Bayou Bridge Charged $450 for Trespassing and Building Oil Pipeline Without Permission on Louisiana Parcel

Julie-Dermansky-022
on

After three landowners filed a legal challenge against Bayou Bridge Pipeline, LLCโ€™s right to build a pipeline on their land โ€” which it did without their permission โ€” the case concluded this week with a very small fine for theย company.

On December 6, Louisiana State Judge Keith Comeaux fined the pipeline companyย $450 forย trespassing during construction before properly obtaining permission. The judge also granted the company the permission it sought to expropriate the land it had already builtย on.

The legal challenge came almost a year after construction began on the 163-mile-long Bayou Bridge pipeline, which spans southern Louisiana from Lake Charles, near theย Texas border, to St. James, on the banks of the Mississippi River.ย The controversial pipeline is the tail end of a crude oil pipeline network that will transport Bakken oil from North Dakota to the Gulf Coast, likely forย export.

โ€œThe Court should not supplant the well-thought and well-researched opinions of the various agencies that permitted this project,โ€ย Judge Comeaux wrote in his ruling,ย according to The (Baton Rouge) Advocate. โ€œTherefore, the Court finds that the proper permitting has been done, andย that the public purpose and necessity has been proven by Bayou Bridge Pipeline, LLC.โ€

The ruling stated that each landowner was entitled to $75 for their share of the land in question โ€” which Bayouย Bridge argued would only net $1.11ย combined if the land was put up for sale since the land was shared by so many others. The judge also awarded each landowner an additional $75 due to the trespassingย offense.ย 

A Battle Over a Pipeline and Propertyย Rights

Filed on behalf of brother and sister Peter and Katherine Aaslestad and Theda Larson Wright, the lawsuit alleged that the pipeline does not serve public interests, which is at the crux of the stateโ€™s authority to grantย eminent domain.ย The suitย claimed that adding another pipeline toย Louisianaโ€™sย extensive pipeline network causes moreย harm thanย good.

Pipelines have contributed to Louisianaโ€™s coastal erosion crisis, and building a new pipeline continues the stateโ€™s relianceย on fossil fuels, which is the main contributor to climate change. In addition, according to the suit, the extensive spill and leak record ofย Energy Transfer (formerly Energy Transfer Partners) and its affiliates,ย which share ownership in the pipeline, jeopardizes the publicโ€™s interest because a spill could cause irreparable environmental damage in the Atchafalaya Basin, the nationโ€™s largest river swamp and a national heritageย area.ย 

Bayou Bridge pipeline under construction in the Atchafalaya Basin
The Bayou Bridge pipeline under construction in the Atchafalayaย Basin.

Bayou Bridge Pipeline, LLC maintained that the company did due diligence trying to obtain permissions from all the landowners along the pipeline route, and that the pipeline is good for commerce. While conceding it hadnโ€™t received permission from the three plaintiffs, whoย have interests in a 38-acre parcel of land in the basin, the company did gain permission from hundreds of others who also have a stake in the sameย parcel.ย 

During a three day hearing last week, the plaintiffsโ€™ lawyers, Pam Spees of the Center for Constitutional Rights,ย Misha Mitchell of Atchafalaya Basinkeeper, andย Bill Quigley, a law professor at Loyola Law School, argued that the pipeline companyโ€™s right to expropriate their clientsโ€™ land violates the landownersโ€™ right to due process and right to propertyย under the U.S. Constitution. They plan to continue that challenge in their appeal of thisย ruling.ย 

โ€œWe want the courts to overturn the expropriation and take the pipeline out of the ground,โ€ Quigleyย stated.

A statement released by Energy Transfer said it is pleased with the ruling.ย Despite being found guilty of trespassing, the company wrote: โ€œWe are committed to following all the appropriate laws and regulations that govern ourย business.โ€ย It also wrote that itย looks forward to bringing the pipeline into service before the end of theย year.

During a livestreamed interview after the hearing concluded on November 30, Speesย questioned how the judge could determine the benefits of a pipeline if he does not also consider theย harm.ย 

โ€œWorldwide, the demand for oil is expected to be in a serious decline in the next five years,โ€ Spees said. โ€œAnd here they are touting this pipeline as though itโ€™s going to bring this huge economic benefit to Louisiana, when the restย of the world knows the demand is declining โ€” as it should be, given the report that the U.S. government just issued lastย Friday that shows that we are in an alarming state of crisis when it comes to climateย change.โ€

The Aaslestads Intend to Stand Theirย Ground

That night I called Peter and Katherine Aaslestad and spoke with them about the hearing. Both were taken aback by Bayou Bridgeโ€™s lawyersโ€™ insistence that their land has little to noย value.

