People vs. the Pipeline

"It seems to me that when I send my kid to O. Henry, I shouldn't have to worry about a pipeline exploding while my kid is at school." -- former Texas Land Commissioner Garry Mauro (Photo By Jana Birchum)

The 24 dozen doughnuts brought to last Saturday's three-hour meeting on the controversial Longhorn Pipeline project were enough to feed a small army, but by the end of the day, the Longhorn PR men were sending folks home with boxes of the untouched sweets.

It was a nice, methodical gesture on Longhorn's part, but the sparse crowd of some 30 South Austin residents had walked through the doors of Bedichek Middle School cafeteria looking for meat-and-potato substance. They wanted assurances that the proposed gasoline pipeline snaking across Austin's southern boundaries would not leak into their water supply or explode near the estimated 9,200 people who live within 1,250 feet of it, or close to their schools and churches. "It seems to me that when I send my kid to O. Henry, I shouldn't have to worry about a pipeline exploding while my kid is at school," former Texas Land Commissioner Garry Mauro said during the informational forum. Other speakers included state Rep. Ann Kitchen, environmental activist/engineer Lauren Ross, attorney Renea Hicks (who represents West Texas landowners and other plaintiffs suing Longhorn), Barton Springs/Edwards Aquifer Conservation District Board President Craig Smith, and several Longhorn reps, including PR spokesmen Trey Salinas and Don Martin.

Longhorn, a partnership of ExxonMobil, BP Amoco, and other big energy companies, wants to move gasoline, diesel, and aviation fuel through the former crude-oil pipeline from the Gulf Coast to El Paso. The proposed project has been a point of local controversy for at least six years. Though the federal government has signed off on the pipeline, legal matters have delayed Longhorn's plans. U.S. Judge Sam Sparks is weighing decisions on the validity of Longhorn approvals obtained from the EPA and the U.S. Dept. of Transportation's Office of Pipeline Safety. He also must rule on the settlement agreement between Longhorn and the Lower Colorado River Authority, which had initially joined in a federal lawsuit against the project, but backed off after Longhorn agreed to replace six miles of existing pipe in environmentally sensitive areas of the Edwards Aquifer.

Several months ago, Mauro and two environmental groups -- the Save Barton Creek Association and People Organized in Defense of Earth and Her Resources -- led a push for a city ordinance barring the routing of hazardous liquid pipelines through Austin unless the city granted permission. Council Member Raul Alvarez brought the ordinance forward in July, but council never voted on it. Then-Mayor Kirk Watson, Mayor Pro Tem Jackie Goodman, and Council Member Will Wynn asked City Manager Jesus Garza to study the matter, but the draft ordinance seemed to go the way of many other proposals presented at City Hall: nowhere.

Mauro (who says he is no longer lobbying for pipeline opponents Navajo Refining Co.) drew enthusiastic applause by questioning why the city never took action on the ordinance. "We all know it's the city's job to zone," said the one-time Democratic gubernatorial candidate. "We need to pass an ordinance today that says no new pipelines will be routed through Austin." This led Mayor Pro Tem Goodman to catapult from her chair to the podium. Sounding a mite defensive, she explained that the proposal did not, in fact, die, but is inching its way toward the front burner. Former assistant city attorney Connie O'Day has continued working on the draft ordinance from her new home in New Mexico, she said, adding that the council would like to bring O'Day back to Austin on a retainer basis to work exclusively on the issue. Under those circumstances, the proposal could be in line for council action some time after the first of the year, Goodman estimated.

Whether the ordinance would hold up in court, or constitutes a governmental "taking" of property that requires compensation, remains unclear. Longhorn would surely challenge the new regulation. But if the city can withstand legal tests on an ordinance to protect salamanders, Mauro mused, it can surely stand up to legal challenges to an ordinance protecting people. At least one outside legal opinion -- requested by Longhorn opponents -- has been cited. The Washington, D.C.-based law firm Patton Boggs found "strong reason to conclude" that such an ordinance would not be pre-empted by federal law.

In other developments discussed at the forum, Longhorn says it recently cleared portions of the pipeline's right-of-way property in Austin, installed erosion and sedimentation protection measures, and replaced some of the line with thicker-walled pipe. Moreover, Longhorn says it will begin lowering further into the ground some 2,400 feet of existing pipeline in Southeast Austin. (Longhorn can legally continue its construction work on the project but can't begin operating until -- and if -- Judge Sparks gives the okay.) On the state level, House Speaker Pete Laney, responding to requests from Rep. Kitchen and other legislators, has ordered a committee to examine and conduct public hearings on pipeline safety regulations in preparation for the 2003 session.