Back many, many years ago, when life was still fairly new to me, when I was “young” I had a real love for debating.  I would get passionately involved in an issue, unable to see the other side (as if there was one; I was

always right).

I was probably the worst person to debate with.  Ideological and naïve, I sought to dispute rather than resolve.  But now, years later, after gaining a cute, little token of wisdom, I have softened my ways.  I’m no longer as ideological as I once was.  I have come to appreciate the value of “the other side.”

And so it is today.  Still the lover of debate, I will provide you with what I take to be “the other side” of an issue I feel passionately about: the Keystone XL Pipeline.  I am personally opposed to the route that the proposed pipeline will take, but today, I will provide you with a pro-pipeline position (try saying that 10 times fast) so that you may be informed and come to your own decision about this hotly debated issue.

In case you did not know, the Keystone XL Pipeline is a 1,700-mile pipeline that will transport oil from Alberta, Canada to the Gulf of Mexico.  According to an article by Ronald Bailey of reason.com, the pipeline will bring 250,000 jobs to the U.S. and boost the economy by up to $20 billion.

Very few could argue that we don’t need jobs in this country right now.  So, from where is the debate stemming?  The answer lies in the route that the pipeline will take as it snakes across North America.

Its proposed route will cross Nebraska — in particular, the Sand Hills, which are home to the Ogallala Aquifer.  Some environmentalists have voiced (or to be more accurate, shouted) their concerns.  The proposed pipeline, if it were to leak, would put the water supply for the majority of Nebraskans in harm’s way and cause irrevocable damage to the state’s most valuable natural resource.

A few weeks ago, as I merrily made my way to campus, I was stopped at the intersection of 72nd and Dodge.  There, in all their First Amendment glory, were pipeline protestors, equipped with their picket signs and bullhorns.

These protestors were displaying signs that had water glasses half full of a mysterious black substance (one would assume oil, but it’s anyone’s guess).  I can understand their concern with the pipeline’s threat to the Ogallala Aquifer.  I know very few people who like their water on the oily side.  That’s just nasty.

But is the protestors’ concern truly valid?  Will an oil spill really ruin the entire Ogallala Aquifer?  It seems, on the surface, as though it might.  But, being the devout Sherlock Holmes fan that I am, I decided to put my cunning research skills to the test and investigate this claim a littler farther, sans the tobacco pipe and weird-looking hat.

In a recent article in the Lincoln Journal Star, University of Nebraska-Lincoln hydrologist Jim Goeke said, “Roughly 75 to 80 percent of the aquifer is upgradient to the west.  That unrelenting eastward water flow means that it would be a physical impossibility for any oil spill to reach the vast majority of the aquifer to the west.”  In other words, should a leak occur, the majority of the Ogallala Aquifer would be out of danger’s path.

In areas where a leak would be more devastating, TransCanada (the company that plans to build the pipeline) will “build a protective, sealed cement conduit that will surround the pipeline.”

A lot of the hype about destroying Nebraska’s water supply has been exaggerated.  Still, the fact remains that up to 25 percent of the Aquifer is in jeopardy.  This is not to be taken lightly and our community leaders need to become more cognizant of that fact.