Hundreds of people turned out and many waited for hours yesterday in Austin, TX to testify against the dangerous Keystone XL tar sands pipeline, which is proposed by a foreign company and threatens the health, climate and water of those living along the proposed pipeline route.
Photo by Karen Hadden of man arrested for expressing concerns about the flawed hearing process.
This pipeline would be carrying the dirtiest of oil from Canada through the heartland of American to be refined here in Texas. The State Department sent contract facilitators who abruptly halted testimony, turning away several dozen speakers. Federal Security and UTPD then forced people out of the room. One man expressed concerns about the flawed process and was arrested for “criminal trespass.”
According to Karen Hadden, the Executive Director of the Sustainable and Economic Development (SEED) Coalition, “This was not a hearing, this was a farce.” Ms. Hadden arrived and had been waiting for a couple of hours to give comments when they cut the hearing off. Later, when she was attempting to find out what her options were for providing comments to the State Department given she was unable to do so at the hearing, she was told she must leave the premises or she would be arrested.
According to Brad Johnson of ThinkProgress
In a stunning conflict of interest, public hearings on federal approval for a proposed tar sands pipeline are being run by a contractor for the pipeline company itself. The U.S. Department of State’s public hearings along the proposed route of the TransCanada Keystone XL tar sands pipeline this week are under the purview of Cardno Entrix, a “professional environmental consulting company” that specializes in “permitting and compliance.”
Cardno is not only running the State Department hearings, but also manages the department’s Keystone XL website and drafted the department’s environmental impact statement. Comments from the public about the pipeline go not to the government, but to a cardno.com email address.
Cardno Entrix was contracted by TransCanada Keystone XL LP (“Keystone”) to do the work for the Department of State, to assist DOS in preparing the EIS and to conduct the Section 106 consultation process.
Throughout the history of the DOS review of the Keystone pipeline, the work has been conducted not by civil servants but by representatives of the pipeline company. During the Bush administration, the Department of State appointed TransCanada “and its subcontractors to act as its designated non-federal representatives” to assess the potential impact of the Keystone pipeline on endangered species.
Cardno Entrix contractors are running the public hearings from Port Arthur, Texas, to Glendive, Montana. It is not clear from media reports whether the State Department “representatives” at the hearing were in fact Entrix employees. ThinkProgress Green is awaiting information from the State Department.
“All of this adds up to the old saying, the fox is guarding the hen house,” says Jane Kleeb, the Nebraska activist leading the fight to protect her state from the risks of the Keystone XL project.
We will also followup and let you know if there were, in fact, any actual employees of the State Department present at this hearing.
![[Valid RSS]](valid-rss.png "Validate my RSS feed")
I attended all of the hearing except for one hour (6-7 PM). I was able to speak after 4 PM because I arrived at 10:30 AM. However, busloads of out-of town union workers had arrived at 7 AM. Although it seemed to me that over half of those who spoke were pro-pipeline, the majority of those in attendance throughout the day were anti-pipeline, but were unable to speak. Cardno Entrix would have been perfectly placed to tip the unions off so that they could gain the system. Once again, it appears to me that the dirty oil companies have purchased another piece of our democracy for corporate profits.
Also, at the hearing, the two “officials” present (who did not identify themselves) did answer one question: they said that they were “employees of the state department.” Certainly the press should find out more!
[...] Austin Tar Sands Hearing a Farce (texasvox.org) [...]
I attended both the Port Arthur hearing and the Austin hearing. Arriving at the LBJ Auditorium at 6:45 a.m., I waited in line behind about 30 “orange shirts” (pipe fitter union members) before finally being allowed inside at 11:45 to sign up to speak. As I waited for my turn as speaker #24, I watched as, just like at the Port Arthur meeting, the moderator smiled and nodded as TransCanada talking points were repeated again and again by the “orange shirts” ahead of me. After Port Arthur I thought that things in Austin would be a little less slanted. I was sorely mistaken as the same speakers from Port Arthur poured out the same corporate-line drivel, in some cases literally reading word for word from the same rhetorical script. “Scam” is the word that came to mind at the hearing in Port Arthur. “Shameless, conflict-of-interest, democracy-killing, fascist scam” is what I leave Austin knowing I have just witnessed.
This entire process, I now realize, has been a farce, and the Final E.I.S and National Interest Determination, as such, should be completely thrown out. What Bush put into place was NEVER in the national interest, and the Obama administration should start over from scratch on this process to make it truly transparent and democratic.
Sounds like it was a hearing by and for the autocratic Hillary Clinton!!
Lisa Pollard provided this. Notice in (c): It is the intent of these regulations that the contractor be chosen solely by the lead agency, or by the lead agency in cooperation with cooperating agencies, or where appropriate by a cooperating agency to avoid any conflict of interest. Contractors shall execute a disclosure statement prepared by the lead agency, or where appropriate the cooperating agency, specifying that they have no financial or other interest in the outcome of the project. WHAT IS THIS?? SHEER OUTLAWRY!
Ӥ 1506.5 Agency responsibility.
