Plea Filed to Use Eminent Domain for Oil Pipeline

Frustrated by the city’s opposition to its proposed 132-mile oil pipeline, Pacific Pipeline System Inc. asked a judge Wednesday to allow the firm to use the power of eminent domain to build the line through the San Fernando Valley to Wilmington.

City officials, who fear the project could cause environmental damage, have held up the line by filing two legal challenges against the project.

“After exhausting every effort for years, we have decided the only way to get anything accomplished with the city is by filing an action of eminent domain,” said Jim Shamas, Pacific Pipeline’s senior operating officer.

But city officials who have fought the project say they are still optimistic that the city will prevail in court.

“I think they are trying to undercut the legal process because they fear that we have some good issues,” said Councilman Richard Alarcon, who represents some communities in the northeast Valley that the line would bisect.

Under state law, a state-licensed utility such as Pacific Pipeline can seek the power of eminent domain if a local municipality blocks the construction of a gas, oil or other utility line through its jurisdiction.

If a Los Angeles Superior Court judge supports Pacific Pipeline’s petition to use eminent domain powers, the firm could begin construction as soon as Oct. 15.

Pacific Pipeline would still have to pay $200,000 in city fees, but the city could lose the authority to impose conditions to lessen the environmental impacts. Such measures would ultimately be left to a judge to impose, officials say.

As proposed, the $170-million line would carry 130,000 barrels of crude oil daily from Kern County to refineries in Wilmington. Along the way, the line would run mostly beneath railroad rights of way. But in Los Angeles, it would also run beneath 9.5 miles of city streets.

Pacific Pipeline has applied for a franchise agreement with the city, which would allow the city to collect an annual fee and impose conditions to lessen environmental impacts.

But pipeline spokesman Charles McLean said the city’s Transportation Department has issued a 130-page preliminary franchise agreement that he said was “unrealistic” and would make the project unfeasible.

In April, the state Public Utilities Commission certified an environmental report on the pipeline project. In March, federal officials approved an application to build the line through Angeles National Forest.

But the city has appealed both decisions to state and federal courts, claiming Pacific Pipeline did not adequately study alternative routes.

Although the council has until Oct. 7 to approve the franchise agreement, McLean and Shamas said they decided to proceed with the eminent domain petition because they think the city does not want to negotiate in good faith.

Councilman Mike Hernandez, who represents parts of East Los Angeles, said he is still optimistic that the city will continue to fight the project in court and win.

“From my perspective, we are still in the driver’s seat,” he said.

In a related matter, a state construction union sent out nearly 9,000 letters to its members in Los Angeles, urging them to lobby council members to support the pipeline project.

The Sept. 13 letter from Bob Balgenorth, president of the State Building and Construction Trade Council, said the pipeline would eventually employ more than 600 union workers.

“As union members, I am asking you to contact your council representative and let them know that you don’t appreciate their voting to keep you out of work,” the letter said.

Aides for Alarcon and Hernandez said they have yet to receive calls or letters from union members.

(BEGIN TEXT OF INFOBOX / INFOGRAPHIC)

Pipeline of Controversy

The fight over a proposed oil pipeline route through the East Valley heats up as Pacific Pipeline System asked a judge Wednesday to allow the firm to use eminent domain to begin laying the pipeline, Area officials have been fighting the project with their own legal challenges.