Stephanie Croston

    by Stephanie Croston
     The Seward City Council would like TransCanada to move its pipeline.
     The proposed route takes the pipeline through the city's wellfield west of Seward. Concerns over a possible leak that could pollute the city's water supply motivated a group of citizens to form the Citizens on Pipeline Route Committee, whose goal is to find a new route for the pipeline away from the wellfield.
     At the Sept. 4 council meeting, the committee shared a second variation route that would move the pipeline to the east side of Seward. The second variation came after representatives of TransCanada reviewed the first variation at a work session Aug. 28.
     At that meeting, Heidi Tillquist, an environmental conservationist from ENSR in Fort Collins, Colo., reviewed the proposal and concluded that because it crossed more shallow aquifers, it was not as attractive as the route proposed by TransCanada.
     Jon Kruse of Seward told the council Sept. 4 that the new variation decreases the number of affected property owners and residents and avoids forest land and the "high consequence area" around the wellfield, populated areas and ecologically sensitive areas.
     Kruse also reviewed the committee's concern that, in the event of a leak, there is no guarantee that the city's water supply would be safe, adding that spilled materials could go through the rubber gaskets on the city's PVC pipes. He also reminded the council that the right-of-way agreements from TransCanada allow additional pipelines to be installed on the same route.
     Jeff Rauh, public consultant for the Keystone Pipeline, reviewed some of the information from the work session. TransCanada's studies have found that the possibility of a leak in the Seward County area is one every 9,000 years. If a spill or leak occurred, he said, it would take 10 years for the material to reach the wells, giving ample time to contain and clean it up.
     He also said that because of the flood plain and the wetlands to the west of Seward, development that direction will be less likely than development to the east.
     Although TransCanada has helped allay some fears over possible contamination of the water supply, council members said, they felt the pipeline should be moved. One primary concern was that, with the right to add more pipelines, a gasoline pipeline might be installed, and that could pose a bigger threat to the water supply.
     City Attorney Larry Brauer told the council that, since the pipeline is located outside the city limits, the council could not ask TransCanada to enter into a franchise agreement, as suggested by Kruse and the committee.
     Even though the city's wellfield is in a wellhead protection area, controls have not been established, Brauer said.
     After discussion, the council voted 5-1 to have Brauer prepare a resolution stating that the council would like to have the pipeline moved to a location that does not cross the city's water lines and wellhead protection area, that all safety measures are put in place when the pipeline is built and that TransCanada consider providing a bond in case of an accident or spill. Councilmembers Sid Kamprath, Mark Eilers, Bob Fiala, Loren Pogreba and Tony Vrana voted in favor, while Councilman David Stewart cast the dissenting vote. Councilmembers Brett Smith and John Singleton were absent.