(a) Information. If an agency requires an applicant to submit environmental information for possible use by the agency in preparing an environmental impact statement, then the agency should assist the applicant by outlining the types of information required. The agency shall independently evaluate the information submitted and shall be responsible for its accuracy. If the agency chooses to use the information submitted by the applicant in the environmental impact statement, either directly or by reference, then the names of the persons responsible for the independent evaluation shall be included in the list of preparers (§1502.17). It is the intent of this paragraph that acceptable work not be redone, but that it be verified by the agency.
(b) Environmental assessments. If an agency permits an applicant to prepare an environmental assessment, the agency, besides fulfilling the requirements of paragraph (a) of this section, shall make its own evaluation of the environmental issues and take responsibility for the scope and content of the environmental assessment.
(c) Environmental impact statements. Except as provided in §§1506.2 and 1506.3 any environmental impact statement prepared pursuant to the requirements of NEPA shall be prepared directly by or by a contractor selected by the lead agency or where appropriate under §1501.6(b), a cooperating agency. It is the intent of these regulations that the contractor be chosen solely by the lead agency, or by the lead agency in cooperation with cooperating agencies, or where appropriate by a cooperating agency to avoid any conflict of interest. Contractors shall execute a disclosure statement prepared by the lead agency, or where appropriate the cooperating agency, specifying that they have no financial or other interest in the outcome of the project. If the document is prepared by contract, the responsible Federal official shall furnish guidance and participate in the preparation and shall independently evaluate the statement prior to its approval and take responsibility for its scope and contents. Nothing in this section is intended to prohibit any agency from requesting any person to submit information to it or to prohibit any person from submitting information to any agency.”
That’s from Code of Federal Regulations,Title 40: Protection of Environment
PART 1506—OTHER REQUIREMENTS OF NEPA
§ 1506.5 Agency responsibility.
Reklaw and Gallatin form 391 Commission
vs KEYSTONE XL Pipeline proposal
Reklaw/Gallatin, TX, September 26th, 2011 – The City Councils of Reklaw and Gallatin have joined to establish an East Texas Sub-Regional Planning Commission (“ETSRPC”) as specified in the Texas Local Government Code, Chapter 391, Regional Planning Commissions.
As a political subdivision of the State of Texas, it is the ETSRPC’S general responsibility to “study, plan and guide the unified, far-reaching development of the region”. The formation of this ETSRPC mandates that the federal and state agencies coordinate and cooperate with it in matters impacting the ETSRPC’s responsibilities, which include, but are not limited to, local concerns involving the Keystone XL Tar Sands Pipeline Project.
The U.S. State Department has been placed on notice by the ETSRPC to prepare to answer all questions from the commission regarding current and future plans for the Keystone XL pipeline as it will impact our citizens and economies.
The urgent task of the ETSRPC is to compile the concerns of the region into Public Comments for Submission to the State Department on the National Interest Determination. Anyone can make comments which will go into the record of the public hearings (specific information below).
“When closely examined, the Keystone XL pipeline passing through East Texas begs many questions. The potential for a disaster seems real. This is a non-partisan political issue that gambles with our resources and livelihoods. The 391 Commission elevates us into a position in which we can learn more, have our concerns heard, and influence policy,” explains ETSRPC member, Tom Colkin.
The State Department Hearings on the National Interest Determination of the Keystone XL pipeline were held in various places throughout the U.S. In Texas hearings were held on Monday, September 26th, in Port Arthur and on Wednesday, September 28th, in Austin. Members of the Reklaw/Gallatin ETSRPC were at the hearings in Austin to report on regional concerns. The decision to issue a Presidential Permit for the Keystone XL pipeline will take into account a wide range of factors, including environmental, economic, energy security, foreign policy, and pipeline safety concerns.
The ETSRPC invites concerned entities to join. For information, please contact:
Chase Palmer Tel: 936-537-2448
Tom Colkin Tel: 903-521-2957
Roberta Colkin Tel: 903-780-2938
In order for comments to be considered, they must be submitted indicating:
“Reference EO 13337” by midnight on October 9, 2011
by the following methods:
Fax at 206-269-0098; or
Mailed to the following address:
Alexander Yuan
Keystone XL EIS Project
P.O. BOX 96503-98500
Washington, DC 20090-6503
[...] front and center as the “facilitators” of those “public hearings.” Click here to read our earlier blog about the Austin [...]
In addition to stark violations of NEPA, the State Department is blatantly violating OMB Peer Review Bulletin (2004) which requires “highly influential scientific assessments” for significant projects (damages potentially exceeding 500 million: peanuts for the epocal Keystone XL projects). Under this OMB Bulletin, environmental review for these major projects must be supported by transparent, in-depth, peer-reviewed evaluations.
There is no doubt that the Secretary of State’s approval of the Keystone Permit is subject to the requirements of this Bulletin and that the necessary independent scientific assessment has not been made. We can’t afford another BP. The OMB Peer Review Bulletin — if obeyed by our government — would prevent another blind waltz to environmental and economic disaster.
[...] who had been there for hours were cut off, one man was arrested for complaining about the process (Click here to read that blog post) and many at that hearing were questioning the facilitators about who they [...]