Texas Rancher Won't Budge for Pipeline | Drudge Retort

Tuesday, February 19, 2013

Texas Rancher Won't Budge for Pipeline

The Keystone XL Pipeline extends two miles a day into Texas, but it can't get past Julia Trigg Crawford. The rancher in Direct, Texas, has 650 acres of land and the pipeline maker TransCanada only wants a small piece, but Crawford won't let them take it. TransCanada has sued Crawford after she rejected a $21,000 offer. "I don't think they have a right to take it," she said. "I just don't believe that a Canadian organization that appears to be building a pipeline for their financial gain has more right to my land than I do."

Posted by rcade at 10:33 AM | 26 COMMENTS | permalink | Comment on This Entry |

Advertisement

Menu

Front Page
Breaking News
Comments
Flagged Comments
User Blogs
Write a Blog Entry
Create a Poll
Edit Account
Weekly Digest
Stats Page
RSS Feed
Back Page

Advertisement

Subscriptions

Read the Retort using RSS.

Author Info

Joined 2003/04/04
Visited 2013/05/19

Status: editor

Advertisement

MORE STORIES

Becoming an American Bad for Your Health (10 comments) ...

Arkansas Treasurer Arrested for Extortion (2 comments) ...

10 Bars to Visit Before You Die (11 comments) ...

Wife Dies Handing Husband AK-47 (202 comments) ...

538: No Statistical Basis for Audit Claims (23 comments) ...

Advertisement

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Personal attacks, profanity, abusive conduct and expressions of prejudice are not allowed. If you have comments about site moderation, contact the site publisher in email.

Good luck on that one.

#1 | Posted by sames1 at 2013-02-19 10:41 AM | Reply | Flag:

Sounds like too few zeros and not enough commas...

#2 | Posted by yougothurt at 2013-02-19 10:43 AM | Reply | Flag:

I wonder if conservatives will send her as much money (for her defense fund) as they sent to Zimmerman?

#3 | Posted by autonomous at 2013-02-19 10:54 AM | Reply | Flag:

Burying a pipeline and pumping thick gooey oil through it at high pressure....oh gee....what could (does) go wrong? But hey, who needs water anyway.

#4 | Posted by danni at 2013-02-19 10:55 AM | Reply | Flag:

Burying a pipeline and pumping thick gooey oil through it at high pressure....oh gee....what could (does) go wrong? But hey, who needs water anyway.

#4 | Posted by danni

Do you have any clue as to how many oil and gas pipelines run across america? If you saw a map of all of them, as I have, you'd be amazed. It looks like a map of the interstate and highway system. Now, try to recall the last pipeline leak that caused serious environmental problems that were not easily remediated. If you can, please provide credible links.

#5 | Posted by path at 2013-02-19 11:25 AM | Reply | Flag:

This is the thread where the "don't tread on me" clowns stop their normal routine of being victims of government ------ to encourage the governed to tread on other Americans

#6 | Posted by ChiefTutMoses at 2013-02-19 11:47 AM | Reply | Flag:

Do you have any clue as to how many oil and gas pipelines run across america? If you saw a map of all of them, as I have, you'd be amazed. It looks like a map of the interstate and highway system. Now, try to recall the last pipeline leak that caused serious environmental problems that were not easily remediated. If you can, please provide credible links.

#5 | POSTED BY PATH

Since you asked:

en.wikipedia.org

en.wikipedia.org

en.wikipedia.org

Isn't all Oil, some is natural gas.

#7 | Posted by Lohocla at 2013-02-19 11:57 AM | Reply | Flag:

I'm glad there is no danger transporting oil by ship, truck, or rail. Whew...saved again.

#8 | Posted by sames1 at 2013-02-19 11:59 AM | Reply | Flag:

Apparently the government isn't a repressive regime to the modern "conservative" when it seizes American tax payer land for use by a foreign oil company.

#9 | Posted by ChiefTutMoses at 2013-02-19 12:14 PM | Reply | Flag:

#7: You got me. Didn't realize how often. Thanks.

