Ever since our country was founded, the ownership of private property has defined our freedoms as Americans. You can build a house on it, you can build a grocery store on it, you can build pretty much anything that you can think of on private property. But how would you feel if someone were to inform you that your forced to move elsewhere to make way for a public project? How would you feel if that very piece of property was where u lived and based your entire livelihood off of? For farmers in the Dakota’s and Native Americans this was exactly how they felt when they were informed by TransCanada that they would soon have to make way for Keystone Pipeline. By using the power of eminent domain, TransCanada has slowly been able to obtain the rights to seize these peoples land. While the use of eminent domain to make way for the reasonable seizure of a project like this is completely justified under the due process of law, it however is an unethical way of going about because the farmer’s and Native Americans stand to gain nothing from it. Under these circumstances, the Keystone XL Pipeline should not be constructed because its implications are unethical and violate constitutional, farmer, and Native American property rights. 

Despite that fact that the pipeline provides an economic incentive, it however fails to hold up against the legality of the 5th amendment and eminent domain. As stated in the 5th amendment of the United States Constitution, “No person shall be deprived of property, without due process of law” (Reed). Under this provision known as the taking clause, citizens are protected from unreasonable government seizure of private property (Schultz). While there have been many cases where the governments seizure of property has been reasonable, the seizure of farmer’s and Native Americans land to make way for the Keystone Pipeline is far from reasonable. Instead, the government has persistently cited to the Takings clause for justification, when in reality they only care about the potential economic benefits the pipeline would bring. This type of behavior is most commonly seen as eminent domain abuse; when a private party seizes one’s property for unnecessary and unreasonable reasons. Under eminent domain a party is a granted seizure of land for public purposes, but when a party benefits privately from the property seizure is where the line is drawn. The Keystone Pipeline clearly crosses this line as TransCanada and the US oil economy would be the only beneficiaries from the project. Its cases such as this one, where the party is more concerned about it quest for profit and consumer benefits is where the “deal-killing disqualifier of pretext,” is whipped out (Kleeger). When a party is accused of pretext, it is brought to the courts to be decided on. If the court is convinced the pretext is in fact afoot, they “will hold that private property is constitutionally protected and no private party or entity can unreservedly wield eminent domain to build a private pipeline” (Kleeger). So how does the Keystone Pipeline hold up to these standards? As Kleeger notes, Keystone is however viewed as “different in the sense that its product is vital to national security and has definite space limitations” (Kleeger).  While this distinction may separate the project from other cases, it should however be noted that the greater public, (aka the farmers and Native Americans), won’t receive any public use benefits if the pipeline were to be built. It is under these criteria in which, the private property of farmer’s and Native Americans should be constitutionally protected. When examining the rights granted by the 5th amendment, and the proper way in which eminent domain is applied, the Keystone Pipeline doesn’t hold up to either. For these reasons the pipeline is unfit to see construction. 

The Keystone Pipeline’s implications are unethical towards Native American property rights because the project intends to build on tribal land without meeting any of the standards required by the tribes. Throughout history, America has gotten itself into a bad habit of trampling on the rights of Native Americans in the pursuit of economic gain. Such unethical behavior is still seen today with the Keystone Pipeline route threatening to cross over Native land. The matter here revolves around the question of should anyone be allowed to build on federally recognized self-governing land? Even though the US federally acknowledges Indian tribes as sovereign nations, they still think that its economic needs have more of a priority over those of the Native Americans. Tara Houska, a Tribal Rights Attorney in Washington DC, describes this federal disregard for Native sakes as “a larger pattern of inattention” (quoted in Flanigan). The fact is that many tribal boundaries are being completely ignored and disrespected. In fact, TransCanada has failed to adequately consult tribal authorities about the project. For example, the Oglala Sioux, a tribe that whose land will be affected by the proposed pipeline route, requires by law that there be sufficient consultation in the case where a party seeks to build on their land (Flanigan). They require these consultations on projects for a number of different reasons: most importantly in this case on how the pipeline pertains to community safety. In good practice to these consultations, it is required under Section 106 of National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 that federal agencies consider the effects of their undertakings on historic properties (13). However, in the instance of the Keystone Pipeline, federal authorities failed to consider the effect the pipeline will have on Native American life. When the representatives of the Oglala Sioux met with the federal authorities, they came out of it feeling as if the meeting did not satisfy the requirements of the consultation. Regardless of this, Washington is seemingly uninterested in Keystone XL’s specific impact on Native reservations. What makes this even more frustrating for members of the Oglala Sioux for example, is that the people who are coming in to seize part of their land are non-Native, and don’t fully understand what it feels like for someone to invade on their territory. It’s one thing for one to put themselves in the shoes of another, but it’s another thing for one to totally disregard how the other party feels in the pursuit of your own interests. Time and time again the US has ignored Native American rights. With the Keystone Pipeline, the intentions are no different than before. I can only hope that this abuse and mistreatment will be put to an end soon. 

