Agriculture, Local/County, Pittsboro, Video

Acres at stake: Chatham’s Agriculture Board probes Enbridge’s pipeline route

By Chatham Journal staff

Pittsboro, NC – Chatham County farmers and Agriculture Advisory Board members pressed Enbridge Gas North Carolina representatives Tuesday for firm answers about lost grazing seasons, damaged wells, soil recovery, access restrictions and the possibility of eminent domain along a proposed 28-mile natural gas pipeline, repeatedly arguing that general promises to “work with landowners” are not enough to measure the project’s lasting cost to agriculture.

The August 18 question-and-answer session exposed the distance between Enbridge’s description of a reliability project designed to serve a growing two-county customer base and the concerns of farmers who may be asked to surrender a permanent easement across working land. Company representatives said compensation can account for crop losses beyond the construction period, that wells would be tested before and after construction, and that condemnation would be a last resort. Board members, however, asked the company to document the need for the line, explain why the route crosses private farmland, identify required connection points and disclose how cost factored into the selection of the corridor.

Enbridge representatives agreed to provide material for the board’s forthcoming report. They also said the route should reach a high level of certainty within the next few months as the company prepares to seek permits later in 2026. Construction is planned to begin in late 2027, a project representative said, with the pipeline expected to enter service in summer 2028.

The exchange came during a public hearing convened by the Agriculture Advisory Board, whose county role includes supporting farmland protection. The pipeline debate places that mission against Enbridge’s assertion that more gas-delivery capacity is needed for residential, commercial and industrial growth.

A project measured in miles – and growing seasons

Enbridge describes the Chatham County System Expansion Project as a proposed 28-mile, 12-inch natural gas line serving Chatham and Lee counties. The company’s current materials say the project would use a permanent right of way typically about 50 feet wide, plus roughly 30 feet of temporary workspace during construction. The precise widths could vary at streams, access points and other site-specific locations.

Those dimensions became more concrete when a farmer challenged images shown during Enbridge’s presentation. The photographs appeared to show a lush pasture, a disturbed construction area and a restored site, but the questioner said it was unclear whether the images depicted the same farm or how much time passed between them.

“A good pasture, once it’s torn up, can take three to five years to be regenerated in order to graze your animals,” the farmer said. “I don’t have three to five years to wait. That’s three to five years of income loss.”

The question went beyond the duration of trenching. A temporarily unusable pasture may force a cattle farmer to buy hay, erect new fencing, move a herd or reduce the number of animals on the land. In a drought, the farmer said, hay may be scarce and expensive before construction begins.

Enbridge’s first response was that the construction timeline varies by the length and conditions of each segment. The company intends to keep work moving efficiently to minimize disturbance, a representative said. Financial impacts such as lost crop seasons or depressed yields in later years should be raised with the company’s land agents and incorporated into easement negotiations.

The representatives said temporary gates, temporary fencing, livestock feed and other farm-specific needs could be addressed in negotiations. They emphasized that every farm is different.

That answer did not satisfy the board or landowners who questioned whether a private, parcel-by-parcel process could produce consistent treatment. One speaker noted that farmers do not know what neighboring landowners are being offered or whether agents are using common assumptions for hay, fencing, lost production and the length of recovery.

The concern was not simply that farms differ. It was that compensation standards might differ without landowners having enough information to recognize the gap.

“No one in this room knows what is being said to their neighbor,” the farmer said. “They don’t know if it’s tracking the same way.”

Enbridge says compensation can extend beyond construction

Company representatives acknowledged that restoration and production recovery may last longer than the time heavy equipment is on a parcel. If construction lasted a year, one representative said, compensation would not necessarily cover only that year. Planting seasons after construction may be less productive, and yields can take years to return to their earlier level.

Enbridge said project delays and multiple years of diminished production are factors that may be included in compensation. The representatives repeatedly directed landowners to make their concerns part of the easement process.

That raised a second question: What happens if damage appears only after the easement has been signed and construction is complete?

