Pipeline Update
On Tuesday November 10th, a hearing was held at the statehouse regarding H3690( transferring public land for private profit). Copied below is testimony submitted by:
Representative Stephen Kulik
Representative Paul Mark
Representative Gailanne Cariddi
Representative Susannah Whipps Lee
Representative Sheila Harrington
Representative Colleen Garry
Senator Barbara L’Italien
Thank you Representative Whipps Lee ! For taking a stand and submitting this testimony on behalf of your constituents.
Dear Julie,
Thank you for your email in opposition to H.3690.
I, along with my colleagues affected by the proposed pipeline projects, offered the following testimony in opposition to H.3690 to the Committee on State Administration and Regulatory Oversight:
Senator Joan Lovely, Senate Chair
Representative Peter Kocot, House Chair
Joint Committee on State Administration and Regulatory Oversight
State House
Boston, MA 02133
Dear Chairs Lovely and Kocot, and members of the Committee:
We are legislators who represent communities which are affected by the proposed Kinder Morgan/Tennessee Gas Company pipeline projects in Massachusetts, one of which is the subject of your committee hearing today: H3690, An Act relative to the conveyance of an easement in the town of Sandisfield. We strongly oppose this legislation, as we will any future legislation which seeks to remove Article 97 protections for any gas pipeline construction projects.
Our Commonwealth has a deep and strong commitment to land conservation. We are fortunate to live in a state that has carefully invested significant public resources into a healthy, vibrant landscape that protects drinking water, family farms, outdoor recreational sites, parks, wildlife habitat, and scenic beauty. Article 97 of the Articles of Amendment to the Massachusetts Constitution is meant to protect these investments and resources, and we are deeply concerned that they are at risk and that our Constitutional protections may be undermined and overridden.
As you know, there are multiple proposals for natural gas pipelines in the Commonwealth, putting close to 100 parcels of land protected under Article 97 at risk. We are very concerned about two projects in particular, the Connecticut Expansion Project (CEP) and the Northeast Energy Direct Project (NED). The NED proposal includes over 100 miles of new pipeline running across western and northeastern Massachusetts, and the CEP would cut through the pristine Otis State Forest in western Massachusetts. Certainly, energy needs are an important issue that we must address. However, addressing energy needs should not be at the undoing of decades of careful public investment in land conservation.
An Article 97 disposition bill filed at the request of Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company, L.L.C. (TGP), a subsidiary of Kinder Morgan, is being heard by your committee on November 10th in Gardner Auditorium. H.3690, An Act relative to the conveyance of an easement in the town of Sandisfield, Massachusetts, would allow valuable state conservation land to be conveyed to TGP for the purpose of natural gas pipeline construction as part of the Connecticut Expansion Project (CEP).
We oppose H. 3690 and intend to oppose additional Article 97 dispositions for natural gas pipelines, including those planned for NED. Environmental groups, including the Environmental League of Massachusetts and Mass Audubon, have indicated that they will score such votes on their legislative score cards. Over 60 organizations have written to the legislature expressing their concerns about such dispositions.
In 2006, after years of planning and negotiation among multiple parties, the Department of Conservation and Recreation finalized one of the largest land conservation deals in the Commonwealth’s history, protecting the very land that would be impacted by the CEP. This pipeline project would impact highly valuable and unique conservation land that includes a variety of habitats, diverse native plant and animal species, historic mill sites, old forests, and river frontage. No mitigation efforts can fully restore pristine, complex natural systems such as wetlands, which provide valuable services such as drinking water purification and flood water protection.
We all know that these pipeline projects are being considered within the context of a review by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). However, the role of the Federal Government does not allow us to abdicate our responsibility to uphold rights established in our Constitution. Article 97 states: “The people shall have the right to clean air and water, freedom from excessive and unnecessary noise, and the natural, scenic, historic, and esthetic qualities of their environment.”
Whether Article 97 can be preempted by FERC is an untested question of law. Our careful consideration of the public purpose of conservation, enshrined in our Constitution, should be conducted independently from any looming possibility of preemption. Importantly, even when FERC has preemptive powers, the agency often makes compliance with certain state or local laws and regulations a condition of the certificate. We should certainly expect and request as much respect for a provision of our Constitution.
In addition to recognizing the public purpose of land conservation in our Constitution, our Commonwealth prioritizes, by statute, renewable energy and energy efficiency measures that help us protect the environmental rights embodied in Article 97. FERC's environmental assessment for the CEP does not evaluate alternative energy solutions, leak repair or other conservation and efficiency measures, or even consider pipeline alternatives such as replacing the existing line with a larger pipe to avoid clear cutting in our protected land. Nor does FERC include an assessment of whether this additional capacity is even needed to meet an actual increase in demand.
Please join with us in our commitment to uphold the public trust and oppose any Article 97 dispositions for natural gas pipeline proposals where there are outstanding environmental concerns.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Representative Stephen Kulik
Representative Paul Mark
Representative Gailanne Cariddi
Representative Susannah Whipps Lee
Representative Sheila Harrington
Representative Colleen Garry
Senator Barbara L’Italien
I will continue doing everything I can to prevent our protected conservation lands from being taken against the will of the public. As a member of the Joint Committee on State Administration and Regulatory Oversight, I plan to vote "unfavorable" when polled.
Susannah Whipps Lee
Representative - 2nd Franklin
Thank you!
ReplyDelete"In 2006, after years of planning and negotiation among multiple parties, the Department of Conservation and Recreation finalized one of the largest land conservation deals in the Commonwealth’s history, protecting the very land that would be impacted by the CEP. This pipeline project would impact highly valuable and unique conservation land that includes a variety of habitats, diverse native plant and animal species, historic mill sites, old forests, and river frontage. No mitigation efforts can fully restore pristine, complex natural systems such as wetlands, which provide valuable services such as drinking water purification and flood water protection."
Thank you for submitting this testimony along with your colleagues. It will be interesting to see if a FERC review can override the Commonwealth of Massachusetts' constitution.
It is also disappointing that a Rep. from Hingham can submit a bill to take protected land away from the Commonwealth. Especially since that protected land not in his district, but at the other end of the Commonwealth.
Commonwealth. Interesting word.