Public Comment. Volume III - Montana Legislature

Routing- The McCloys and O'Donnells repeatedly confronted CENEX over serious problems
with the company's proposed routing across their properties and the company's refusal to
consider alternative routes that would cause less damage and pose fewer long term risks to land
and water. Unlike the McCloys and the O'Donnells, the Siewerts trusted CENEX, only to have
the company route the pipeline over the waterline for their house. The McCloys took their
concerns all the way to the Montana Supreme Court,
In the McCloy's and O'Donnell's cases, the rout was changed because the landowners'
. proposed alternative proved-more logical in-the end, but not because either family had any legal
rights to have a say in the routing (the McCloys lost their Supreme Court appeal). The Siewerts
were unsuccessful in their attempts to convince CENEX to alter it's proposed route.
Other than the eminent domain law, the Major Facilities Siting Act is the only other
Montana law that could potentially have given these landowners the right to have a say in the
pipeline route. However, the legislature had exempted smaller diameter pipelines from the Act.
Inadequate reclamation- The success of the reclamation efforts is threatened by the company's
failure to restore topsoil; the burying of debris in the cuts and fills which will cause settling over
time; and by inadequate reseeding. Landowners say they were unable to find out from CENEX
what kind of seed was used and over the winter, most of the seed has blown off.
Use of private roads- Heavy equipment can severely damage private ranch roads, and constant
construction trafiic can seriously disrupt ranch operations. However, landowners had to fight to
get CENEX to restrict crews to using only the 75-foot-wide right-of-way during const~~ction. On
the Siewert's property, there was constant heavy machinery trafiic, o h at high speeds, over
private roads and a small private bridge.
Fiber optic cable easement included - Though the eminent domain law does not grant the
power of condemnation for fiber optic cable rights-of-way, landowners were forced to accept a
fiber optic casement as part of the pipeline contract. Fiber optic cables are highly lucrative, but
landowners are being forced to accept the liability for accidentally cutting cables while receiving
no share in any of the profit. Additionally, there is a very real risk that crews working on fiber
optic cables could cause damage to the pipeline. (no fiber optics have been installed to date)
Inconsistent construction standards - On some landowners* property, the pipeline was
wrapped where it crossed steep rocky ground but on others' property it was not.
Landowners had to enforce the hw themselves- Landowners reported that they had to
aggressively watchdog construction crews, but had inadequate knowledge to identify all the
problems and inadequate time to catch all the problems they could identify. Officially, the
project was self-monitored by an inspector hired by CENEX. Landowners say no inspections by
the state took place until many landowners had complained to the state.
Inconsistent and unfair compensation - compensation was agreed on with each landowner
long before construction was complete and thus did not account for much of the damage that has
occurred. Moreover, compensation has varied widely from one landowner to the next.
EQC Eminent Domain Study -1 59-