National Energy Board Coat of Arms
Symbol of the Government of Canada

National Energy Board

www.neb-one.gc.ca

Breadcrumb

Home > Public Participation and Land Matters > Land Matters Consultation Initiative (LMCI) > LMCI Consultation Schedule > LMCI Information Session - Members of the Public - 2 April 2008

LMCI Information Session - Members of the Public - 2 April 2008

2 April 2008
7:00 p.m. - 10:30 p.m.
Community: Brandon, Manitoba
Number of Attendees: 35

Stream 1 - Company Interactions With Landowners

  • crop loss compensation is an issue
  • moisture loss - average of 20% crop loss/year
  • compensation is not the only solution - want the land reclaimed so it can be productive
  • landowners should not have to hire lawyers to get issues addressed
  • forms that must be filled out every year is onerous and time required to be available when company comes to assess loss (company to use formula averages to determine loss
  • companies should use formula averages to determine loss
  • companies need to be sensitive to newer agricultural practices, i.e. organic farming
  • photo imaging could be used to reduce cost (would be less onerous)
  • NEB needs to do a better job in letting landowners know how it can get involved in dispute resolution
  • landowners are being required to do all the research and incur expenses to prove damages/losses
  • timeliness of compensation cheques
  • timely resolution of concerns (spills)
  • on-going land damages are not being addressed by companies; issues being raised are not responded to
  • need for ombudsperson, independent of NEB or could be NEB
  • lack of access to company information about water monitoring activities on landowners' properties
  • need for service standards for responding to concerns
  • 'roads' created by company vehicles accessing valve sights
  • loss of use of land due to ROWs
  • inconvenience of crossing at specific spots and working around valve sights (some landowners have successfully worked out arrangements with companies
  • annual payments for loss of use of land, inconvenience from working around valve sites, above ground facilities and pipes
  • standardization of compensation so landowners don't each have to negotiate separate arrangements
  • agreements should be renegotiated every 5 years and consider compensation re: land and crop valve, change in agricultural use of land (irrigation, type of crop)
  • facilities should be an asset not a liability to landowners through annual compensation - NEB can set tolls to pay for this
  • inconsistency in what land agents are offering different landowners
  • landowners should not be required to sign confidentiality agreements for land use agreements or for spills

Stream 2 - Improving the Accessibility to NEB Processes

Capacity

  • funding - major issue for landowner associations
    • need to legal experts to participate in processes, such as hearings
    • hire experts on technical matters, e.g., agricultural matters
  • second preference (if funding is not immediately available) - access to neutral, third-party expert/legal support
    • must have NEB process experience
    • landowners/landowner associations could have an opportunity to confirm this person/these experts
    • third party cannot be caught in conflict of interest (serve "one master" only)
    • not a substitute for intervenor funding
    • only a short term solution
  • recommend to MoE to different level of Environmental Assessment to receive participant funding under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act
  • access to funding to recoup costs for driving, accommodation, etc. - out of pocket expenses for attending hearings

Source of Funding

  • energy tax
  • cost recovered from regulated companies
  • federal government funding
  • added funding to NEB budget

Process Design and Logistics

  • education for landowners and landowner associations (what can NEB do for landowners)
  • meetings and workshops to train landowners and landowner associations on process
  • phone number to call for general information about NEB and processes
  • simplify the process
  • talking to the Board about project-specific issues during the pre-hearing window
  • have these issues resolved before the hearing (i.e. in absence of abandonment regulations - need commitments upfront)
  • landowners need to know about landowner complaint process and ADR
  • who is the NEB - not on site - need information directly from the NEB, not from companies

Regulatory Development

  • 1985 changes to the regulation of abandonment - no consultation with landowners and affected parties
  • 30 m safety zone - landowners not consulted
  • remove or revise 30m safety zone regulation by consulting landowners on changes
  • landowners must be consulted on regulations that affect their rights and interests

NEB Access During Construction and Operations

  • inspectors on site should communicate with landowners
  • need to make it simpler when calling NEB, i.e. direct contact, easier, no long forms, etc.
  • need to see change based on landowners' input, i.e. complaint process, the LMCI

Success for LMCI means that in 6 months...

  • progress on the issue of access to funding
  • website more intuitive and less cumbersome (too frustrating to use, too much information, difficult to find stuff)

Stream 4 - Pipeline Abandonment - Physical Issues

  • pipeline should be removed
  • abandonment impacts should be considered at the beginning
  • must be able to compel abandonment
  • responsibility of pipeline after abandonment should not be left to landowners (who is responsible?)
  • landowners should have final say in the methodology for abandonment
  • ensure liability is not inadvertently on landowners
  • concerned with easement agreements having ultimate authority
  • landowners involvement require funding - abandonment plan development, legal counsel, experts, soil, water
  • associations provide support and strength to landowners' positions
  • concerned about corrosion contaminating water sources
  • government should have responsibility in the absence of companies based on public interest of having it put in the ground
  • environment assessment if sold
  • environmental and financial liability if left in the ground (land value decrease)
  • solution to liability: annual payments linked to value of products - require a legislative or regulatory change
  • orphan pipeline fund
  • consider changes environmental laws (leaving pipelines in the ground may be fine today but in the future?)

 

Footer

Date Modified:
2011-10-28