Representatives distinguished between the terms governing Enbridge’s long-term property access and its responsibility for damage attributable to its work. One said the company remains legally responsible for damage it causes during construction or later operations. The exchange nevertheless underscored why an easement must define how future losses will be documented, causation established and disputes resolved.

A cattle producer offered a hypothetical example: If a herd’s calving rate fell after the project and the loss could be attributed to pipeline construction or operations, would Enbridge pay for the lost calves? A company representative said Enbridge would be responsible if its action caused the loss, while cautioning that he was not a farm expert. Asked about an effect appearing three years later, representatives again tied responsibility to whether the harm could be attributed to the company.

No standard easement, compensation schedule or claims procedure was reviewed in the recorded session. The discussion also did not establish what evidence a farmer would need to prove that a later decline resulted from pipeline work rather than drought, disease or another cause.

Climate and drought complicate a fixed payment

Farmers warned that a payment negotiated today may be inadequate when construction begins. A pasture-restoration estimate based on normal weather could fail if drought slowed germination or increased feed costs. One questioner asked whether compensation could adjust if climate conditions, herd status or disease changed the cost of maintaining animals.

Enbridge’s response was that these circumstances should be worked through with affected landowners. The representatives said the company expects to remain in the community and wants to be a good neighbor.

That phrase drew a sharp rejoinder from the audience: Taking farmland over an owner’s objection was not the speaker’s definition of good-neighbor conduct.

Enbridge presented negotiation as the way to tailor protection to each operation. Landowners viewed the same process as a source of uncertainty, particularly when condemnation remains a possible final step.

Wells, blasting and the question of proof

The board devoted substantial attention to private wells, especially where construction may require blasting.

Enbridge representatives said the company would arrange, at its expense, for a licensed contractor to inspect and sample wells before construction. Samples would be tested by a qualified service, and landowners would receive the results. After construction, the inspection and testing would be repeated. If the company damaged a well, representatives said, Enbridge would be responsible for repair or replacement.

That commitment is consistent with the company’s public project information. The meeting nevertheless left several details unstated: the testing radius, the substances and water-quality measures included, the post-construction schedule and the procedure if Enbridge and an owner disagree about causation.

The discussion also corrected one misconception. A board member referred to a 150-foot no-blasting area, but an Enbridge representative said the company had not specified a blanket 150-foot prohibition. Blasting can occur near a pipeline if it is engineered so vibration will not damage the steel, the representative said.

That answer addressed work after the line is installed as well as construction near existing infrastructure. Farmers, loggers and other land users may continue using their property, but activities involving heavy crossings, excavation or blasting can require coordination with the operator.

Who pays if farm activity damages the line?

Another question reversed the direction of liability: If a logger, farmer or contractor damages the pipeline after Enbridge completes the project, who pays?

The company’s answer was direct. The party that causes the damage is responsible. Enbridge representatives said the company can work with owners to design heavy-equipment crossing points or use temporary measures such as mats or bridging to protect the pipe while maintaining access.

For affected farms, that answer makes the future-use terms of the easement as consequential as the initial payment. A pipeline corridor can remain open to crops and pasture, according to Enbridge, but the company says deep-rooted trees, buildings and some excavation are generally restricted so crews can safely reach and maintain the line. Forestry operations, driveway construction, drainage work and the movement of heavy machinery may therefore require advance planning.

Federal guidance defines an easement as a limited right allowing use of another person’s property. The exact rights and restrictions are established by the recorded document, not by statements made at a public meeting.

photo by Gene Galin

Board asks Enbridge to prove the need

The meeting’s most consequential policy question may have been the simplest: Why is the pipeline needed?

An Agriculture Advisory Board member asked Enbridge to provide written documentation supporting the project and questioned an apparent change in customer numbers. Enbridge clarified that it serves about 12,000 existing customers in Chatham County and 6,000 in Lee County – 18,000 across the two-county system. The company said it used the 12,000 figure that night because the presentation focused on Chatham County.

