by James A. Bacon
Landowner and environmentalist groups have advanced a number of arguments against building more gas pipelines (see previous post), but among the more novel is the idea that the proposed Atlantic Coast Pipeline (ACP) will disrupt the “cultural attachment” rural landowners feel for the land that would be traversed. What foes are contending here is that construction of a pipeline will do far more than hurt property values. It will damage peoples’ culture in ways that cannot be mitigated.
Most arguments against the Virginia pipelines are familiar in the sense that they appeal to widely (if not universally) recognized principles of economics and environmental stewardship. The “cultural attachment”gambit is not like anything I have seen before.
Here’s how a letter to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission from some 30 environmental and landowner groups makes the case:
The proposed route of the Atlantic Coast Pipeline will cross primarily rural landscapes where agriculture and forestry are the dominant land uses. The communities that would be affected by the ACP have deep roots in and strong cultural identification with the land and its rural character. In addition to adverse effects associated with the use of eminent domain, construction and right-of-way maintenance … the ACP will have significant adverse effects on the character of these currently non-industrialized areas.
The adverse effects of the taking and alteration of private property … must be assessed in light of the affected communities’ “cultural attachment” to the land. Cultural attachment is the “cumulative effect over time of a collection of traditions, attitudes, practices, and stories that ties a person to the land, to physical place, and kinship patterns.” Much of the land that would be affected by the ACP has been held in families for generations and people’s reliance on the land for survival and prosperity has resulted in high levels of cultural attachment. Rural Appalachian communities have historically suffered from significant intrusions, such as railroad highway constructions, that have “undercut the cultural patterns that had developed through people’s relation to the land, physical place, and kin.
As the U.S. Forest Service recognized in a 1996 Draft Environmental Impact Statement for an Appalachian Power Co. project in rural West Virginia and Virginia:
Substantial outside-generated intrusions (such as highways, railroads, and transmission lines) that breach the boundary of a high cultural attachment area may have significant adverse impacts to the sustainability of the local culture. … The permanence of the intrusions is a symbol of the imposed dominance of commerce and economic interests. … Permanent and elongate linear intrusions tend to bifurcate previously existing cultural units into new units. This tends to fracture informal support systems and create new boundary areas. Boundary areas created by intrusion are often abandoned by area residents from cultural management, thereby increasing the likelihood of additional intrusions.
Bacon’s bottom line:
It strikes me that this argument is getting at something real. Some people feel an attachment to the land so strong that it transcends the monetary value of the land. Disruption to these ties cannot be measured by any conventional means, thus they cannot be compensated.
If the Virginia Department of Transportation wanted to run a highway through my home in western Henrico where I have lived for 13 years, I would be plenty unhappy. But I wouldn’t be devastated. My personal identity is not tied up in the house. I have no ancestral ties here, no spiritual ties. Leaving the house would have no impact on my network of kin and friends. I fully expect to sell the house when I retire and I’m ready to downsize. The house is a commodity in a way that property is not for people with strong attachments to the land.
I sympathize with those who fear the loss of something that can never be retrieved. But I have concerns. The idea of “cultural attachment” is so vague and hard to define that it could be applied to almost anything. There is no way to measure cultural attachment, and there is no way to ascertain the sincerity of the people who claim to have it. If this new doctrine were given legal force, it could be invoked to block any infrastructure project that ran through a rural area, that is to say, almost every road, highway, rail line, transmission line or pipeline ever proposed.
The idea has been around at least 20 years (since the 1996 U.S. Forest Service report at least). It doesn’t appear to have gained much traction since then. It will be interesting to see if FERC gives it any credence.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.