingham County, VA, August 6, 2018

Studies have documented that the construction of gas pipelines can cause the value of properties impacted by the pipelines to decrease an average of more than 30%. Other studies have documented similar decreases in land values caused by fracking. Who pays for these losses? Beyond the decrease in appraised property values, what are some of the other losses that occur as a result of pipeline construction?

There seems to be little useful and publicly available information on getting fairly compensated for the loss of your land, your quiet enjoyment, and other factors if your property is confiscated, despite the fact that condemnation proceedings are not uncommon. You are typically on-you-own when it comes to this. Most people hire an attorney to represent them in such matters. Finding a knowledgeable attorney who has a successful track record in such cases is very important.

Clearing a pipeline pathway through forested and mountainous land will result in the loss of many tons of topsoil. In one instance (not related to pipeline construction) documented in Texas, 23 tons of topsoil per acre were lost in just one rain event on fairly flat land with a slope of just 4%. Who will pay landowners for the loss of topsoil from their land where pipeline construction will result in the denuding of land? In many areas where the pipeline will be installed, ground slopes exceed 50%. Even after being “reclaimed,” erosion will be astronomical compared to pre-pipeline conditions, especially in forested land.

How much would it cost to have topsoil trucked in and spread on the ground to replace the topsoil that was washed away? What thickness of topsoil loss is equivalent to 23 tons per acre? The answer, shown in the simple calculations below, is just 1/8 in! Soil is not renewable in the classical sense. It takes a long time to form. Allowing topsoil to erode from landowners’ properties is akin to stealing money from them. Will we allow topsoil thieves get off scot-free like all of the crooked “too-big-to-fail” bankers?

The weight of a one-foot thickness of topsoil covering one acre of land area is approximately 4,000,000 lbs. Using 23 tons of topsoil loss per acre, we can calculate how thick this topsoil loss would be:

First, 23 tons/acre x 2,000 lb./ton = 46,000 lb./acre lost from just one rain event

Then, 46,000 lb. soil erosion / 4,000,000 lb./ft. thickness = 0.0115 ft./acre = 0.138 in., a little over 1/8 inch!

In other words, you would not be able to accurately measure soil depth to document this loss. You would actually need to see the topsoil being washed away during or following a rain or observe the gullies and rills left by water that eroded the topsoil to know that erosion had occurred.

Beyond compensation to the landowner for the loss of valuable topsoil, who will pay citizens for the degradation of water, our most precious resource, caused by the erosion of soil into surface and underground water sources? Let’s assume that pipeline construction will result in a total of 23 tons of soil erosion per disturbed acre of land. The actual figure will likely be much greater because most of the land being disturbed by the pipeline will have a slope much greater than 4%, with slopes exceeding 60% in areas. The 23-tons/acre figure was also from just one rainfall, albeit a big one, whereas increased erosion from pipeline construction will continue for many years. The pipeline will result in the denuding of approximately 10,000 acres of land, which would result in more than 200,000 tons of topsoil being washed into our fresh water resources. The rivers and streams carrying this sediment-laden water will eventually carry it to the oceans, further polluting them.

What are trees worth? I’m not a forrester. Standing tree values will vary depending upon a lot of factors, but an estimate of $1,500.00/acre can be used for tracts that are commercially clear-cut. Many people who have purchased forested tracts of land for recreational or retirement use would consider their land more valuable with standing timber than without. Indeed, many people looking for recreational or retirement land would not consider purchasing a clear-cut tract or land that was crossed by or adjacent to a large natural gas pipeline.

My wife and I would not sell the timber rights on the land we temporarily own. The timber is more valuable standing than cut down. The timber is what helps produce the pristine spring water we drink and the pure stream that flows down the mountain behind our house. When you really think about it, we’re all “temporary owners” while we’re alive. The land will endure and flourish if we let it. Sooner or later, someone else will temporarily own our land.

Water is not only the most important product of our wooded property but also of the national forests. Pristine water is dependent upon trees. The animals are dependent upon the trees and water. How much is it worth listening to woodpeckers drumming for food or catbirds calling from the trees? Can you assign a worth to collecting black walnuts, hickory, and May apples nuts in the fall? What about wineberries, blackberries, raspberries, blueberries and mulberries in the summer? If you’re a pipeline company that wishes to profit from the resources in our environment, they would have you believe the values of these things are intangible and irrelevant. We all know better!

There are many other factors that need to be considered if you are faced with condemnation of your land for the construction of a natural gas pipeline. Will your mortgage be affected? Will your house/property insurance be affected? What happens if the pipeline pollutes your land? What happens if/when the pipeline is abandoned? How will your use of the land confiscated by the pipeline be limited or adversely affected? How will the pipeline owner ensure the pipeline right of way is kept clear of trees or other objectionable plants? Will they use herbicides or will this be done manually? How often will these or other pipeline activities disrupt the “quiet enjoyment” of your property? What will happen if you lose your water supply as a result of pipeline construction? If your property is near a compressor station, is that station a nuisance, legally?

Here is the dictionary definition of “nuisance”: “Nuisances that interfere with the physical condition of the land include vibration or blasting that damages a house; destruction of crops; raising or lowering of a water table; or the pollution of soil, a stream or underground water supply. Examples of nuisances interfering with the comfort, convenience, or health of an occupant are foul odors, noxious gases, smoke, dust, loud noises, excessive light or high temperatures.”

Pipeline companies don’t care about any of these “theoretical” considerations. They don’t care about inconveniencing people. They don’t care that their actions may cost other people money or cause emotional pain. They’re not in the business to be nice. They’re in business to make money. They make money by externalizing as many costs as possible, like pollution of our environment. Violations of environmental regulations should result in significant fines. Landowners should receive fair compensation that not only includes the actual value of confiscated land, but also compensation for loss of quiet enjoyment, loss of topsoil and other factors. The cost of mitigating pollution should be paid up front and not by society after is has occurred. If paying environmental costs up front makes the product or project too expensive to generate a profit, it would not happen.

We may be able to stop some pipelines from being built. This needs to be our collective goal. But there will be instances where pipelines are built in spite of widespread and fervent opposition, science and common sense. Dominion and other corporations pay politicians to do their bidding. They help write the laws that let them run roughshod over you and me.

Suggested further reading:
Finding and Buying Your Place In The Country by Les & Carol Scher