We don’t know about you, but we’ve been finding the voices of our fellow landowners moving and powerful. They reveal how and why Enbridge has generated so much ill-will with its “neighbors” in Southeast Michigan. Whether this is simply a result of “mistakes” or any number of other possible reasons the clear fact is that they have failed miserably in far too many instances (we believe) to cultivate the sorts of landowner relationships they profess to value, failed in so many cases to “make us whole.”

Today’s contribution comes from landowner Bill Aldrich of Davisburg. You may recall that Bill has appeared on this blog before. We turned to Bill when Enbridge first trotted out their mascot “Dr. Michael Milan” (we wonder if he’s still happy?), parading him around, rather offensively in our view, as someone whose credentials as a fancy doctor, a longtime resident of the state, and (judging from his rugged camo outfit), an outdoorsy hunter-type were evidently supposed to impress us all mightily and give his rosy view of Enbridge some kind of special authority. Bill is a pretty authentic Michigander himself, a lifelong resident and an auto-industry career man. So he presented his own view as a helpful counterpoint to the one served up by the Enbridge PR department.

Anyway, Bill’s experience is once again valuable. His list of “images” touch on so many of the themes we’ve discussed here before and that we’ve heard from others: the miscommunication, the broken promises, the “mistakes,” the untrustworthy land agents, the poor communication with landowners, the poor communication between Enbridge’s land agents and corporate, and all the time and energy so many of us have expended on this process and for which we have not been compensated.

By William Aldrich

When I reflect on the entire dealings with Enbridge, it is never a coherent event. Instead, it consists of many individual, fragmented images jumbled together — similar to a bad dream. The only common theme is frustration, anger and a deep resentment of Enbridge and their representatives.

•  large diesel generator droning in back yard for about 4 months continuously (running water pumps)
•  loss of over 200 trees, many well over 100 years old and had survived the initial pipe installation in 1969
•  large portion of area clear cut by Enbridge was used to pile up the trees and roots of the clear cut trees (they clear cut trees so that they could pile up clear cut trees and roots)
•  land owner agreement with Enbridge asked that they leave tree stumps in ground (so that they would resprout). The majority of stumps were bulldozed out of the ground and piled up to rot.
•  Enbridge removed trees on the very edge of the area they claimed after their representative clearly marked them with “Do Not Cut” ribbons
•  Enbridge’s unwillingness to modify boundaries of the work spaces to save specific trees; even when offered with a solution that provided them a larger work space
•  Enbridge clearly violated their own overhead maps that defined the work space boundaries. Their surveying team marked an area larger than that defined by the overhead map which was the only definition offered to me. I pointed this out twice; both times they responded “the area is marked correctly.” Only after I documented the violations and provided the documentation to my legal counsel did they “discover their mistake” and mark the boundaries correctly. It was immediately after this event that the trees marked “Do Not Cut” were removed. I can only believe this was done as an outright malicious action as these trees in no way impeded the pipeline installation process. I carefully monitored the entire installation and at no time would these trees have impeded the process
•  the incredible disconnect between the Enbridge homeowner representative and Enbridge corporate actions. Prior to the condemnation, several clauses in the legal agreement were ironed out between him and I; when the condemnation papers were served none of that language was included. Enbridge homeowner representative marks trees as “Do Not Cut”; the trees are cut. On multiple times, I was presented with papers and maps for a different property than my own. Incredibly unprofessional.
• Enbridge’s unwillingness to restore the property to its original condition by replanting  the same varieties plants removed.
• the investment of my time in researching and understanding Michigan condemnation laws
• the fear that anything I now do on the work space to restore it can be undone at their will