Policy Centre Mailing: #363-918 16th Ave. NW, Calgary, Alberta T2M 0K3 | PolicyCentre@caepla.

org
Administration Mailing: #257-918 Albert Street, Regina, Sask. S4R 2P7 | Phone: 306.522.5000 | Fax: 306.522.5006
Administration email: Admin@caepla.org | www.landownerassociation.ca

June 23, 2014

Ms. Sheri Young
Secretary
National Energy Board
444 Seventh Avenue SW
Calgary, Alberta
T2P 0X8


Dear Ms. Young,

Re: Enbridge Cromer Line 3 Replacement Project

I am writing this letter to the NEB on behalf of afflicted landowners and out of a shared sense of urgency
and disgust at how the Enbridge Cromer Line 3 Replacement Project that crosses land of our
associations members has proceeded.

I have only seen such unparalleled devastation to agricultural land by a pipeline company a few times in
my life. This construction and the mess left behind looks like something that would have happened prior
to the 1975 precedent setting Lewington/ONeil case against what was then called InterProvincial
Pipelines and is now called Enbridge.

That court settlement supposedly changed the way pipelines were built. But it now appears that as a
result of NEB issued Right of Entry, Enbridge is acting with a sense of reckless entitlement that has
effectively turned the clock back to the bad old days of flagrant devastation of farmland and soil
integrity by pipeline companies.

Obviously Enbridge cannot be trusted to respect food producing and agricultural land generally. It
appears that the NEB has been complicit in this unethical treatment of landowners property and farm
businesses by granting Right of Entry to Enbridge. As I am sure the NEB knows, CAEPLA and our member
associations have always said we are pro-development.

However, in light of the disrespect and disturbance we are now seeing at the farms in Cromer, including
the complicity of the NEB via Right of Entry orders, we cannot support a regulatory regime that
encourages and enables industry to conduct itself in a counter-productive and destructive manner.

Development is supposed to be a win-win proposition beneficial to all. The conduct of Enbridge at
Cromer, sanctioned by the NEB, is arguably anti-development inasmuch as it is detrimental to the
economic well-being of the farm businesses affected.




The experience unfolding now at the Cromer farms is precisely the type of thing that instills ill will
toward the pipeline industry on the part of farmers and the general public.

Pipeline development should never be a zero-sum game; is it not in the interest of the NEB, as a self-
professed partner with industry, to foster mutually beneficial agreements and harmonious relations
and goodwill among the parties involved?

In the meantime, the food producers in Cromer were left with no crossings to get to their field for spring
planting, leaving hundreds of acres of trapped land, land that could not be seeded; it is still trapped and
flooded because Enbridge left no way for water to move across the pile of subsoil on top of the pipeline.
The narrow strip of topsoil removed from the trench was piled along the side and then driven on by the
contractor spreading it around making it impossible to re-use. Adding insult to injury the companys
contractor ignored Biosecurity protocols and drove around cleaning stations at night.

It is the considered opinion of CAEPLA and the farmer members involved that all of this happened
because Enbridge refused to negotiate an agreement/contract to address these issues beforehandand
the NEB gave them Right of Entry anyway.

The NEB cannot wash their hands of responsibility of this mess and has a responsibility to get out and
talk to these landowners/MPLA/CAEPLA to resolve these issues. I understand that the NEB wants to
notify Enbridge of the complaint before it does anything, to be fair. The NEB has in no way been fair
to the landowners in Cromer. There is nothing fair about taking away someones right to protect their
property by allowing someone else (Enbridge) to ruin and pillage that property. It was not fair to take
away the landowners right to negotiate a contract in order to protect themselves.

Many years ago, CAEPLA identified the issue of the NEB notifying the company of any landowner
complaints as one of the NEBs most faulty processes. The NEB tells landowners to contact the Board if
they have a complaint, but if a landowner does so, the next day he or she gets a knock on the door by
the pipeline company asking why the landowner complained to the Board; that is bullying and
intimidation! This leads many farmers and ranchers to suspect the NEB has designed this policy in such
a way as to discourage landowners from complaining.

In the case of Enbridges Cromer Right of Entry, the Board needs to immediately convene a hearing to
understand the implications of NEB Right of Entry regulations and how they compromise the
environment and promote destruction of agricultural land.

CAEPLA has had calls from the press asking our views on the Northern Gateway approval by the Federal
Government. In light of the Cromer situation, the good faith of Enbridge when it comes to assurance
given to the NEB, government, and other stakeholders, should be questioned and subject to increased
scrutiny when it comes to construction of Northern Gateway or any other proposed pipeline.

The company has clearly misled the government and taken legislated changes regarding crossing and
environmental issues as entitlement to do as they please. Predictably this has resulted in abuse of
landowners and the environment as the activity at Cromer starkly underscores.




The NEB needs to attend the Cromer construction and meet these landowners (MPLA and CAEPLA)
without Enbridge representatives present, and there needs to be a process to cross examine Enbridge as
to what transpired.

Without proper follow-up both the NEB and the pipeline industry have little or no credibility going
forward.

In 2007 CAEPLA/SAPL/MPLA negotiated a precedent setting easement agreement on the Alberta Clipper
and Southern Lights pipelines. We negotiated construction issues, a landowner construction monitor, a
joint committee, abandonment issues, crossing issues and many more landowner legitimate concerns. A
responsible contract. In the Cromer situation the Board undermined the negotiation of a responsible
agreement and cut the legs out from under these directly affected landowners by giving Enbridge free
rein to devastate these farmers land.

This has been done to the detriment, not just of farmers/ranchers/woodlot and acreage owners across
Canada, but to the detriment of the whole oil, gas, pipeline and energy industry as well. The clock has
been turned back -- the Board has a responsibility to reboot the system.


Sincerely,

David R. Core
CEO and Director of Federally Regulated Projects

c. MPLA
c. Larry McGuire, MP Brandon-Souris
c. Hon. Greg Rickford Minister of Natural Resources
c. Hon. Thomas Mulcair Leader of the Opposition
c. Justin Trudeau Liberal Party Leader