Legal-Bayou Bridge Pipeline decision

They need to shite or get off the pot. They got all their shite on my land and got our pipeline all tore up. If they're still there by hunting season, I hope they wear orange and keep their head on a swivel. A few old timers that hunt with me ain't quite as careful as some people.

They'll overturn the injunction. The stated argument by the environmental groups is that they don't agree with Corps' decision on issuing the permit or the mitigation required. They say mitigation should have been closer to the site and that the Corps should have evaluated further.

In reality, they just don't want the pipeline being constructed, PERIOD.

quote:

---

The jurisdiction of government agencies in the basin is confusing.

---

If it's a navigable water, tributary to a navigable water, an adjacent wetland, or an isolated wetland where the use, degradation, or destruction of such waters could affect interstate or foreign commerce, it's Corps jurisdiction.

I mean, it's not really that confusing, is it?

quote:

---

The jurisdiction of government agencies in the basin is confusing.

---

The Corps of Engineers and the EPA fought for years (decades ?) over who got jurisdiction over waterbodies & wetlands. Obviously more power, more budget $$ & prestige goes to whatever agency has the biggest slice of the pie.

The Corps is the biggest winner. Sportsmen are the biggest losers in the Basin, with folks like Bayou Bridge/Energy Partners being periodic losers (whenever they have a major project).

I'm sure some folks will argue with what I posted. The foregoing is just my $.02 worth based on quite a few years of helping clients with permitting issues, and working with sportsmen's groups to minimize the damage the Corps has done/is doing in the Basin.

quote:

---

Oh but it is...

---

Please, do tell.

quote:

---

There will be several law suits in Texas against the argument that private-for-profit pipeline cpmpanies are not benefitting local economies by exporting crude oil. It might be a good defense to the common carrier/eminent domain threat. It will be further argued that its exportation will not benefit American consumers but economics is beyound my education.

---

How is any of this new? It's not like this is the first pipeline ever built on private property, nor is it the first time oil will be exported. Nor are we talking about landowners who have not been compensated.

quote:

---

There are also parish, state, and other federal jurisdictions and influences. I talked to a USGS guy about it not too long ago. It's a little more complex than that.

---

We are talking about permitting though. The Corps reigns supreme in that matter.

quote:

---

I guess, but surely they don't act unilaterally on something like this.

---

If it's not in the coastal zone, they almost certainly do. The DNR is the only intentity in Louisiana that the Corps will issue a "joint permit" with. The ACE doesn't give a shite about local entities in most cases.

Sure, you have to have other permits and water quality certifications, and they may wait on some of those, but you can have all of that, and not do a damn thing because the Corps denies your Section 404 permit.

My appreciation of these law suits is that the pipeline companies cannot claim "public use/benefit" if the product transproted is not used domestically therefore expropriation is not valid.

I am not an attorney. You might call them friolous but they are happening.

quote:

---

If it's a navigable water, tributary to a navigable water, an adjacent wetland, or an isolated wetland where the use, degradation, or destruction of such waters could affect interstate or foreign commerce, it's Corps jurisdiction.

I mean, it's not really that confusing, is it?

---

Depends. It's is a release or impedes navigation, then it's the Coast Guard.