During the hearing, the Bayou Bridge lawyers tried to make the plaintiffs out to be greedy out-of-towners looking for lots of money.ย Though the Aaslestads are not Louisiana residents, they told me they have โ€œdeep family connections in and to the state of Louisiana and that we considered it โ€˜homeโ€™ throughout our childhoods even as our family resided outside theย state.โ€ย 

The landowners say their challenge wasnโ€™t about money, rather it was about protecting land that they believe is priceless. โ€œWe are not in it for the money but for our love of Louisiana,โ€ the Aaslestads toldย me.

The plaintiffsโ€™ lawyers sought a hefty fine from the company for trespassing, which they meant as a message that corporations are not above the law, not to make the plaintiffs rich. If there had been a large settlement, the Aaslestads planned to donate it to those fighting to protect the land in the Atchafalayaย Basin.

Peter and Katherine Aaslestad
The Aaslestads in front of a hotel the night after their court battleย ended.

In response to questions I sent before the judge valued the disputed land at $150 per landowner, the Aaslestads wrote theย following:

โ€œWe tried to emphasize that the property in question is not valueless vacant land as identified by the land appraiser during the trial. Theย property is part of a larger vital and vibrant ecosystem filled with life that includes trees, wildlife, fish, and birds, and plays an important roleย in the economic health and well-being of the state beyond itsย borders.ย ย 

From the start, win or lose,ย we hoped that our effort to call [Bayou Bridge Pipeline, LLC] to task for trespassing would encourage other landowners in the state toย assert their constitutional rights to protect their land from pipeline degradation. We also hoped to raise awareness of [the] environmentalย importance of the Atchafalaya Basin and the unlawful actions of Bayou Bridge Pipeline by trespassing and building a pipeline on theย property before they secured consent from allย landowners.โ€

Neither of theย Aaslestads see themselves as environmental heroes, though they acknowledge โ€œopposing a billion-dollar company that is used to getting its way requires a lot of internal strength (it is very frightening andย expensive), as well [as] support fromย outside.โ€

They feel privileged to fight for the land itself and for otherย landowners who never signed easements with the pipeline company but were unable to find a voice for their opposition to eminent domain used forย privateย gain.

After hearing the verdict, Peterย Aaslestad expressed his frustration, writing toย me:ย 

โ€œThe Bayou Bridge pipeline (BBP) has appointed itself the power of eminent domain, citing a bogus notion of the public good (they define it as โ€˜more product in the stream of commerceโ€™). All the while, BBP has beenย trespassing on and damaging individual landownersโ€™ properties that BBP seems to deem worthless. In fact, the exact opposite is true: These lands have incalculable value as part of theย Atchafalaya Basin. Its mere existence โ€” untouched, as is โ€” serves more public good than BBP can ever promise. So in a โ€˜Cost Benefit Analysis,โ€™ the BBP project [โ€ฆ] runs a deficit to theย publicย good.โ€

He believes the companyโ€™s claim to eminent domain has no merit at all, and plans to fight on with theย appeal.

Main image: Dean Wilson, executive director of theย Atchafalaya Basinkeeper, on the plaintiffsโ€™ย land in the basin. Credit: All photos by Julie Dermansky forย DeSmog

Julie-Dermansky-022
Julie Dermansky is a multimedia reporter and artist based in New Orleans. She is an affiliate scholar at Rutgers Universityโ€™s Center for the Study of Genocide and Human Rights. Visit her website at www.jsdart.com.

Related Posts

on

DeSmog estimates raise questions over climate benefits as EU officials consider whether the technology should qualify for billions of euros in subsidies.

DeSmog estimates raise questions over climate benefits as EU officials consider whether the technology should qualify for billions of euros in subsidies.
Analysis
on

Experts accuse Farageโ€™s party of a โ€˜deliberate campaign of misinformation about climate changeโ€™ in the House of Commons.

Experts accuse Farageโ€™s party of a โ€˜deliberate campaign of misinformation about climate changeโ€™ in the House of Commons.
on

A Conservative peer and former UK trade advisor were among those who spoke at the summit.

A Conservative peer and former UK trade advisor were among those who spoke at the summit.
on

All Conservative appointees to the Board of Trade have been binned by the new Labour government.

All Conservative appointees to the Board of Trade have been binned by the new Labour government.