TransCanada's proposed reroute of the controversial Keystone XL oil pipeline still traverses fragile landscapes in Nebraska and continues to threaten the state's main aquifer, activists said this afternoon.

The company this morning unveiled three proposed adjustments to the pipeline's path through Nebraska, responding to concerns raised by local landowners, environmentalists and state regulators. But those changes, which the company said were meant to steer clear of sandy soils and public drinking water supplies, failed to satisfy opponents of the project.

The pipeline has faced intense opposition from environmental groups that object to the crude it would carry from Alberta's oil sands fields, as well as from Nebraskans who worry about damage a potential leak could cause to the state's water supplies.

"The reason TransCanada needs to keep rerouting the Keystone XL map is because it's just a bad idea," said Joe Mendelson, the National Wildlife Federation's climate and energy policy director. "Each new map amounts to a catalog of which property owners will suffer, and what habitat will be placed at risk. The best approach is to ditch Keystone XL entirely and embrace clean energy solutions that don't spill or explode."

President Obama rejected a permit TransCanada required to build the northern segment of the line across the U.S. border, citing concerns over Nebraska's sensitive Sand Hills region among his reasons for rejecting it. But the company has reapplied and expects an answer on its new application early next year. Construction recently started on the southern leg of the pipeline, which does not require a presidential permit.

A new route TransCanada proposed earlier this year avoided the area of the state formally designated Sand Hills, but residents who found themselves newly in the pipeline's path said their land shared similar characteristics, such as loose soil that could allow spilled oil to contaminate underground water supplies.

Avoiding such landscapes is virtually impossible in the northern part of the state, and the new route proposed today carries the same concerns as earlier versions, said Jane Kleeb, of the anti-Keystone group Bold Nebraska.

"When you're up in that part of our state -- that's Sand Hill country," Kleeb said.

Kleeb said her group does not believe importing Canadian oil sands is smart energy policy, but she said if a new pipeline must be built, it should run parallel to an existing TransCanada pipeline in eastern Nebraska. However, rerouting Keystone XL to parallel the existing pipeline would force TransCanada to modify its route through South Dakota, necessitating additional reviews in that state and cost increases that the company likely would prefer to avoid, Kleeb said.

TransCanada did not respond to a request for comment today. In a statement released this morning, TransCanada President and CEO Russ Girling said the new plan was "developed based on extensive feedback from Nebraskans and reflects our shared desire to minimize the disturbance of land and sensitive resources in the state."

The company has "gone above and beyond" what was required of it in attempting to respond to concerns about Keystone's route, said Cindy Schild, a senior manager of downstream operations with the American Petroleum Institute.

Schild suggested the opposition to Keystone was driven by foes of continued U.S. reliance on oil as much as anything and stressed that the pipeline would help ease supply gluts from production growth in states like North Dakota while providing Gulf Coast refineries with a more reliable supply of crude from friendly Canada while reducing imports from hostile countries like Venezuela.

Nebraska's Department of Environmental Quality, which received the revised route today, will evaluate the new proposal and report to Gov. Dave Heineman (R), who then will recommend whether the project should be approved. The State Department is conducting its own review of TransCanada's new permit application, and a decision is expected in the first quarter of next year.

There is little question who will have the final word, though.

"Bottom line," Kleeb said, "there's clearly regulatory processes along the way, but if President Obama gets re-elected, it is in his hands."

Click here to read the executive summary of TransCanada's supplemental environmental report submitted to the Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality.