Council may pump $100K into Permian pipeline legal battle

Austin City Council members will vote on a resolution Thursday earmarking as much as $100,000 to the city manager to participate in civil litigation against the Permian Highway Pipeline.

The 42-inch, 430-mile buried natural gas pipeline would run from just north of Fort Stockton in West Texas through the Texas Hill Country en route to the Houston area. It has drawn the ire of landowners and local governments along its route who have raised concerns about both property rights and environmental consequences.

Council members approved a resolution in June opposing the pipeline and directing city staffers to conduct a study of the potential impacts to Austin’s water quality related to the pipeline, including threats to the endangered Austin blind salamander and Barton Springs salamander.

In August, Austin Watershed Protection completed a report that found applicable regulations were not strong enough to guarantee that the environment, including Barton Springs, would not be harmed by the pipeline's operation or construction.

The department’s report said the pipeline is classified as an intrastate pipeline, which exempts it from certain federal environmental regulations. However, the pipeline is still subject to some regulation by the Texas Railroad Commission, though the state agency does not provide opportunity for public review or input, according to the report.

Chris Herrington, environmental officer for the city of Austin, said the city does not have enough data on the pipeline to conduct an adequate risk assessment. Suing pipeline giant Kinder Morgan could open more data to the public.

“We know there is potential for contamination, there is a route for contamination to get into Barton Springs, but since we don’t know more specifics, we can’t do a full risk assessment to really assess the full range of potential impacts,” Herrington said.

Melinda Taylor, a senior lecturer at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law, said she thinks the city is trying to ensure the public has more opportunity to review the science surrounding the pipeline and its potential impact on the environment and endangered animals.

Taylor said anytime an entity wants to build something, whether it be a pipeline or a bridge, on land that might affect endangered species, developers must go through a review process with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to ensure no permanent harm results from the project.

That process can happen in a couple of ways. One way is for an entity to go directly to the Fish and Wildlife Service for the assessment, which is a longer process and requires public hearings, she said.

Another, quicker avenue is the one proposed under the current plan for the pipeline: for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to conduct the assessment and issue a permit to Kinder Morgan, Taylor said.

“It's a technical difference, but it ends up having a very substantive real-world effect on the public’s say in how they pipeline will be constructed,” Taylor said.

Kinder Morgan representatives declined to comment Thursday, but said more information on the project should be available next week.

The controversial pipeline has been the subject of suits from landowners throughout the region and from neighboring cities and counties.

In October, the Kyle City Council approved a $2.7 million settlement with Kinder Morgan that would allow the 430-mile pipeline to cut through the city, under the stipulation that the company would not convert it to a crude oil line, officials in Kyle said.

But even without moving crude oil, city staffers say the transfer of natural gas, which is typically dehydrated before being moved, still can result in liquids that could find their way into the aquifer.

Herrington said the city’s goal is not necessarily to kill the pipeline, but to ensure the city has the tools it needs to understand the risks to Austin residents and aquatic resources.

“If risks are too great, we would need to make sure conservation measures are put in place,” he said.