The 303-mile Mountain Valley Pipeline is being built through the mountains of West Virginia and Virginia, with a possible later extension into North Carolina. If completed, the pipeline would carry fracked gas to markets in the Mid- and South Atlantic regions of the U.S. The project has been passionately opposed by local groups who have engaged in tree-sit protests along the route, or blocked the route with civil disobedience, as well as through multiple lawsuits. Opponents say the project has already contaminated water, created landslides and poses both air pollution and negative climate threats. Fracked gas, which is almost all methane, is a much more powerful greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide.
Construction is well underway, but different state and federal agencies have denied key permits or withdrawn permits already granted. On Jan. 25, the Fourth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals vacated approvals by the U.S. Forest Service and federal Bureau of Land Management for the pipeline to cross three-and-a-half miles of the Jefferson National Forest in Virginia and West Virginia. Still, the project refuses to die, and the companies behind it – mainly Equitrans Mid Stream – say they expect it to be operational within the next two years, having been granted one two-year extension from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
Between The Lines’ Melinda Tuhus spoke with Russell Chisholm, co-chair of the Protect Our Water, Heritage, Rights, or POWHR Coalition, and coordinator of Mountain Valley Watch, a group that monitors construction of the pipeline. Here he talks about the fight against the fossil fuel project and where the opposition campaign stands right now.
RUSSELL CHISHOLM: They have certainly done a fair amount of damage. Thinking about the most recent court ruling in the Fourth Circuit, where they’ve now been blocked from doing any additional work in the National Forest. They did cut trees, and they did clear and stage pipe in some areas of the national forest, particularly on Brush Mountain. Those are some of the ugliest scars. That’s also areas like Sinking Creek Mountain, Brush Mountain, Peters Mountain – where they have some of the steepest slopes if they were allowed to proceed there.
One of the measures that they self-report to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission is their completion to “final restoration.” This is restoration as is written into their certificate of public convenience and necessity to a certain standard that we would not consider “final restoration,” but they apparently have met that benchmark for roughly over half of the entire project. What remains are some of the most difficult crossings — this proposal to bore under many of the streams and rivers and permits that were recently approved in Virginia and West Virginia to allow additional stream and wetland crossings under their 401 water quality permit.
It’s segmented all along the route, wherever they have not been able to cross those water bodies, but that type of construction involving bore pits, drilling rigs, and working very, very close to those streams, or as I mentioned, in some cases what would be people’s groundwater or household water sources is enough reason, I think, to stop it at this point as it has dragged on, and let people get to the work of restoring the land and protecting those land remaining water bodies.
MELINDA TUHUS: And isn’t it true that they’re way behind their deadlines for finishing and way over budget as well?
RUSSELL CHISHOLM: Yes. They’ve also admitted that it’s costing them millions per month to maintain the erosion sediment controls that are in place in the work areas now, so their budget, I think, is probably going to keep surpassing what they initially proposed for it, roughly into the $6 million to $6.5 billion range, for what I think was originally proposed for $3.5 billion – so roughly doubled by the time it’s said and done. And, we’re seeing different target dates based on this latest court ruling of maybe 2023, maybe even 2024. So those delays are definitely going to add up.
MELINDA TUHUS: What’s your thought about what it will take to kill this thing dead? Direct action, lawsuits, widespread community opposition? Something else?
RUSSELL CHISHOLM: I think it takes everything you just described. The attorneys who took these cases forward on behalf of not just our communities, but everyone downstream from a project like this, they have had success, particularly in the Fourth Circuit, in showing how the rules are bent — or ignored is probably more accurate — in order to keep these projects moving forward.
For folks who have resisted in other ways — put their bodies on the line, subjected themselves to the criminal justice system, in some cases with, I think, extremely inappropriate bails, or being held prior to trial for lengthy periods of time — I think when there is a favorable court ruling, it vindicates folks who have been willing to resist in more direct ways like that.
You know, it’s hard to find the exact formula for resisting any kind of project like this, but what I know is that we have to continue to build this coalition, not just on Mountain Valley Pipeline, but on other projects around Virginia, West Virginia. We have to stop creating sacrifice zones to serve basically corporate interests, to serve profit, and we certainly need leadership from every level where we were promised leadership.
The Biden administration I think has a role, if not the most important role, at this point, to recognize what is happening with the climate and put a stop to additional expansion, you know, through executive action, through declaring a climate emergency, through directing the agencies to apply those standards when they’re reviewing permits for projects like MVP, and deliver on some of those campaign promises.
For more information on Protect Our Water, Heritage, Rights, or POWHR Coalition, visit powhr.org.
For more info on Appalachians Against Pipelines, visit their Facebook page Appalachians Against Pipelines.
