[finnbow]

Pollutants spilling directly into a river and pollutants spilling on the ground and subsequently percolating down to the water table are two different issues. The former becomes an immediate problem, whereas the latter can be cleaned up before becoming a problem. If protecting this aquifer is the be-all-and-end-all, tanker trucks, railcars, and gas stations (due to underground storage tanks) should be prohibited anywhere near that aquifer.

Opposition/support of the Keystone XL pipeline has become an article of faith for ideologues on both sides. It isn't any more dangerous than any of the other hundreds of miles of pipelines (or tanker trucks, railcars and gas stations) above that aquifer, nor will job gains be what the GOP claims. The State Department studied the pipeline and concluded that it was safer than alternate means of transport and Canada will definitely use alternate (more hazardous) means if the Keystone isn't built.

From what Obama said last night, I suspect he may be willing to use it as a bargaining chip to get the GOP to agree to further infrastructure spending. If so, it would be a rare win-win situation. If not, he's just caving to the environmental wing of his party, many of whom are pretty clueless about environmental issues despite their fervor.