 Like the Native Americans, the Keystone Pipeline has unethical implications towards farmer’s property rights because the project intends to destroy a portion of private land without providing any benefits in return. With a project of this mass size, the project only brings a bunch of cons with it. This includes destroying a portion of valuable farmland and putting one’s livelihood at risk if a pipeline rupture were to occur. For one farmer, John Harter, construction of the pipeline would result in “heavy equipment tearing through his land, cutting down trees and burrowing under the sand hills and pasture” (Mufson). The worse part about it is that the buried pipeline will be sitting in the water apart of the Ogallala aquifer, which will cause a spill or leak to spread because the soil is so porous.  If the project were to receive the green light for construction, a considerable portion of farmers across the country would see their land be destroyed in order to lay the pipeline. That’s valuable land that they will never be able to get back. In response for the damages, TransCanada has offered to pay initial fees that cover the temporary damage and inconvenience. While this may be a good way to payback the farmers whose land would be built on, TransCanada would essentially be paying once for the right to use the land forever (quoted in Pierre-Louis). Even if the company decided to stop using the pipeline, the landowners would be responsible for digging them up. In the end if you do the math, the amount of money TransCanada makes off every barrel of oil and the amount of carbon emissions being released is another reason why the company is in it for corporate greed. To be specific, it is estimated that for every four barrels of tar sands being produced, the equivalent of a fifth barrel is released in carbon emissions (Pierre-Louis). And, the price per barrel of oil trending upwards of $100. For another Nebraska farmer Jim Carlson, it was knowing this information that led him to turn down a little more than $300,000 rather than allowing Keystone XL to come through his land (Pierre-Louis). The same has gone for many other farmers who realize that their land is worth more than what TransCanada has to offer. In the end, building a pipeline straight through farmer’s land doesn’t just take up space in their field, but instead putts their entire livelihood at risk. If the pipeline were to rupture at any point, the damages would be catastrophic. Just based on reported statistics from TransCanada the odds of the pipeline significantly leaking somewhere could occur at least once every five years. Regardless if those odds are an improvement on previous ones, they are unfavorable and not worth the risk to farmers. The crude oil would permanently damage the soil and would put them permanently out of business. Clearly the risks of this project outweigh the benefits, and it would be much better if America’s precious farmland wasn’t put in danger. 

Some people argue that the Keystone Pipelines’ implications are totally ethical towards farmer and Native American property rights because the pipeline poses minimal risks towards both groups land and TransCanada’s use of eminent domain and easements in completely justified and fair. For starters, gas pipelines are the safest and most effective way to transport oil and natural gas. Pipelines are the way of the future due to their ability to transport oil faster and safer, while at the same time producing the smallest amount of carbon emissions comparative to any other transportation method. In fact, when the Department of State reviewed the project, they determined that “Keystone XL poses minimal environmental risk to soil, wetlands, water resources, vegetation, fish, and wildlife” (Loris). And also it should be worth noting that, the State Department’s final environmental impact statement concluded that “the difference in the greenhouse gas emissions (that the pipeline would produce) is miniscule” (Loris). That alone, as Loris thinks, would justify that the projects implications are completely ethical because the pipeline would put both farmers and Native Americans at minimal risk of their land being permanently altered. In terms of Native Americans, the heavily relied upon Ogallala Aquifer used the Oglala Sioux tribe would be minimally impacted by the proposed pipeline route. What’s even more ironic about this as Nicolas Loris notes, is that “thousands of miles of pipeline already cross the aquifer” (Loris). For Loris, to make the claim that the pipeline would potentially damage the relied upon aquifer is preposterous. In terms of the legality aspect, pipeline advocates argue that TransCanada’s legal practices of eminent domain and easements are fair and perfectly justified. The first thing they point to is the fact that TransCanada is paying the fair market value cost of the portion of land that they seek build on. Advocates also note that in some cases, TransCanada is actually paying more than the amount to cover for damages and property. For example, Marshall Treadwell, a Texas farmer, ended up making the company pay an extra $8000 dollars due to the fact that he would be losing his investment of pine trees that would have to be cleared to make way for the pipeline (Mufson). Clearly the company has been willing to negotiate on the landowner’s terms. Secondly, pipeline advocates argue that the way Trans Canada has carried out its use of eminent is constitutionally justified. They claim that while the pipeline may be seen without out any public benefit, in reality the pipeline would be publically benefitting everyone in America due to the fact that gas prices would become cheaper if it were to be built. The problem with all of this however, is that both farmer’s and Native Americans would still have their private land seized and destroyed for something that they didn’t authorize in the first place. 

If only the government were able to see the unethical implications that the pipeline on legal, farmer, and Native American property rights would it then realize that the society is better off without the pipeline. For America the pipeline serves as a way to lessen the amount of oil from foreign countries. I can only hope that they can soon realize the consequences it has soon.  
