Beneath the Chihuahuan Desert of West Texas, a 42-inch diameter pipeline will snake from Northern Pecos County to the U.S.-Mexico boundary near the border town of Presidio, Texas. There, the Trans-Pecos pipeline (TPP) will deliver natural gas derived by hydraulic fracturing (fracking) toย Mexico.
The goal, as the consortium building it publicly states, is to โserve Mexicoโs energyย grid.โย
Yet that purpose has environmentalists and a coalition of Texans asking the following: Why was the consortium able to seize ranchlands in its path and avoid a stringent environmental review for a pipeline that critics claim offers more risks than benefits for the Lone Starย State?
Mexico hasย paidย for TPP, and the route was approved by the bizarrely named Texas Railroad Commission, which is actually a state oil and gas regulatory agency. ETP Consortium, comprised of Energy Transfer Partners (ETP), Carso Energy, and MasTec, is responsible for constructing the internationalย pipeline.
As part of an agreement with Mexicoโs federal electricity commission, the Trans-Pecos pipeline and Energy Transfer Partnerโs Comanche Trail pipeline will send a total of 2.5 billion cubic feet of natural gas to Mexico everyย day.ย
Full Environmental Reviewย Avoided
Last fall, while all eyes were on the Native American-led protests of the Dakota Access pipeline, opponents of TPP and the Comanche Trail pipelines โ a coalition of Texas ranchers, indigenous people, environmentalists, and landowners โ were staging a similar battle, one receiving much less attention.ย ย
The main group organizing opposition to the pipeline, Big Bend Conservation Alliance, has argued that TPP received lax federal oversight. Through what opponents consider โtrickery,โ the consortium and the Texas Railroad Commission filed TPP with the U.S. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) as an intrastate project, which would end west of the town of Presidio, Texas, less than a mile from the U.S.-Mexicoย border.ย
But FERC determined that only a 1,092-foot segment of the pipeline, a link that crosses the international border, was under its jurisdiction and subject to more stringent environmental regulations. Because the rest of the 143-mile-long pipeline was in Texas, FERC considered it an โintrastateโ project, and therefore not subject to an environmental impactย report.ย
โItโs trickery, and FERC accepted what TPP and the Railroad Commission told them,โ said Luc Novovitch, who was commissioner for Brewster County, Texas, until the end ofย December.
โI sent letter after letter to FERC, saying โlook at the whole pipeline,โโ Novovitch told DeSmog. โNo response. They didnโtย care.โย
As with the Dakota Access pipeline, the thrust of TPP protests have been over the environmental risks. The pipeline would traverse acres of high desert in the Big Bend area of Texas, which contains some of the last legacy ranchlands in theย U.S.ย
Bulldozers and trenchers have cleared a one-mile wide swath that environmentalists say has disturbed nesting grounds for hundreds of migratory birds and disrupted the flow and function of the Alamito Creek watershed, placing at risk state threatened and endangered populations of the Texas Horned Lizard,ย Black-Capped Vireo, and Chihuahuan Mud Turtle.ย
Environmentalists say construction of TPP has already damaged streams, creeks, and seasonal wetlands in its path, and destroyed a 5,000-year-old archeological site.ย ย
Credit: Jessica Lutz, Big Bend Conservationย Alliance
Few Benefits for Texans in TPPโsย Path
TPP opponents also point to the landowners whose property has been taken to make way for the pipeline, which the Texas Railroad Commission has designated as a โcommon carrier.โ The common carrier status assumes a project is in the public interest, and in most of the U.S., a state or municipality must show that any project will benefit all, or at least most, of the citizens impacted by it. And with that designation comes the legal power of eminent domain, the power to seize privateย land.
