Naked City

The politics surrounding the Longhorn Pipeline have only gotten more heated in advance of the coming federal decision over whether to require a full-blown Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the project. The Environmental Protection Agency and U.S. Dept. of Transportation were supposed to announce by the end of June if they would accept the findings of the initial environmental assessment (EA) on plans for the pipeline, which would transport some 72,000 barrels of gasoline from Houston to El Paso each day. That assessment, issued last fall, found that the pipeline would have "no significant impact" on the environmental well-being of the surrounding area.

Last month, a pair of Texas congressmen, Silvestre Reyes (D-El Paso) and Solomon Ortiz (D-Corpus Christi), tried to use their votes on a trade agreement with China favored by President Clinton to speed the administration's action on the pipeline. In the third week of June, Rep. Gene Green (D-Houston) moved to block funding for any future EIS, and then reversed himself within a day -- a move pro-pipeline lobbyists say was designed to draw attention to the issue. Meanwhile, Austin Democrat Lloyd Doggett has been pretty much the lone voice pushing for a complete EIS.

Pipeline opponents argue that the EA does not adequately evaluate the potential impact of a spill along the 700-mile-long route. They point out that much of the original pipeline -- which has a history of spills -- was designed to carry crude oil from West Texas to Houston, and not gasoline in the other direction. Proponents of the pipeline, meanwhile, say that they've undertaken unprecedented steps to mitigate health and safety impacts. As an example, they point to the recent announcement by Longhorn that it would not transport gas containing the volatile and poisonous additive MTBE.

Doggett has lobbied President Clinton and EPA chief Carol Browner to make sure the pipeline receives sufficient scrutiny. In a letter to the president, Doggett wrote: "For many months, the people of Central Texas have said they have nothing to gain and much to lose from being forced to be Longhorn's partner. They have asked repeatedly that the pipeline be rerouted around Austin. Alternatively we have asked that, at a minimum, the Environmental Protection Agency conduct a full Environmental Impact Statement, and not just the previous haphazard assessment."

Doggett spokeswoman Lindy Eichenbaum adds that Clinton made her boss a "personal promise ... for whatever it's worth" that the EPA will take a long, hard look at the issue. Similarly, Ortiz and Reyes claim to have received word from the White House that the EPA's decision would be expedited.

Activist Jeff Heckler, a member of the PIPE Coalition, which has been fighting the pipeline in Austin, says that by moving the debate from central Texas to the D.C. beltway, Longhorn's lobbyists have been able to hurt local critics. "They've finally begun to get a little bit smarter about this," says Heckler, whose own efforts have been bankrolled largely by Navajo Refineries, a Longhorn competitor based in New Mexico. "Now they can say, 'Well, you know, in Austin they're just a bunch of environmentalists. You can expect this hysterical behavior from them.'"

But Tony Proffitt, an Austin-based lobbyist for Longhorn, counters that Longhorn has merely responded to Navajo's own lobbying efforts in the nation's capital. "The reason we added these people," says Proffitt, "is because Navajo went to D.C. and started mucking around in our business." Among the names Proffitt lists as working for Longhorn are former lieutenant governor Ben Barnes and former Texas congressman Jack Fields. "Navajo has been spending a lot of money to have people criticize this project because they don't want Longhorn competing in their market."

So far, Gov. George W. Bush has chosen to weigh in cautiously on the issue. A spokesman for Bush's presidential campaign says Bush believes that the pipeline should go through only after persistent concerns are answered. "Governor Bush believes the pipeline decision should be based on the best science, and that community concerns about the environment and human safety need to be fully addressed," says campaign spokesman Scott McClellan.

Texas Land Commissioner David Dewhurst, meanwhile, has gone on the record as saying he will not grant Longhorn the necessary easements across state land until he's "satisfied that all federal health and safety standards have been met."

Dewhurst says his reluctance to green-light the easements stem largely from reports that the EPA allowed Radian, the group responsible for compiling the 1,300-plus-page EA, to pass over important health and safety issues. Dewhurst says federal law clearly requires oversight agencies to take into account the fact that the pipeline crosses both the Edwards Aquifer as well as populous areas of Austin and Houston. (The pipeline ends about 10 miles outside of El Paso.)

Despite his concerns over whether the pipeline will ultimately meet all federal regulations, Dewhurst says he hopes Longhorn will ultimately be allowed to use the pipeline to transport fuel. "Although there are people who don't want this pipeline," he says, "I am not one of them. I remain a strong supporter of the pipeline industry."

Dewhurst adds that he does not think a full EIS is in necessarily in the state's best interest. "My only concern is for the health and safety of the individuals who live along the path of this pipeline," he says. "I still have not received the federal government's final rules that pertain to this specific pipeline, but I am reluctant to call for any new measures that have not already been laid out. I don't want to add any new hurdles to this pipeline, however necessary, unless they apply to the questions of health and safety that still need to be answered."

Dave Bary, an EPA spokesman in Dallas, says the agency has gone over most of the 6,000 comments it has received and is now coordinating with the Transportation and Justice Departments decide whether the agencies will stick with the controversial initial findings, address the multitude of additional questions raised without abandoning the original EA, or move ahead on an EIS. No official announcement date has been set.