A U.S. Army Corps of Engineers official will testify to the House today that a bill to fast-track the Keystone XL pipeline would prohibit agency environmental reviews of the project's impact on waterways.

In prepared testimony to the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Energy and Power, Margaret Gaffney-Smith of the Army Corps of Engineers says that a bill from Rep. Lee Terry (R-Neb.) that would shift authority over the TransCanada pipeline to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) does not allow the corps to conduct environmental reviews under the Clean Water Act and the Rivers and Harbors Act.

Those federal laws typically require the corps' approval, and a permit, whenever a structure runs in, under or over a navigable waterway or involves the discharge of dredged material into waterways. "However, none of those statutory reviews would be allowed for this project under the language," says Smith, chief of the regulatory program at the corps, in official testimony.

An Interior Department official also says in prepared testimony that the transfer of authority to FERC in the bill raises "significant concerns" about the how the pipeline's operation and maintenance would be handled on public lands in Montana.

The testimony comes as the fate of the Canada-U.S. oil conduit remains up in the air. Last month, Obama formally denied a cross-border permit for the $7 billion project (ClimateWire, Jan. 19).

Since then, Republicans in Congress have floated several proposals to undo Obama's decision, including Terry's bill requiring FERC to make a decision within 30 days after receiving an application on the project. In the meantime, Nebraska officials and a TransCanada spokesman told ClimateWire yesterday that the process of finding a reroute for Keystone XL around an ecologically sensitive region of Nebraska has been put on hold, as both the company and state await more clarity in the process from Congress.

"We've suspended review activity," said Brian McManus of the Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality, which had been working with the State Department and TransCanada to study an alternative route of the pipeline around the state's Sandhills region. That need for a reroute led to the State Department's denial of a cross-border permit, after it said it did not have time to conduct an environmental review of an alternate pipeline pathway under a 60-day congressional deadline.

TransCanada spokesman Shawn Howard added yesterday that the company still needs to do "field work" to assess a possible new route of the pipeline in Nebraska before submitting a reapplication for a cross-border permit. But he said the company is not currently doing that field work because of lack of clarity about what Congress -- and the State Department -- plans to do next. He said TransCanada also is awaiting the fate of a state legislative bill that would allow Nebraska to continue work on a reroute, regardless of action in Congress.

Nebraskans still worried about property rights

Today, House Democrats also plan to counterattack against Republicans attempting to override President Obama's decision on Keystone XL, which would have taken oil sands crude from Canada to Gulf Coast refineries. Two of the other witnesses called by Democrats to testify -- Nebraska rancher Randall Thompson and Retired Army Brig. Gen. Steven Anderson -- will appear at a press conference this morning before the hearing with Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.), a critic of the pipeline.

"The pipeline keeps us strategically vulnerable because our economy will remain petro-centric, and many thousands of companies developing clean energy technologies and providing renewable energy solutions won't grow capacity and capability as quickly as America needs," Anderson plans to say in official testimony. The army's dependence on oil makes troops vulnerable by making long oil supply lines a convenient target, he says.

Thompson will say that "the dust hasn't settled in Nebraska" among landowners worried about their property rights, as well as the pipeline's impact on waterways.

The removal of the Army Corps from the environmental review process would create a "free for all" on wetlands, said Jim Murphy, a senior counsel at the National Wildlife Federation. Without the Army Corps' oversight, there would be a greater risk of pipeline construction posing a risk to wildlife habitat and to drinking-water aquifers near dredged soil, he said.

Pipeline supporters have long said that Keystone XL underwent more than three years of extensive environmental review, and that it would be a critical piece in the nation's energy security. "The American people want us to stop buying Venezuelan oil," Terry said after introducing his bill.

It remains unclear how pipeline supporters in Congress plan to move legislation. There is the possibility of tethering Terry's bill with major transportation legislation, although Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), the ranking Republican on the Senate committee with oversight over the transportation bill, reiterated yesterday that he would prefer "a different vehicle" for Keystone XL language. Pipeline supporters also are looking for additional supporters for a pro-pipeline bill backed by 44 U.S. senators (Greenwire, Jan. 30).