Keystone XL opponents in Nebraska file 2 new lawsuits

Opponents of the Keystone XL oil pipeline in Nebraska reignited a legal fight Friday that could delay the entire 1,897-kilometre project, filing two new lawsuits over its proposed route.

The lawsuits came from seven landowners in Holt and York counties who have received written warning that pipeline developer TransCanada plans to file eminent domain papers before Jan. 22 to gain access to their land.

The landowners' attorney, Dave Domina, said that gives the plaintiffs clear legal standing to challenge the project. That issue is key because the Nebraska Supreme Court tossed an earlier, similar lawsuit, with three judges saying the plaintiffs in the case didn't have such standing.

• Obama's Keystone XL decision: what's next if he says no?
• Keystone XL pipeline bill passes major hurdle in U.S. Senate
• Keystone XL court ruling in Nebraska pleases Alberta Premier Jim Prentice

The lawsuits seek a court order to strike down a 2012 Nebraska law that allowed the project to move forward, and to prevent TransCanada from using eminent domain. Domina said the new lawsuit will likely take less time to resolve than the original claim, which wound its way through the courts in 16 months.

A spokesman for Calgary-based TransCanada has said the company expected additional legal challenges. Spokesman Shawn Howard said the company will continue to discuss deals with landowners who are negotiating in good faith. When warning letters were sent in December, the company said it had voluntary agreements from 84 per cent of landowners along the route.

Jane Kleeb, the leader of the pipeline opposition group Bold Nebraska, said the lawsuits will allow landowners to bring the case back to the Nebraska Supreme Court. Kleeb called on President Barack Obama to reject TransCanada's application for a presidential permit, and said landowners will continue to fight regardless.

"It is only the president that can provide peace of mind to farmers and ranchers along the route," Kleeb said.

Landowners need supermajority

When the Nebraska court threw out the original lawsuit last week, four of its judges sided with the landowners. Three declined to say whether the lawsuit was unconstitutional, arguing that the landowners lacked legal standing. The landowners needed a five-judge supermajority for their lawsuit to succeed because they were seeking to have a 2012 pipeline-siting law declared unconstitutional, which would have invalidated the route through Nebraska.

The Nebraska law allowed former Gov. Dave Heineman to approve the project's route. Heineman, a Republican, supported the project. Opponents say the decision should have been made by a small state commission that regulates grain bins and taxi cabs.

The $8-billion USpipeline would carry oil from Canada through Montana and South Dakota to Nebraska, where it would connect with existing pipelines to carry more than 800,000 barrels of crude oil a day to refineries along the Texas Gulf Coast.

Environmentalists and other opponents argue that any leaks could contaminate water supplies and that the project would increase air pollution around refineries and harm wildlife. Supporters, including many Republicans and oil industry members, say that those fears are exaggerated, that the pipeline would create jobs and that it would ease American dependence on oil from the Middle East.

U.S. agencies face Feb. 2 deadline

Meanwhile, the State Department has set a Feb. 2 deadline for federal agencies to provide advice on whether to move forward with thepipeline project.

A department official said in an emailed statement that other federal agencies dealing with environment, commerce and other matters were notified Friday that they have a little over two weeks left to weigh in.

The department didn't set a timeline for when it would make its long-awaited judgment on whether the pipeline from Canada was in the U.S. national interest.

The official said that review continues. Once all information is received, the department will analyze the matter and make a determination.

The official wasn't authorized to be quoted by name and demanded anonymity.