Contributors

Wednesday, May 07, 2014

Just who is Anti-Keystone?

The Wall Street Journal has a piece up about the opposition to the Keystone pipeline and how it really isn't as left-right as you would think. Politico echoed this as well.

Ranchers and native tribes that oppose the pipeline formed the Cowboys and Indians Alliance, putting a non-traditional face on the anti-Keystone movement that has spanned the president’s time in office. Their goal — like that of their environmentalist counterparts — is to persuade Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry to determine that the pipeline from Canada would go against the national interest.

The ranchers — or “cowboys” — are concerned not just about protecting sensitive aquifers near the pipeline, but also about their land rights, several said at the protest. “I’m here to support the neighbors to the north that don’t want the pipeline across their land,” said Julia Trigg Crawford, a Texas rancher who rode in on horseback. She didn’t have so much luck with her own land. 

Part of the Oklahoma-to-Texas southern leg of Keystone XL, which has already been built, runs through Crawford’s ranch land on the Red River. “Basically they came in and said a foreign corporation building a for-profit pipeline had more of a right to my land than I did,” Crawford said. The land can be used for grazing, but she can’t build a house or drive across it, she said. Crawford received a check for $10,395 two years ago but has never cashed it, she said.

For some conservatives, it's about property rights and federal government intrusion which I find interesting because they do have an argument. I wonder why so many conservatives who champion private property and rights love the Pipeline as much as they do.

3 comments:

Juris Imprudent said...

What - you mean you recognize that there might be a diversity of opinion beyond us (good) vs. them (evil)?

Wonder of wonders!

GuardDuck said...

I wonder why so many conservatives who champion private property and rights love the Pipeline as much as they do.

Because authorizing the building of something does not necessarily mean needing to use the gov't to perform eminent domain.

Mark Ward said...

juris, I do recognize it and admit that I was wrong.