The construction of a hydropower plant in southeastern Oklahoma, proposed by Southeast Oklahoma Power Corporation (SEOPC), is facing substantial opposition from various factions, including local residents, tribal leaders, state officials, lawmakers, and members of Oklahoma’s congressional delegation. The $3.1 billion project involves drawing water from the Kiamichi River and constructing extensive infrastructure, including three reservoirs. Despite SEOPC’s claims of providing renewable energy and conserving water resources, the project has sparked significant concerns.
Project Overview
Infrastructure and Location
The hydropower project involves creating an upper lake by impounding Long Creek, a lower lake formed by an earthen dam, and a 40-acre reservoir. To facilitate electricity generation, a 100-mile-long power line will be laid through Pushmataha and McCurtain counties in Oklahoma, extending into Lamar and Red River counties in Texas. The power plant is planned to be located on private land about five miles south of Talihina, Oklahoma, with the generated power primarily intended for Texas. This selection of land for such a high-impact development has raised many questions, especially among residents who feel the project will have profound environmental and social consequences.
SEOPC’s Justification
SEOPC’s federal filing, a comprehensive 367-page document, emphasizes the necessity of the project, highlighting its capacity to provide a steady and economical source of renewable energy. The company claims the plant will offer carbon-free peaking capacity, dispatchable loads to balance renewable energy sources, and auxiliary services beneficial for grid operators. Despite efforts to reach company representatives for comments, they remained unavailable. However, the detailed filing attempts to present the hydropower project as a beneficial endeavor that aligns with future energy needs and environmental conservation efforts. Nonetheless, the skepticism from the local community and leaders continues to brew amidst the project’s advancement.
Opposition from State Officials
Attorney General’s Stance
Oklahoma Attorney General Gentner Drummond has been a vocal opponent, urging the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) to deny the application. Drummond’s letter to FERC highlights that SEOPC has provided scant information and failed to obtain requisite state licenses or permits. He pledges to uphold Oklahoma law, protect tribal rights, and defend property rights in the Kiamichi region. Drummond argues that the project contradicts a federal settlement involving water usage between the state and the Choctaw and Chickasaw nations. The Attorney General’s fierce opposition underscores a broader concern about regulatory shortcuts that might undermine significant legal frameworks protecting residents and tribal interests.
Legislative Concerns
State Representatives J.J. Humphrey and Eddy Dempsey have also voiced their apprehensions, particularly regarding the use of eminent domain. They have held interim hearings to scrutinize the project, emphasizing the irreplaceable value of the Kiamichi region’s natural landscape. Both representatives express discontent over the project benefiting Texas instead of Oklahomans, especially under current drought conditions. Representative Humphrey and Dempsey emphasize that local resources should primarily serve Oklahomans and that the environmental disruption holds far-reaching consequences. Their combined legislative scrutiny has garnered substantial support from constituents, reflecting a deeply rooted desire to preserve regional integrity and safeguard natural assets for future generations.
Tribal Opposition
Choctaw Nation’s Response
The Choctaw Nation’s tribal council has passed a resolution and written a letter to FERC, detailing the detrimental impacts of the project. Chief Gary Batton emphasizes defending tribal sovereignty and environmental stewardship, pointing out that the project affects endangered species, important historical sites, and infringes upon a federally enforceable Water Settlement Agreement. The Choctaw Nation underscores the significance of tribal involvement in the approval process. Chief Batton’s assertions resonate across tribal communities, stressing that the hydropower project poses a threat not just to the environment but to the cultural and historical heritage of the Native American communities in southeastern Oklahoma. The call to include tribal voices in pivotal decision-making processes remains a principal focus in combatting the proposed development.
Chickasaw Nation’s Concerns
The Chickasaw Nation shares similar concerns, reiterating the critical importance of preventing violations of historical agreements protecting tribal rights. They emphasize the need to safeguard the Kiamichi River’s flow and regional ecosystems, aligning with the Choctaw Nation in opposing the project. Their vocal resistance includes pointing out that the hydropower plant could undermine vital waterways, infringing on agreements made to preserve these resources for ecological balance and community benefit. The Chickasaw Nation’s persistent advocacy for environmental and tribal protections highlights their commitment to preserving the natural and cultural wealth of their lands, which they argue must not be compromised for external commercial gain.
Congressional Involvement
U.S. Rep. Josh Brecheen’s Letter
U.S. Rep. Josh Brecheen, representing Oklahoma’s 2nd Congressional District, has sent a letter to FERC echoing the objections raised by state and tribal leaders. Brecheen’s letter underscores three main points: the use of eminent domain for procuring 35,000 acres of private land, potential violation of a federal court water agreement, and SEOPC’s connection to an individual with ties to the Chinese Communist Party. These concerns paralleled those of tribal leaders and state officials, casting doubt on the project’s legitimacy and underlying connections. The reference to national security implications through SEOPC’s affiliations introduces a layer of geopolitical tension, further intensifying opposition.
Environmental and Legal Concerns
Endangered Species and Historical Sites
Opponents of the project raise significant concerns about its incompatibility with federal laws, such as the Endangered Species Act, the National Historic Preservation Act, and the Clean Water Act. The project’s potential impact on endangered species and important historical sites is a major point of contention. Environmental advocates argue that the ecological footprint of the hydropower project could be devastating, threatening the survival of species that rely on undisrupted habitats along the Kiamichi River. Historical preservationists also highlight the risk to culturally significant sites that embody the region’s rich heritage.
Eminent Domain and Property Rights
The use of eminent domain to acquire private property for the plant has stirred significant unrest among over 500 landowners. Opponents argue that the project places sacred lands and longstanding property rights at peril, emphasizing the need to protect local and tribal property rights. This controversial application of eminent domain has catalyzed fears about large-scale land appropriation, where community members and tribal leaders join forces to resist what they view as an encroachment on personal and communal holdings. The collective resistance underscores a broader narrative about rightful land use and the preservation of cherished residential and tribal properties, advocating for minimal disruption and respect for established rights.
Conclusion
The Southeast Oklahoma Power Corporation (SEOPC) proposed the construction of a hydropower plant in southeastern Oklahoma, a $3.1 billion endeavor that has faced significant opposition. This ambitious project aims to utilize water from the Kiamichi River and requires the building of extensive infrastructure, including three reservoirs. Despite SEOPC touting the benefits of renewable energy and water conservation, the proposal has been met with resistance from various quarters. Local residents, tribal leaders, state officials, lawmakers, and members of Oklahoma’s congressional delegation have all voiced their concerns. Critics worry about the environmental impact, potential water shortages, and disruption to the local communities and ecosystems. The opposition argues that the risks and costs associated with the hydropower plant outweigh the proposed benefits. This controversy highlights the broader debate surrounding renewable energy projects and the balance between economic development and environmental preservation.