Editing Ogallala Aquifer (section)

==Environmental controversies==
{{More science citations needed|section|date=July 2019}}

===Keystone Pipeline===
{{See also|Environmental risks of the Keystone XL pipeline}}
[[File:Keystone XL - Ogallala Aquifer.png|thumb|A map showing aquifer thickness of the Ogallala Aquifer with the proposed [[Keystone XL]] pipeline route laid over.]]
In 2008, [[TransCanada Corporation]] proposed the construction of the {{convert|1661|mi|adj=on}} [[Keystone Pipeline|Keystone XL]] pipeline to carry oil from the [[Athabasca oil sands]] of [[Alberta]] to refineries near [[Houston, Texas]].<ref>Hovey, Art. [http://www.downstreamtoday.com/news/article.aspx?a_id=11336&AspxAutoDetectCookieSupport=1 "TransCanada Proposes Second Oil Pipeline".] ''[http://journalstar.com/ Lincoln Journal-Star.]'' 2008-06-12. Reproduced at [http://www.downstreamtoday.com/ Downstream Today website.] Retrieved 2011-08-27.</ref><ref>[http://www.transcanada.com/keystone.html "Keystone Pipeline Project".]  {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121109065813/http://www.transcanada.com/keystone.html |date=November 9, 2012 }} [http://www.transcanada.com/index.html TransCanada.] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110902014525/http://www.transcanada.com/index.html |date=2011-09-02 }} Retrieved 2011-08-27.</ref>
The proposed route of the pipeline crosses the eastern part of the [[Sandhills (Nebraska)|Nebraska Sandhills]]; opponents of the route cite the risk to the Ogallala Aquifer posed by the possibility of contamination from spilled [[diluted bitumen|dilute bitumen]].<ref name=routebest>Morton, Joseph, and Paul Hammel. [http://www.omaha.com/article/20110827/NEWS01/708279874/1009 "Report: Sand Hills route best".] {{webarchive|url=https://archive.today/20130131205042/http://www.omaha.com/article/20110827/NEWS01/708279874/1009 |date=2013-01-31 }} ''[http://www.omaha.com/ Omaha World-Herald.]'' 2011-08-27. Retrieved 2011-08-27.</ref><ref>[http://www.foe.org/keystone-xl-pipeline "Keystone XL Pipeline".] [http://www.foe.org/ Friends of the Earth.] Retrieved 2011-08-27.</ref>

Pipeline industry spokesmen have noted that thousands of miles of existing pipelines carrying crude oil and refined liquid hydrocarbons have crossed over the Ogallala Aquifer for years, in southeast Wyoming, eastern Colorado and New Mexico, western Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, and Texas.<ref>Larry Lakely, [http://heartland.org/policy-documents/map-pipelines-and-ogallala-aquifer-2012 Map of Pipelines and the Ogallala Aquifer, 2012] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20141218034150/http://heartland.org/policy-documents/map-pipelines-and-ogallala-aquifer-2012 |date=December 18, 2014 }}, 20 January 2012.</ref><ref>Andrew Black and David Holt, [http://journalstar.com/news/opinion/editorial/columnists/guest-view-we-need-crude-oil-pipelines/article_767f684d-42ef-586e-97ec-557e6764e8a4.html Guest View: We need crude oil pipelines] Lincoln (NE) Journal Star, 12 July 2011.</ref><ref>Allegro Energy Group, [http://www.pipeline101.com/reports/Notes.pdf How Pipelines Make the Oil Market Work – Their Networks, Operation and Regulation] {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131228073802/http://www.pipeline101.com/reports/Notes.pdf |date=December 28, 2013 }}, December 2001, Association of Oil Pipe Lines and American Petroleum Institute, p.8-9.</ref><ref>Pipeline 101, [http://www.pipeline101.com/Overview/products-pl.html Refined products pipelines] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140414225855/http://www.pipeline101.com/overview/products-pl.html |date=April 14, 2014 }}, accessed 8 October 2013.</ref><ref>Oil Sands fact Check, [http://oilsandsfactcheck.org/2012/05/30/myth-vs-fact-kxl-will-threaten-the-ogallala-aquifer/ Myth vs. Fact: KXL will Threaten the Ogallala Aquifer] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140225232135/http://oilsandsfactcheck.org/2012/05/30/myth-vs-fact-kxl-will-threaten-the-ogallala-aquifer/ |date=February 25, 2014 }} 20 May 2012.</ref> The Pioneer crude oil pipeline crosses east-west across Nebraska, and the [[Pony Express pipeline]], which crosses the Ogallala Aquifer in Colorado, Nebraska, and Kansas, was being converted as of 2013 from natural gas to crude oil, under a permit from the [[Federal Energy Regulatory Commission]].<ref>Paul Hammel, [https://archive.today/20131011165109/http://www.omaha.com/article/20120823/NEWS/708239899 Smaller oil pipeline to cross Ogallala Aquifer], Omaha.com, 23 August 2012.</ref>

