Last week the U.S. State Department hosted public meetings on TransCanada’s proposed Keystone XL project in the six states through which the pipeline would run: Kansas, Montana, Nebraska, Oklahoma, South Dakota and Texas. On the heels of the project’s final environmental impact statement (EIS), Executive Order 13337 calls on Secretary Clinton to conduct these meetings as one of the final steps toward granting TransCanada the necessary Presidential Permit to construct its 1,661 mile pipeline from Alberta, Canada to crude terminals near Nederland, Texas.

Only in America, would something like the ongoing spectacle would ever happen. A project whose merits are all good and whose problems are just made up is fought by a group of environmentalists, this in a time of dire economic straights and unemployment. Rarely has there been a more callous disregard of the public good in the name of nebulous environmental concerns.

Out of all the states directly involved, Nebraska may draw the most attention. Some in the Cornhusker State, including Gov. Heineman, are voicing opposition to Keystone XL by citing the Ogallala Aquifer as cause for concern.

In contrast to some of the allegations purported by anti-pipeline activists, pipelines already safely coexist with the aquifer; there are currently almost 21,000 miles of pipeline crossing Nebraska, including 3,000 miles of crude oil or liquid pipelines.

Better yet, despite protesters enlisting the help of iconic spokesman far removed from the project to smear it (e.g., Archbishop Desmond Tutu and even the Dalai Lama), real experts on the ground rightfully see the pipeline in a different light. For example, Jim Goeke, a hydrologist at the University of Nebraska makes a sound point:

I’d be comfortable if the pipeline was defeated on the basis of good, sound science and not emotion … A lot of people love and treasure the aquifer, and they’re concerned the entire aquifer is at risk. And that just isn’t factual.

Back in April, the State Department found “impacts from even very large spills would likely be limited to localized groundwater contamination that would not threaten the regional viability of the aquifer system.”

This is a case where the benefits far outweigh the costs. According to economic and financial analysts at the Perryman Group, the construction of Keystone XL will lead to: over $1.3 billion directly invested into the state; an increase of more than $390 million in the state’s gross product; and over $152 million in new property taxes for the state’s local governments. And those are just some of the many benefits.

As Nebraskans gather in Lincoln and Atkinson this week to voice their opinions of Keystone XL, I hope they recognize the importance of the pipeline to our economy, national security, and future energy supply. After all, Canada isn’t leaving its rich oil resources undeveloped.

Recall last year that ConocoPhillips sold its stake in oil sands producer Syncrude to China’s state-backed Sinopec for $4.65 billion? That’s just the beginning. And would we rather import oil from a close ally via the exponentially-safer method of pipeline delivery or continue to ship oil in from halfway around the world from unstable nations?

In sum, if those in attendance join with the likes of actor-turned-activist Robert Redford — who recently made the wild assertion that Keystone XL “will put farmers, ranchers and cropland at risk across the great plains of the American heartland” — I can assure you that the economy and energy needs of both Nebraska and our country at-large will be jeopardized on the “merits” of extreme and silly environmental activism.