Senator CONRAD. Thank you very much, Mr Kearney. We will proceed with the other witnesses, and then have a chance for questions. I want to acknowledge that my colleague, Senator McClure, the ranking member of the Committee has now joined us, and there is no one more knowledgeable on the issues before this Committee than Senator McClure. Next, we will hear from Mr. Senter, representing the American Agriculture Movement. STATEMENT OF DAVID SENTER, NATIONAL DIRECTOR, AMERICAN AGRICULTURE MOVEMENT, INC. Mr. SENTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the opportunity to appear before this Committee today. I might also state that I am here to represent, not only the American Agriculture Movement, but the National Farmers Union, and National Farmers Organization. All of our groups are strongly opposed to passage of S. 318. This happens to be one of those few issues where, across the board, there is unanimous opposition to this legislation by all the different farm groups, and commodity groups, and the rural community. We believe that the pipelines are unnecessary, and would harm a major ag transportation network that is in place. We, in agriculture, also benefit from competition. We have rail service, we have trucks, and we also, at some locations, have barge opportunities to move grain. We have watched as Rock Island and many other railroads have closed. They have abandoned lines, and left many of our agricultural producers, captive shippers to trucks, which has raised our cost of transportation substantially. We see that if the railroads lose the opportunity to transport coal, that that would, in effect, lead to more abandonments, and higher freight rates for agriculture commodities. We, also, are very concerned about the water resources. We watch as this year appears to be leading us into another drought. The stories from Iowa-water shortages. We also remember the problems we had with barge traffic, because of low water levels. And we do not want to be in a situation of seeing a fierce-fought battle over whether the air conditioners are running in Houston, Texas, or whether we have water for agricultural uses in our major agriculture states. We see this, that once the water is turned on, into these pipelines, it will almost be impossible to ever turn that spigot off, because the system would not still be in place to move coal by other routes. We are concerned about the environmental risk. Senator Conrad, you mentioned the Alaska spill. I think that is on all of our minds. And we see this as a real threat to the environment. You might want to see a picture of one of those minor spills from the Black Mesa pipeline. And I think if this was in the middle of my farm, somewhere in the heartland, this would not be a minor environmental impact. We also know that the Black Mesa, the water ends up in pools, and it evaporates. I really do not think the water would evaporate in South Texas, or Arkansas, or Louisiana, such as it does in Arizo na. So, we see a real problem, and are not convinced that the water could ever be used for agriculture, or any other purposes, and find it very difficult to see how it would be disposed of, particularly talking about export coal. Then, you would have the water close to Chesapeake Bay. You would have it close to the Gulf, and we have a lot of producers involved in aquaculture, and others. So, we are concerned about what will happen to the water, and be the impact. And, of course, very important to us is the eminent domain question. Property rights are very important to those of us in agriculture. We are not concerned with property rights of the railroads. I want to be very clear on that. We have not been friends of the railroads over the years. We are concerned with land owners' property rights. And so, when government starts looking to granting federal eminent domain, for private profit-making companies, we have great concern. If this is, in fact, a business venture that is viable, we believe that, just as the Black Mesa was built, that private interests should come and negotiate with land owners for right of way, instead of the federal government stepping in and granting this eminent domain. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to appear. [The prepared statement of Mr. Senter follows:] merican agriculture MOVEMENT America Needs Parity! American Agriculture Movement, Inc. 100 Maryland Ave., N.E., Suite 500A, Box 69, Washington, D.C. 20002 (202) 544-5750 Testimony of Mr. David Senter American Agriculture Movement, Inc. before the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources April 20,1989 I thank the Chairman and members of this committee for the opportunity to appear here today to present the views of the American Agriculture Movement, Inc. concerning S. 318, the Coal Pipeline Act of 1989. I am pleased to advise the committee that the views I will be expressing today are also shared by the National Farmers Union and the National Farmers Organization. Concerning this matter, these farm groups are all in agreement. AAM, NFU and NFO all strongly opposes S. 318 and urge the members of this committee to vote against this proposal. We oppose S. 318 for a number of reasons: (1) coal slurry pipelines are unnecessary, and would financially damage our national railway transportation system, resulting in higher rates and deterioration of service, as well as a significant loss of jobs; (2) coal slurry pipelines would waste vast quantities of valuable water resources already in short supply, to the detriment of agriculture and other vital industries; (3) coal slurry pipelines would pose unreasonable and unnecessary risks of environmental damage to our land and groundwater supplies; and, Strength From The Land (4) S. 318 would grant the federal power of eminent domain to private entities, allowing them to force farmers to give-up valuable acreage being used for the production of food and fiber. PIPELINES UNNECESSARY; WOULD HARM RAILROADS This pipeline proposal would be an enormously expensive project which simply is not needed. The railway transportation system is more than adequate to meet any foreseeable increase in demand for coal transportation, and there are regulations in place to assure coal shippers fair treatment. Were the railroads to lose the revenue - estimated at $700 million annually-projected as a result of the construction of coal slurry pipelines, the impact on the industry would be dramatic. Transportation rates for the remaining users would rise, quality of service would inevitably decline, and jobs would be lost. WOULD DIVERT SCARCE WATER RESOURCES The impact on our scarce water resources is especially frightening. One ton of water would be required to move one ton of coal, and a single pipeline would require up to 6 billion gallons of water each year enough water to meet the needs of a city with 65,000 people. With the experience of the 1988 drought still fresh in our minds, and the indication that another drought appears likely in 1989, diverting billions of tons of water from agricultural uses in our rural areas to coal slurry pipelines is truly shortsighted. There are other reasonable options for moving coal; without adequate water, we cannot produce food for our people. SERIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL RISKS - on Similarly, the very real threat to the environment cannot be dismissed. What will eventually happen to the enormous quantity of contaminated water required for the pipelines, and what impact will the spills and leaks have and there surely will be accidents groundwater supplies, environmentally fragile land and productive acreage? Has anyone fully considered the adverse consequences of forfeiting thousands of acres of forests, grasslands and croplands to build these pipelines? INAPPROPRIATE USE OF EMINENT DOMAIN Finally, Congress should exercise its power of eminent domain to take private property only when there has been a convincing demonstration of an important and compelling public need. That case has not and cannot be made for coal slurry pipelines. As discussed earlier, the pipelines are not needed at all. They would enrich a few private interests at an enormous cost to the rest of society. Absent an overwhelming public need, private interests seeking to make a profit should negotiate with landowners for any right-of-way over that property. It is preposterous for these companies to suggest that they should be allowed to take our agricultural land through eminent domain to build an coal slurry transportation system that is not needed. On behalf the American Agriculture Movement, Inc., the National Farmers Union and the National Farmers Organization, I urge the members of this committee to reject this ill-advised proposal. |