No sooner had we posted our political roll call describing our disappointing encounters with our elected officials than, checking our mailbox, we discovered the promised letter from our state representative, Brad Jacobsen. And we have to say, in fairness, that it is a much more satisfying response than we’ve received from any other legislator at the state or federal level to date (though we hasten to note that the bar is remarkably low).
Two things Rep. Jacobsen says have us prepared to offer him some (qualified) praise. First, Jacobsen informs us that his office is focused on “ensuring that the legal process behind the planning, coordination, and construction of the Enbridge pipeline is upheld.” He offers no details on any of this– are there particular laws about which he is especially concerned? is this an oblique reference to “local consent”? to other regulatory permits? Nor does he say how he is working to ensure compliance with the law. However, the mere acknowledgment that, as a state legislator, he has a role to play in all of this is far more than we’ve heard from anyone else we’ve contacted.
Secondly, Jacobsen also informs us that he has “approached my Committee on Energy and Technology chairman about the possibility of holding a hearing.” Now that is real action! Again, no one else we’ve contacted has shown the slightest interest in making any official inquiries or making any of this a public issue to be taken up by a legislative body in any way. So we commend Rep. Jacobsen for even broaching the idea. On the other hand, he also informs us that “it does not appear likely that this will occur during the rest of this year’s legislative session.” And there the paragraph ends. We’d have felt much better with just one more sentence along the lines of, “but I pledge to continue to push for such a hearing.” As it is, we don’t know whether he intends to do so. But we’ll ask.
While, in our view, these two steps are rather modest, they are steps and we are grateful to Rep. Jacobsen for taking them just as we are grateful to him for what appears to be genuine responsiveness to his constituents’ concerns.
Finally, Rep. Jacobsen says that he’s asked Enbridge to include his office on correspondence with landowners and “government units.” And evidently, Enbridge is doing so (at least to some degree). To demonstrate this, Rep. Jacobsen included in his letter to us a copy of a letter from Enbridge that we “may not have seen.” This letter turns out to be the same one that Enbridge sent to Brandon Township (and others) over a month ago– a letter we’ve not only seen, but written about and discussed (at township meetings in both Brandon and Groveland) on numerous occasions. Still, we appreciate Rep. Jacobsen’s efforts to circulate information and facilitate lines of communication. In the interests of ensuring that flow of information moves in both directions, we’ll be replying to Rep. Jacobsen, as he invites us to do. In our reply, we will thank him for his taking our concerns seriously and we’ll also provide him with a link to this post, among others, since there may well be information on this blog that he has not seen.