As the lead agency in the transboundary pipeline project, the [[United States Department of State|U.S. State Department]] commissioned an environmental-impact assessment as required by the [[National Environmental Policy Act of 1969]]. The ''Environmental Impact Statement'' concluded that the project posed little threat of "adverse environmental impacts",<ref name=routebest/><ref>O'Meara, Dina, and Sheldon Alberts. [https://calgaryherald.com/business/report+clears+TransCanada+Keystone+pipeline/5312553/story.html "U.S. report clears way for TransCanada's Keystone XL pipeline".] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20111126182348/http://www.calgaryherald.com/business/report+clears+TransCanada+Keystone+pipeline/5312553/story.html |date=2011-11-26 }} ''[https://calgaryherald.com/index.html Calgary Herald.]  {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110831213136/http://www.calgaryherald.com/index.html |date=2011-08-31 }}'' 2011-08-27. Retrieved 2011-08-27.</ref> the report was drafted by [[Cardno Entrix]], a company that assisted both the Department of State and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission in preparing [[environmental impact statement]]s for other proposed TransCanada  projects. Although it is "common for companies applying to build government projects to be involved in assigning and paying for the impact analysis",<ref>"[https://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/08/science/earth/08pipeline.html?_r=2 Pipeline Review Is Faced With Question of Conflict]", ''New York Times'', October 7, 2011.</ref> several opponents of the project suggested there could be a conflict of interest.  In response to that concern, the Department of State's Office of the Inspector General conducted an investigation of the potential conflict of interest.   The February 2012 report of that investigation states no conflict of interest existed  either in the selection of the contractor or in the preparation of the environmental impact statement.<ref>United States Department of State and the Broadcasting Board of Governors Office of Inspector General Office of Audits.  February 2012.  Special Review of the Keystone XL Pipeline Permit Process. Report Number AUD/SI-12-28.
</ref>

U.S. President Barack Obama "initially rejected the Keystone XL pipeline in January 2012, saying he wanted more time for an environmental review."<ref name="NBC">{{cite web|last=Rafferty|first=Andrew|title=Thousands rally in D.C. against Keystone Pipeline|url=http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/02/17/16996283-thousands-rally-in-dc-against-keystone-pipeline|work=NBC News|publisher=National Broadcast Company|access-date=21 February 2013}}</ref> On February 17, 2013, a rally at the National Mall drew an estimated 40,000 in protest of Keystone XL.<ref name="NBC" /> In January 2014, the [[U.S. State Department]] released its Keystone pipeline ''Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for the Keystone XL Project Executive Summary'', which concluded that, according to models, a large crude oil spill from the pipeline that reached the Ogallala could spread as far as {{convert|1,214|ft}}, with dissolved components spreading as much as {{cvt|1,050|ft}} further.<ref>U.S. Dept. of State, [https://2012-keystonepipeline-xl.state.gov/documents/organization/221246.pdf ''Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement'']. 1 March 2013, p.4.16-2.</ref> 

Early in his presidency, U.S. President Donald Trump overturned U.S. President Barack Obama's decision by signing executive memos in support of the Keystone XL pipeline in January 2017.<ref>{{Cite web|last=DiChristopher|first=Tom|date=2017-01-24|title=Trump signs executive actions to advance Keystone XL, Dakota Access pipelines|url=https://www.cnbc.com/2017/01/24/trump-to-advance-keystone-dakota-pipelines-with-executive-order-on-tuesday-nbc.html|access-date=2020-09-28|website=CNBC|language=en}}</ref> On January 20, 2021, President [[Joe Biden]] signed an [[Executive Order 13990|executive order]]<ref name="86 FR 7037">{{Cite journal |title=Protecting Public Health and the Environment and Restoring Science To Tackle the Climate Crisis |journal=[[Federal Register]] |volume=86 |page=7037 |url=https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2021/01/25/2021-01765/protecting-public-health-and-the-environment-and-restoring-science-to-tackle-the-climate-crisis |language=en |date=January 20, 2021 |access-date=January 24, 2021}}</ref> to revoke the permit<ref name="84 FR 13101">{{Cite journal |title=Authorizing TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, L.P., To Construct, Connect, Operate, and Maintain Pipeline Facilities at the International Boundary Between the United States and Canada |journal=[[Federal Register]] |volume=84 |page=13,101 |url=https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2019/04/03/2019-06654/authorizing-transcanada-keystone-pipeline-lp-to-construct-connect-operate-and-maintain-pipeline |language=en |date=March 29, 2019 |access-date=January 24, 2021}}</ref> that was granted to [[TC Energy Corporation]] for the Keystone XL Pipeline (Phase 4). On June 9, 2021, TC Energy abandoned plans for the Keystone XL Pipeline.<ref name="Cancellation">{{Cite news|last=Puko|first=Timothy|date=2021-06-09|title=Keystone XL Oil Project Abandoned by Developer|language=en-US|work=Wall Street Journal|url=https://www.wsj.com/articles/keystone-xl-oil-project-abandoned-by-developer-11623272010|access-date=2021-06-09|issn=0099-9660}}</ref><ref name="Cancellation-ap">{{Cite news|last=Brown|first=Matthew|date=2021-06-09|title=Keystone XL pipeline nixed after Biden stands firm on permit|language=en-US|work=AP News|url=https://apnews.com/article/donald-trump-joe-biden-keystone-pipeline-canada-environment-and-nature-141eabd7cca6449dfbd2dab8165812f2|access-date=2021-06-10}}</ref>