Enbridge representatives said the project would increase capacity for those customers while allowing the system to keep pace with residential, commercial and industrial growth. The existing customer base has increased by double digits during the past three years, a representative said.

The company agreed to provide documentation of need.

Its public materials make the same general case but, in the material reviewed for this article, do not provide a detailed load forecast showing demand by customer class, peak-day capacity, system constraints, contracted demand or the capacity the new line would add. The board asked for the engineering and economic analysis behind the chosen route, diameter and schedule.

A route shaped by existing connections

Board members also asked why the pipeline could not follow highways or existing utility corridors for more of its length, reducing the amount of private farmland crossed.

Enbridge said it evaluated multiple alternatives before narrowing the study corridor. The analysis considered land use, effects on agriculture and individual owners, environmental constraints, engineering and whether a route could be constructed. A central constraint, representatives said, is the need to connect to Enbridge’s existing system at several points.

The proposed line follows a Duke Energy transmission corridor for part of its route, but not within Duke’s easement. Enbridge would obtain a separate permanent easement running parallel to it. Representatives said the gas line cannot remain beside the power corridor for the entire distance because it must reach existing pipeline connection points.

Asked how cost compared with other factors, the company did not provide a numerical breakdown at the meeting. That prompted the board chairman to request the alternate routes, the specific tie-in “nodes,” any cost savings associated with the proposed corridor, and the obstacles to sharing or paralleling other easements.

“We’re sacrificing this turmoil and this interruption and the fact that you’re going to have a pipeline underneath your pasture, maybe for somebody else’s cost savings, somebody else’s convenience,” he said, asking Enbridge to be as detailed as possible.

Enbridge agreed to prepare a response for inclusion in the board’s report.

The chairman also pointed to a paradox: A pipeline easement may prevent future building directly over the corridor, yet its construction could disrupt farms that already function as open land. The agricultural question is whether the route divides fields, complicates access, constrains forestry or farm improvements, and adds financial pressure that pushes land out of production.

The “no action” alternative

The board asked Enbridge to explain what would happen if the project were not built and whether the company’s no-action scenario included alternative energy.

Enbridge said it did not. The company’s no-action case would mean limitations on its ability to keep up with growth and potential effects on existing customers. As a regulated utility, a representative said, Enbridge is obligated to provide continuous, safe and reliable service.

Some landowners challenged that premise, arguing that infrastructure built to accommodate growth can enable more growth and increase development pressure. One speaker said property taxes had increased 50% and warned that a construction payment would not offset the long-term cost of holding agricultural land.

“It doesn’t matter if they compensate for the construction,” the speaker said. “They will not be able to afford living on the land any longer.”

Enbridge says the project is not intended for any single customer or industry. Its website says no agreement exists to supply a proposed data center and that the line could not power one. WUNC reported that the proposed route ends near the planned Eco TIP West site and that delivery capability depends on pressure as well as diameter. Enbridge maintained that no data-center request or agreement exists.

The Agriculture Advisory Board did not resolve that dispute. Its focus was narrower and more immediate: whether the company can substantiate the demand, explain the route and show that the burden on farms is necessary rather than merely convenient.

Condemnation described as a last resort – but still a resort

The most emotionally charged exchange concerned eminent domain.

Asked whether Enbridge would pursue condemnation if a landowner refused an easement, a representative called it a “means of last resort.” The company’s preferred path, he said, is continued communication and negotiated agreements with affected owners.

When pressed on whether the project would end rather than take unwilling owners to court, the representative said it would not. In other words, there is no assured individual opt-out if Enbridge decides a parcel is required and the parties cannot reach a voluntary agreement.

North Carolina law authorizes certain private entities to condemn property for public-use or public-benefit projects, including pipelines transporting gas. State law caps the width condemned for a natural gas pipeline at 100 feet. The statute also says a private condemnor generally may not take an owner’s usual dwelling house and yard, kitchen, garden or burial ground without consent unless another statute expressly authorizes it. Whether Enbridge may condemn a particular interest in a particular parcel would depend on the project, applicable law and any court proceeding; the meeting statements were not a judicial determination.