Maybe we should abandon all pipelines, go back to horse and carriage, burn wood and coal for heating and cooking, dump all our electrical gadgets (radio, TV, iPad/Pods, etc).

Do you have any links comparing oil spills from pipelines to spills from ships, trucks, and trains?

#10 | Posted by path at 2013-02-19 12:17 PM | Reply | Flag:

"I'm glad there is no danger transporting oil by ship, truck, or rail. Whew...saved again."

The point being made, Einstein, is that it makes no sense to agree to have the pipeline to run through her ranch for a pittance of $21,000 when the pipline could end up contaminating her whole property.

#11 | Posted by Sully at 2013-02-19 12:32 PM | Reply | Flag:

A). She should get a cut of the action, not a one time payment. Whatever importance her land stands to the overall project should be calculated into an annual percentage of their profits.
B). I don't agree with eminent domain but do see why it's necessary for things like interstates and whatnot, but not some Canadian company.
C). If they do take it, they should have a separate insurance policy for each piece of surrounding land so the landowner doesn't get her [...] pipe reamed.

#12 | Posted by 101Chairborne at 2013-02-19 01:52 PM | Reply | Flag:

From the article:
She rejected a $21,000 offer from TransCanada. The company says it's too late to go around Crawford's land, so Transcanada has sued her.

-----

Too late to go around? Is that bad planning? Do they have but 1 path they can follow? All their plans are screwed because of one small piece of land?

Sorry, but failure to plan on your part does not make an emergency on my part.

$21K for an acre or so may seem like a lot of money, but it is not enough to make a well off person even flinch. Oooh, you want to pay me 1/2 of the price of a car to potentially ruin my livelyhood. I don't think so.

They should have had contracts in place with alternate routes in case those troublesome Texans decide not to play.

Imminent domain is for OUR government, and even then, they need to pay for land they take.

#13 | Posted by Marty at 2013-02-19 02:35 PM | Reply | Flag:

Now, try to recall the last pipeline leak that caused serious environmental problems that were not easily remediated.

As has been pointed out, it happens frequently enough that it is (should be) a major concern. The other point is that things wear out. A spill is bound to happen. However, it seems as though pipelines could be (have been?) engineered to "shut down" certain sections if a leak is detected. In addition, the oil company should be required to secure and maintain throughout the life of the pipeline a bond to ensure that it can 1) compensate land owners if oil is spilled on their property and 2) perform any required clean up.

#14 | Posted by FedUpWithPols at 2013-02-19 02:44 PM | Reply | Flag:

"I wonder if conservatives will send her as much money (for her defense fund) as they sent to Zimmerman?"

Now that's a good question.

#15 | Posted by Tor at 2013-02-19 05:06 PM | Reply | Flag:

I never sent Zimmerman a penny but I might send the pipeline people some.. Because at least I admit to the desire to cut off the flow of ay-rabian oil, instead of whining about the high price of gas.
Oh and I don't have a link.

#16 | Posted by phesterOBoyle at 2013-02-19 05:13 PM | Reply | Flag:

It amuses me that conservatives are all for this pipeline. Why we should provide a Canadian Oil company access to the international market just baffles me.
Reptile brain says oil company equal good, environmentalist equal bad. No want to hear details!!

#17 | Posted by RastaCyborg at 2013-02-19 06:58 PM | Reply | Flag:

All this dirty tar oil and gas is intended for export and profit by foreign global companies, and it is not at all to make the USA energy independent or to give us a competitive manufacturing advantage. That restriction would have been well defined in the agreement had the government been working for the USA.

Our water,land and environment is the potential sacrifice and the carrot the polluters offer are some jobs, just like they did with coal mines and every other effort at pillaging the land. The target the drillers and gas line companies always go after are average squeezed hard working American land owners willing to risk their homes.

