Farmers take

pipeline questions

to county board

Group fights eminent

domain proceedings

By KURT NESBITT

Journal Staff Writer

NEW ULM -- Landowners and county officials agreed Tuesday that many important and unanswered questions surround the Hutchinson pipeline project.

The project recently won approval from the state's Public Utilities Commission and Environmental Quality Board. It will link the city of Hutchinson with a supply of natural gas from Trimont using 90 miles of pipe.

In order to actually begin construction, however, Hutchinson Utilities Commission -- the chief proponent of the pipeline -- must use eminent domain to take the land needed to lay the pipe and buy conditional use permits in McLeod, Sibley, Nicollet, Brown, Watonwan and Martin counties.

HUC must also submit an agricultural impact mitigation plan to the EQB by the end of February. The plan is supposed to devise ways HUC is going to address the project's impacts on the farmlands it is planned to cross this spring.

About 20 Brown County farmers brought their concerns to county commissioners and planning and zoning officials. Randy Wiltschek from Stark Township and secretary of SibRen FAIR, a group of farmers that is fighting the eminent domain proceedings, read a prepared statement to commissioners.

County officials also responded to the farmers' concerns and discussed the legal aspects of the proceedings with County Attorney James Olson and County Planning and Zoning Administrator Jane Starz.

Wiltschek's statement addressed the group's concerns over easements and actual construction. He said the depth that the pipe is buried at, eminent domain proceedings and the reimbursement amounts for easements are the main issues of local farmers.

"This is being planned back to front," Wiltschek told commissioners. "It's a fiasco. It's an embarrassing fiasco. They're in a big hurry because everything is late."

Other farmers said the pipe's route will come straight through a total of 15 lines of drainage ditch tile in Milford, Stark and Lake Hanska townships. They joined Wiltschek in criticizing the $2-per-foot easement that HUC is currently offering.

"We can use road easements or power line easements, but a gas easement isn't going to do us much good," said Charles Olson, who farms in Lake Hanska Township. "I'm not saying New Ulm shouldn't have gas, but are these people paying taxes?"

Many farmers at the meeting said they're not going to sign the eminent domain letters that were recently issued until HUC stakes out its proposed route and increases payments for easements.

Wiltschek said HUC could proceed to "quick-take" where it could go ahead and build the pipeline without permission and let the courts handle the matter afterward.

Commissioners did not know what action they could take.

Commissioner Andrew Lochner admitted just as much. Starz said the board could contact the representative on the EQB and ask for ideas.

"I wish we could say we can enact a resolution to address your concerns, but we can't," said Board Chairman Donald Wellner to Wiltschek. "Unfortunately, we haven't had a response from the EQB yet."

Starz added that HUC is required by law to get conditional use permits from every county that its pipeline will cross. While the county can't touch the pipe's route, it can require a permit to cross county lands, Starz said.

"Eminent domain is their bargaining power. It should be their last resort, but it isn't. That isn't exactly kosher, it sounds," said Commissioner James Berg, who represents Stark Township.

Commissioner Richard Seeboth, who represents most of the City of New Ulm, proposed a hearing after the agricultural mitigation agreement is made saying he felt is important for commissioners to support Brown County citizens involved in the matter. He moved to table the item in order to have more meetings. His motion, seconded by Berg, passed unanimously.

Wiltschek said later that farmers aren't necessarily against the idea of the pipeline; they're just irritated at the way HUC is carrying it out. He said SibRen FAIR recently hired a lawyer and is working with the EQB and the Minnesota Department of Agriculture to finalize the mitigation plan, which is due by Feb. 28.

"It comes down to money. Farmers don't like having things planned behind their backs. HUC has been short on details. I figure we'll hold out as long as we can, I mean, you can't stop a train and I realize that."