State regulation also differs from the process used for an interstate pipeline. Because the proposed Chatham-Lee line would remain within North Carolina, it is not expected to go through the federal Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity process used for interstate lines. The North Carolina Utilities Commission regulates local gas utilities and oversees pipeline safety. Its safety section conducts inspections covering construction, operations, maintenance, integrity management and other requirements. Enbridge is also expected to make a filing with the commission as project planning advances.

County commissioners have said their authority over the project’s approval and outcome is limited. That makes the Agriculture Advisory Board’s fact-finding role important even though its report will not itself decide whether the pipeline is built.

Permanent easement, temporary workspace and visible equipment

Enbridge confirmed that the usual project footprint consists of a 50-foot permanent easement and an additional temporary construction area, typically 30 feet on one side. The temporary width may increase or decrease according to conditions such as streams, access and equipment-safety needs.

The project is proposed as a single 12-inch line. Representatives said no compressor stations are planned along it. Some aboveground features would still be possible, including valves, pipeline markers, corrosion-protection test points, farm taps and regulator equipment where higher transmission pressure is reduced for distribution to customers.

The company described separate easement arrangements for locations with aboveground facilities and ordinary right-of-way segments. For landowners, that means the impact could differ substantially from parcel to parcel. A field crossed only by buried pipe and markers is not equivalent to a site selected for a valve or regulator assembly.

Asked whether the pipe might later be operated at a higher pressure, Enbridge said allowable pressure is established through a regulatory and engineering process based on the pipe material, location and other design factors. Representatives said changing that limit would require a substantial review. They also explained that gas flow is dynamic: pressure rises and falls with demand, and gas moves from higher pressure toward lower pressure.

Mental strain enters the compensation debate

Near the end of the session, a board member asked whether Enbridge has compensated landowners for the mental-health impact of a project.

The representative acknowledged that the impact was real but did not identify a separate category or standard payment for emotional distress. Instead, he said an owner’s overall circumstances could be considered in individual compensation discussions.

That response again returned the issue to land agents and private negotiations. It did not establish whether mental-health effects are regularly compensated, what documentation would be required, or whether such payment would appear as a distinct term in an easement.

The question broadened the inquiry beyond physical damage. Months of uncertainty about surveys, route changes, legal rights and future liability can impose a burden before any trench is dug.

What happens next

Enbridge said the final route has not been fully fixed. The company expects to move into permitting later this year and therefore needs a high degree of route certainty within the next few months. Its public timeline places permitting and design activity in 2026 and 2027, construction in 2027 and service in 2028; the more specific late-2027 and summer-2028 milestones were stated at the Aug. 18 meeting.

Before the Agriculture Advisory Board completes its report, members expect written follow-up from Enbridge on the project’s need, alternative corridors, required system connection points, cost considerations and the challenges of following existing highway, power or other utility rights of way. Those documents may determine whether the meeting’s broad assurances can be translated into standards the public can examine.

Affected owners can request complete copies of proposed survey permissions or easements, put verbal assurances in writing, document current crops, drainage, fences, access roads, wells and water quality, and seek independent legal and agricultural advice before signing. They can ask for the restoration standard, compensated seasons, later-damage claims process and restrictions on future farm or forestry activity.

Key questions include which forecast demonstrates need, why alternatives were rejected, what well-testing protocol will be used, and how compensation will address delayed restoration or lost production.

The August 18 hearing did not settle whether Enbridge’s system expansion should cross Chatham County farms. It did establish the terms of the next phase of scrutiny. The company says the line is needed for reliable service and growth. Farmers say the full cost cannot be measured by the width of an easement or the weeks a construction crew occupies a field.

For the board and the public, the essential takeaway is straightforward: Before a route hardens into permit applications and recorded easements, Enbridge’s claims about need, alternatives, restoration and compensation must be specific enough to test – and durable enough to protect the farms that will live with the pipeline long after construction ends.

Sources