In her Feb. 6 letter, Brittany Gaura critiques my earlier letter in which I argued why we should all oppose the construction of the proposed Bakken oil pipeline that would cross 18 of Iowa’s counties and our major rivers, including the South Skunk, Des Moines and Mississippi. 

Gaura bases her belief that Energy Transfer Partners, the Texas-based oil company proposing the Bakken crude oil pipeline, would protect Iowa’s soil and water on her experience attending one of the Iowa Utility Board pipeline information meetings last December. There, she said, she was “impressed with the steps being taken to protect Iowa’s land.”

What steps? 

I also attended these information meetings and heard no specifics. In fact, when farmers raised questions asking how the oil company planned to make sure its soil would not lose productivity, how its tile lines would not be disturbed and how its ground water and wells would be protected, ETP had few or no specific answers. 

At the Boone County meeting Dec. 16, the ETP representative even said, after some prodding, that ETP would not be testing ground water to ensure that small leaks were not occurring. Further, ETP has told landowners that they would pay damages of 100 percent only for the first year of the pipeline easement. Finally, Gaura ignores that Iowa Code 479B.13 only requires liability of up to $250,000 per incident should there be any damages or problems. Previous oil spills have cost in the millions to clean up. When, in history, has an oil company paid MORE than required by law in the event of damages? The promises of an oil company representative sound a little hollow to me.

Gaura also claims my examples of pipeline leaks and spills were “old” pipelines. Someday, the proposed Bakken pipeline, if built, will also be old. ETP is not responsible for the future of the pipeline. Gas stations are required to remove their tanks when they close shop, yet ETP would be allowed to abandon its toxic oil pipeline in our farm fields should they decide to stop transporting oil through it, leaving the responsibility of its disposal to Iowa farmland owners.

The recent spill in the Yellowstone River was a pipeline that, when last checked in 2011, seemed to be adequately underneath the river. It took only four years for the pipeline to become exposed near the break. Iowa’s rivers are subject to more and extreme flooding. Does Gaura expect that somehow nature will act differently upon the pipeline here should it be built beneath our rivers? 

It is widely reported that the future of crude oil is in rail. Having both options, rail and pipeline, affords oil companies the most flexibility. ETP will certainly continue to move its oil by rail through Iowa. If Gaura is worried about oil transportation throughout our state, she should advocate that Iowa adopts legislation banning the transportation of oil by train and to stop this pipeline.

Gaura claims the Bakken oil is produced in the most “reliable, efficient and safest way.” That is a pretty cold way to describe the epidemic of human trafficking, violence and worker fatalities happening in the Bakken region where this oil would be fracked. The New York Times has done a great report on the downside of the Bakken oil boom that can be found here.

Expecting environmental stewardship from an oil company is akin to expecting human rights from a slave owner. Industries built on exploitation seldom side with the public good and we should not expect ETP to, either. 

The economic, social and environmental costs of continuing to invest in oil are too high. Iowa is a renewable energy leader. We do not need ETP’s crude oil pipeline. 

Luckily, Iowans are not all so gullible as Gaura. The Bakken Pipeline Resistance Coalition launched this past week, representing 20 different farmer, faith, social justice and environmental groups. Visit the coalition’s website at nobakken.com to learn more about the pipeline and how you can help stop it. As farmland owner, Pam Alexander said at their press conference, “We need to stand firm and not let them in. They’re going to disrupt our soil, our production. They say they have jobs coming in but what about the jobs that will be affected when they rip our farmland up? Our land and water need to be protected. We need to act now before it can destroy our agricultural state.”