The common carrier provision says companies exercising that power must compensate affected landowners, but it doesnโt say how much it has to pay them. The consortium has made landowners sign non-disclosure agreements in each case, but Novovitch said that not every landowner compensated by the consortium benefitedย equally.ย
โSome landowners got lawyers for the best deal,โ Novovitch said. โOthers were caught unaware and couldnโt afford a lawyer and I know theyโreย struggling.โ
The consortium building the Trans-Pecos line has promised $5.9 million in ad valorem tax revenue to the counties it traverses, as well as five โdelivery points,โ or taps along the route in Texasย โย three in Presidio County, one in Pecos County, and one in Brewster County. The taps are for, as ETP puts it, โcommunities to take advantage of economic developmentย opportunities.โย
But Novovitch says that in his county, ETP is not being taxed on the equipment or the gas, and that payments on the depreciating pipes and valves will be significantly reduced overย time.ย
โThey dangled this carrot of one million dollars a year in tax revenues to residents,โ Novovitch said. โBut after twenty years, depreciation on that equipment could take tax revenues toย zero.โ
As for other benefits coming to Brewster County, Novovitch says, there are none. โWe havenโt seen any jobs coming to the county,โ he toldย DeSmog.
ETP claimed โpublic benefitโ when filing with FERC, through its promise to provide natural gas to rural communities as part of theย project.ย
A spokesperson for ETP, Vicki Granado, told DeSmog, in an email that the consortium has โprovided at our cost five delivery points (taps) along the route in Texas for local communities to take advantage of the economic developmentย opportunities.โย
Presidio, Texas, a border town of 4,600, now relies solely on propane. In an email, Brad Newton, Director of the Presidio Municipal Development District, told DeSmog that a gas line to his region, which is one of the poorest in Texas, would be a โgame changingย event.โ
โWhat is significant is a gas pipeline of any size is being built near enough to Presidio to even get natural gas,โ Newton wrote. โETP said they would build in taps for other regional natural gas providers to be able build new smaller lines to the communities along theย route.โย
Newton added that a natural gas line into his community would encourage new industry and tourism and would be safer than the transport ofย propane.ย
However, as Granado wrote, ETP is not providing a pipeline to any of these communities, but rather a tap that would allow connection to a smaller line. Newton admitted that the city or a commercial franchisee would have to come up with the funds to build that connectingย line.ย
Coyne Gibson, a volunteer at the Big Bend Conservation Alliance, crunched the numbers on the possibility of moving gas from TPP to Presidio, which is more than 12 miles away from the pipelineย terminal.ย
โIt will cost $15 [million to] $20 [million], just to get a municipal system up and running. No company has stepped up to act as a commercial franchisee,โ Gibson reported toย DeSmog.
For the Comanche Trail pipeline, benefits to communities in its path are even harder toย find.
The City of San Elizario, Texas, is in the direct path of this natural gas line, but ETP has promised no tax revenue to the city, according to its mayor, Mayaย Sanchez.
โThe easement on the property now owned by the city was negotiated before the donation of land was transferred to our control,โ Sanchez told DeSmog viaย email.
โWe too have constituents who don’t have access to natural gas and though ETP mentioned makingย taps available, the responsibility to provide this infrastructure rests solely on the city or a third party vendor. And being a relatively new city, incorporated in 2013, our entire operating budget is less than $1ย million.โ
Deck Stacked Against Pipelineย Opponents
Aย coalition of Texas ranchers, indigenous people, environmentalists, and landowners have rallied to protest construction of the Trans-Pecos pipeline. Credit: Jessica Lutz, Big Bend Conservationย Alliance
Pipeline opponents admit their battle is steep, and that their protests have not significantly slowedย construction.ย
There is a legal battle playing out, however. On January 3, the Big Bend Conservation Alliance filed suit against FERC in the U.S. Court of Appeals. The group wants a review of the process FERC used to approve TPP construction and the operation of the Presidio Border Crossingย Project.ย
Considering the first oral argument wonโt be heard until March at the earliest, the legal battle is unlikely to prevent completion of theย pipeline.ย
But, given the many more border-crossing pipelines on the drawing board, Gibson, who has also worked in petrochemical engineering for more than a decade, said itโs the long game thatย matters.
โWe wish to establish precedent that any follow-on pipeline project, or related infrastructure, will not be as simple as TPP, and that the state, federal, and constitutional violations exploited in this project will not be available avenues to those who may attempt to follow,โ he toldย DeSmog.ย
Main image: Sections of the Trans-Pecos pipeline await assembly.ย Credit: Willย Mederski
Subscribe to our newsletter
Stay up to date with DeSmog news and alerts