One thing is I don't understand the opposing opinion posted in response to this thread. It makes no logical sense regardless of the landowner, purpose of the land, to haphazardly allow an industrial entity to run rampant, to not plan better, to not design better and to not survey for the most logical solution.
The installers of that pipe are absolutely going to do everything in their power to take the easiest route, its more productive, (feet per day is the high priority for them) clean land is less costly to install pipe in and takes less time.... Ok, anyone would agree that that makes sense, but...... given what is shown in the photo, any intelligent land owner, I don't care who you are, what your background is, and what you do with your land, would have to recognize an alternate route, away from good agricultural ground.
Once an industrial entity has taken over a site and has rights to it, you are hard pressed to have any mobility to react to any rough shod actions by them, say by virtue of their business on the site that transverses through your land.
I know with the power company locally, it could go either way, but, I commend them on how they do their work. NYS DEC is a stickler for environmental issues and concerns. They recently did a sizeable project through this placer and are currently doing an extensive project through our other place. Both projects mind you, have been executed carefully, with strict adherence to NYS DEC and other considerations, landowners contacted and everything was done with a cooperative effort by all parties, from power company officials, representatives down right to the guys in the field and I can name one from Asplundh, Ben who was absolutely a pleasure to work with on all aspects. The line crew was a little rough, they need feet per day and don't stop to smell the roses, but knowing that the forestry outfit follows them and makes sure things are right in the end. NYS DEC compliance here was excellent, I told the DEC rep that myself, having dealt with contractors most of my life, I told them they are doing a good job on this land next to a 20 acre wetland and it kept a watchful eye from further in depth scrutiny. Industry can work, but it has to start at the beginning.
Or, if that alternate route is in fact not possible, well people..... what options do we have to get the job done, we can put a man on the moon, but we can not find a solution for this dilemma ?
Well first off there needs to be a scope of work written for the installer to adhere too, at the behest of a diligent landowner, sad to think people still see money and absolutely nothing else and would not do this. Some of things contained in that scope of work would be compensation for existing crops. Another aspect would be future crops, losses associated with the lower yields and lesser quality. During the installation, they are obviously going to excavate. Ok, so why is it not possible to strip and properly stockpile top soils, securing it for the restoration work later. Bring in some additional topsoil to supplement. You strip where the pipe excavation is, and along it for the pipelayers, trucks and what have you. Pipe is set, its backfilled, if excavation spoil is not suitable for back fill, what options are there, export from site, screen it, use what is suitable, import additional or supplementary fill etc. Pipe is eventually back filled. I would be concerned about compaction next so why could not the limited ag areas be subsoiled, pipe is located, and just done in the ag fields. Next you place the topsoil, grade and plant a cover crop to hold it. Not necessarily in the above order, or exactly as stated, but I absolutely do not understand why this could not be done, I don't want to hear about hardship or additional cost by a gas producer, because these additional work items will not harm their profitability in any way, they would not be in there if it was marginal, they are going to make good money and the upfront costs to install the infrastructure will be defrayed by same and hardly noticed when done, its the same in construction.
I have worked on 36" pipe, set in the ground through some of the worst conditions, I know what it takes and what goes on. In '91 a 70 mile 36" line was set east west through NY and crosses the NY state thruway, I worked on several sections of it, on log matts hauling suitable backfill. I have done countless miles of water main through similar conditions and have done the restoration work, foreman always selected me because of the work I did.
We need to be smart about this, it does not mean you need to oppose it, it does mean you need to get off your @ss and use the intelligence given to you, even if its been collecting dust for a long time and keep industry in check about land use.
Look at Europe, and how residential areas are segregated from ag land, and that ag land is expansive, now most of us are used to a farmstead layout and it would be difficult to even consider living off site, but it works for them, and the point is that ag land to them is recognized as extremely important, or it would not be so and that is my point excactly, does not mean people need to follow that model, but they should show the same concern for the land that does produce agricultural crops.
The problem is people don't see far enough ahead, and they should based on numbers alone, population increases should drive that, but at the moment, there is no problem and its human nature to just muddle along until the last minute, and by then it will be too late or be of grave consequence, you either pay now or pay dearly later on !
