Siting Shock: A Need for Change
By Gini Cooper

One of the more profound experiences of my life has been that of being in the proposed path of a transmission pipeline. It turned my life upside down, propelled me on an incredibly steep learning curve, and challenged many of my assumptions about property rights and "the way things are." After an initial period of shock, I experienced a number of emotions ranging from rage to grief, as did most of the landowners I worked with. For all the stress this introduced, the experience also taught me a great deal about conflict and the way society deals with it - or doesn't.

Throughout the process personnel from industry and FERC have expressed surprise at the anger and conflict that arises with siting. It would seem evident that a situation in which landowners are placed in a position where they have no choice about exposure to a perceived risk and where property rights may be taken by eminent domain would be a source of anger and conflict. Some may use denial to avoid dealing with uncomfortable emotions, yet I have also seen company people who seem genuinely puzzled that the public would be upset about safety or property devaluation. The fear and the anger that accompanies the shock of siting is then dismissed as irrational, unreasonable, or NIMBY. Even without such overt labeling, the belief that landowners are not entitled to these emotions is subtly conveyed to landowners through responses that lay the foundation for polarization and position-based conflict. Pretending there is no conflict or that conflict is not warranted is the best way to feed and inflame conflict. Much of the stress and harm that I have observed with siting comes from this fundamental avoidance, which seems to be repeated in the processes that are established by companies and FERC to gather public input.

There is a perception that the conflict that arises in siting is the fault of the landowner, that delays are due to their use of safety or environmental concerns as a means of stopping a project. What I have observed is that the real source of the conflict is the lack of opportunity for meaningful participation and the manner in which landowners are treated when they attempt to get information or become involved in order to learn how best to steward their land.

Conflict is perceived as negative and the efforts to avoid it only increase the destructive outcome. Conflict may be uncomfortable, but is not inherently negative or destructive. It is the manner in which it is managed that determines whether the outcome is destructive or constructive. When conflict is acknowledged and managed by means of full participation by all stakeholders, it has the potential for building trust and generating creative solutions.

The times have changed and the public now has access to almost unlimited information. This has led to not only an expectation of having access to information that was never available in the past, but also to an interest in participating in processes and decisions that impact one's life and livelihood. It is not simply the content of information that needs to change to keep up with the times, the manner in which information is conveyed and the process by which the public is involved in such activities as siting must also change to meet current needs. Ignoring the need for change is as self-defeating as ignoring conflict. It is my hope that the industry will adapt to new technology for public participation and managing conflict as well as it has adopted new technology for building safer pipelines.

For more information, follow the link below:
Pipeline Safety Regulations Primer