RICHMOND, Va. - A big chunk of the proposed path of the Mountain Valley Pipeline is in what ought to be a "no-build zone," according to a geologic study.

Ernst Kastning, a former professor of geology at Radford University, looked at the karst geology along the path for pipeline opponents. The karst along the West Virginia-Virginia border is made of limestone that's eroded into numerous caves and sinkholes. Kastning said it tends to give way, making it risky and problematic to put a huge gas pipeline on that fragile landscape - especially given the steep ridges and valleys and chance of earthquakes.

"Slopes that are high angle and historically have failed, soils that are on the weak side, and then the chance of having a seismic event," he said. "Any one of those issues in and of itself is important, but when you compound them, then we're looking at a potential problem."

Supporters have argued that the Mountain Valley Pipeline is needed to open a bottleneck in getting Marcellus and Utica natural gas to markets in the East. The pipeline would run 300 miles and cost about $3.5 billion.

Kastning's study found a lot of karst topography in one county in West Virginia and three in Virginia where the MVP would be built. That part of the pipeline's path is about a third of the way from the eastern end and might be difficult to avoid. He said many of these problems are not unique to the MVP project.

"To date, there are no 42-inch pipelines running across the valley and ridge, the Appalachian mountain range," he said, "and there are reasons for that. Should the pipeline go in, there are quite a number of hazards to not only the safety of the people but the natural environment."

The study is being submitted to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission as it deliberates on the MVP and several other pipeline proposals designed to supply eastern gas markets.

The full study is online at wp.vasierraclub.org.


get more stories like this via email

The Iowa House has passed a bill to restrict the use of eminent domain for carbon dioxide pipeline operators in the state. The measure would require the companies to receive permission from landowners before constructing the pipelines.

Right now, the pipeline companies have to get permission only from the three-member, unelected Iowa Utilities Board to use eminent domain, and landowners are completely left out of the process.

Devyn Hall, organizer for the group Iowa Citizens for Community Improvement, said House File 565 would give property owners back the ability to make decisions.

"It pulls the power back into the people's hands," Hall asserted. "With landowners, they'd be able to have some control over what's happening in their lives rather than rely on an unelected, three-person board to make decisions for them."

As it stands, Iowa law has no requirement for pipeline companies to get permission from landowners before imposing eminent domain and taking it. The bill awaits action in the Senate.

Specifically, the bill would require pipeline operators to obtain voluntary easements on 90% of properties along a proposed line before employing eminent domain. At least three corporations are discussing using pipelines through to route carbon dioxide emissions out of the state in exchange for carbon tax credits, part of a larger removal strategy called carbon capture and storage.

For now, the Utilities Board has the final say over whether it can happen, which Hall argued leaves Iowa landowners vulnerable to the whims of those corporations, and unprotected under Iowa's eminent domain law.

"Right now what this fight means is it's a decision between whether we'll allow private companies to use eminent domain for private gain, or if we will stand with our own people and say these polluting companies can't have control over what happens to us," Hall contended.

The bill must pass through the Senate Commerce Committee by the end of this week, where its fate is uncertain. Several similar pipeline bills have died there.

The U.S. EPA is hosting a webinar
this week on its proposed new drinking water regulations.

The Agency has just announced plans to limit harmful toxic substances
known as PFAS in drinking water, and says cleaner water will prevent thousands of deaths and improve the lives of Pennsylvania residents.

Myron Arnowitt, Pennsylvania director for Clean Water Action, said the proposal is a step in the right direction to clean up the state's drinking water while preventing further contamination. He said PFAS are used in consumer products, firefighting foam, food packaging, and many other things.

"We've been increasingly concerned over the years that we have worked on this that these chemicals are getting throughout our environment," he said. "They're in our water. We're finding it in soil, we're finding it in our bodies. I think that the EPA proposal is going to be really important for Pennsylvania. "

In addition to this week's webinar, Arnowitt encouraged people to voice their concerns over the
EPA's proposal during an online public hearing May 4th. The agency expects to finalize its plan by the end of this year, at which time water utilities would have three to five years to comply.

Arnowitt added Pennsylvania has a history of PFAS contamination and the state has set higher drinking water standards, but said Pennsylvanians remain concerned about potential exposure.

"I think cancer is certainly the biggest issue that people are worried about. But there are people who experience other kinds of health problems from having water that's been contaminated by PFAS," he said.

Arnowitt said the EPA's proposal would require public utilities to monitor levels of six different PFAS and remove them if they exceed safe drinking water standards. The last day to register for the May 4th public hearing is April 28th.

Researchers with the University of New Hampshire are taking to the skies to study the state's increasingly fragmented forests.

Urban and agricultural growth, and roads are carving up large swaths of forestland into smaller patches, exposing new forest edges to invasive species and uprooting wildlife.

Russ Congalton, professor of natural resources and the environment at the University of New Hampshire, said they're using drones to get a better look at how forests are responding.

"So we could see 50 meters into the forest," Congalton suggested. "There's still a change in the vegetation, there's still a change in the density of the vegetation, there probably are some temperature changes."

Congalton pointed out newly-created forest edges affect tree mortality, which increases carbon emissions contributing to climate change. They are also more susceptible to invasive species, like the woolly adelgid, attacking hemlock trees across New England.

New Hampshire lost more than 126,000 acres of forest from 1983 to 2017, a nearly 3% reduction, according to the U.S. Forest Service.

Congalton noted by using drones, researchers can view nearly 100 acres of forest in 40 minutes, helping them not only cover more distance, but detect and measure the forest's adjustment at the new "edges" sooner.

"We save tons of effort, tons of money and tons of time in order to get this kind of information in a lot more efficient and effective manner," Congalton explained.

Congalton added some residents have at times not been happy about seeing drones near their property, but he hopes they know the camera is focused on the trees, and there are a lot of them. At nearly 80% forest coverage, New Hampshire ranks as the second most-forested state in the U.S.


get more stories like this via email