#18 | Posted by Robson at 2013-02-19 08:40 PM | Reply | Flag:

When did conservatives come to the odd dysfunctional conclusion that an overall healthy environment equal bad? Greed by corporate and sometimes foreign polluters equal good? Pillaging private property and the use of eminent domain for profit also equals good?

#19 | Posted by Robson at 2013-02-19 08:45 PM | Reply | Flag:

I agree with this property owner but federal law disagrees with me. I am mad as hell about the supreme dork decision made about taking land from one private owner to give to another for development in Connecticut. This is the same principle.
The land would not be taken from this rancher in toto, but it is enough to make me side with her side.
And that's from a conservative for all the above posters trying to assign a different view to us.

#20 | Posted by Diablo at 2013-02-20 01:52 AM | Reply | Flag:

Do you have any links comparing oil spills from pipelines to spills from ships, trucks, and trains?

#10 | POSTED BY PATH

en.wikipedia.org

You'll have to do you're own comparison or expend a bit more time looking, google and wiki searches are pretty easy nowadays.

I would but I'm getting ready to go to a meeting. :)

#21 | Posted by Lohocla at 2013-02-20 08:28 AM | Reply | Flag:

And that's from a conservative for all the above posters trying to assign a different view to us.

#20 | Posted by Diablo

Thank you. I get so tired of the left throwing up staw men arguments. No conservative is for the taking of land, that is a leftist thing.

I am a Conservative and a lover of the environment and the natural order of things. I read about and practice Permaculture on my own land. I once was big in the Siera Club, but disagree with their views on the taking of private land without proper compensation.

You lefties want big government telling you how to do everything, then try to blame repubs for big government taking things. Pretty sad arguments.

#22 | Posted by Marty at 2013-02-20 10:50 AM | Reply | Flag:

In order for the government to exercise the taking of land by Eminent Domain there are two qualifications:

There must be compensation of "fair market value."
The taking must be for the "public good."

In recent years there has been a lot of screwing around with the definition of "public good." I don't really think that taking land to build a WalMart or such is "for the public good" even though there would be more taxes paid to the local government. I think the main beneficiary would be WalMart. I wanna see what the government considers the "public good" that would come from the taking of this rancher's land.

#23 | Posted by jestgettinalong at 2013-02-20 11:19 AM | Reply | Flag:

Just because one is conservative and feels the pipeline is a good idea, rather than shipping overseas to China and then have part of the refined oil shipped back here, doesn't mean being in favor of taking this rancher's property

If she doesn't want to sell, then offer her more money, if she still doesn't want to sell, well so be it.

#24 | Posted by danv at 2013-02-20 12:36 PM | Reply | Flag:

#23 | Posted by jestgettinalong

Not exactly. The term is "public use." Not an easy term to define. A TX statute precludes taking for "economic development." The statute excludes "common carriers and energy transporters." As to compensation, FMV is defined as the "the price the property will bring when offered for sale by the one who desires to sell, but is not obligated to sell and is bought by one who desires to buy, but is
under no necessity of buying." recenter.tamu.edu

For this property, the local appraisal district lists the farm at about 350 acres, not 650, they may lease the other 300. Of those 350, about 50 is listed with a FMV of about $650.00 per acre. The other 300 is listed at about $1450.00 per acre. I read somewhere, but can't find it, that the easement encompasses about 10 acres or less.

Is a pipeline a "public use?" Ask those in the northeast if they think they need them for their energy needs. www.google.com For those that say "this pipeline is different," think equal protection of law.

#25 | Posted by et_al at 2013-02-20 01:11 PM | Reply | Flag:

even though there would be more taxes paid to the local government. I think the main beneficiary would be WalMart.
#23| Posted by jestgettinalong

Actually, no. They always seem to have some kind of property tax exemption or break, and they also get exempted from paying sales taxes to the the localities where they are, like a lot "industries" do. And that doesn't even count what local and state government have to pick up for food stamps and Medicaid because their employees are so poorly paid.

#26 | Posted by WhoDaMan at 2013-02-20 05:31 PM | Reply | Flag:

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Nooner | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2013 World Readable

Advertisement