SPRINGFIELD — Builders of a proposed pipeline that could carry Canadian crude oil to Flanagan and on to a facility in Patoka have asked the state for permission to exercise eminent domain on portions of 148 land tracts it claims it needs for the project.
The petition filed Tuesday with the Illinois Commerce Commission seeks permission to secure easements on properties owned by people who have not reached agreements with Enbridge Inc. The company plans to build a 170-mile pipeline that will cross through eight Illinois counties.
Enbridge put the project, known as the Southern Access Extension Project, on hold in 2009, citing poor economic conditions.
The ICC approved the pipeline in 2009 but did not give the company the power to use eminent domain to obtain the easements at fair market value from owners who refused to let Enbridge cross their land.
People are also reading…
LeRoy attorney Tom Pliura said Thursday the landowners he represents remain opposed to the pipeline and will fight the eminent domain petition.
“We are opposed to the taking of land from Illinois farmers and landowners via eminent domain for the benefit of a foreign company,” said Pliura, who along with lawyer Mercer Turner, represents many of the property owners.
Opponents of the pipeline have been steadfast in their concerns that the line carrying crude from the oil sands near Calgary, Alberta, poses a serious risk to soil and groundwater supplies.
Two leaks from Enbridge projects — one near Romeoville and another in the Kalamazoo River in Michigan — have required more than $500 million in clearup costs, said the lawyer for the landowners.
Enbridge contends in the ICC petition that negotiations with property owners are pointless and have reached an impasse.
Since the project was announced, Enbridge has made nearly 4,600 contacts with owners of the 679 tracts along the pipeline route. Since July 2012, land agents have made more than 900 contacts with the 148 landowners, said Enbridge in the ICC filing.
The owners’ rejection of Enbridge offers “are unreasonable or represent an effort to block the construction of the pipeline and extract noneconomic, extortionate payments by ‘holding out,’” Enbridge argued in its petition.
