If you missed it, yesterday Pulitzer-Prize winning reporter David Hasemyer at Inside Climate News posted a terrific piece on the plight of landowners whose homes sit in close proximity to the Line 6B pipeline. Among other things, Hasemyer notes that there are no regulations whatsoever at the state or federal level that address this matter. Neither the Michigan Public Service Commission nor PHMSA offers any help to landowners. Even worse, the PHMSA-created group that ought to be addressing just this question, the Pipeline Informed Planning Alliance (PIPA), only evades it. As a result, landowners like our friends David Gallagher, Marty Burke, and Judy Tanciar are left with very little recourse. Or, as Hasemyer puts it,
Without state or federal regulations to protect them, people who live along the 210-mile Michigan section of Enbridge’s new pipeline have been left to plead with a company many say is indifferent to their concerns.
One sign of this seeming indifference– and this is one of the things that struck us most powerfully about Hasemyer’s report– is the apparently arbitrary, capricious, or at best inconsistent, treatment of landowners by Enbridge (this is something we’ve discussed from the very beginning of this project, despite Enbridge’s claims to the contrary). Hasemyer asked Larry Springer, for example, how the company decided to reroute around some homes and not others. Conveniently, Springer did not respond to that question. Still, one might similarly ask why Enbridge decided to offer some landowners a “close proximity fee,” as they did David Gallagher, but not others (as far as we know).
Or to get us to today’s installment of our series on “Landowner Stories,” one might also ask why Enbridge agreed to buy out the homes of some landowners, but not others. In Hasemyer’s article, Gallagher says he asked to be bought out, but the suggestion appears to have been dismissed out of hand by Enbridge. But today’s contributor, Amy Moran-Nash of Howell was bought out. But apparently, it wasn’t easy to make that happen. Like the Gallaghers, Burkes, and Tanciars, the Nash home was in very close proximity to the new line. Her situation and Enbridge’s response to it compares quite interestingly, we think, to those others.
By Amy Moran-Nash
The new Line 6B, wrapping around the Nash home.
Our experience was long and exhausting, stressful and life altering. Enbridge however is now the proud owners of the home I grew up in – which we fought for since what we loved has been destroyed (and we pray to God we never face another easement or pipeline project again!) After a mere $3k offer we are happy we stood our ground and gave it our all to fight for what was right. Our land now has 3 high pressure pipelines: the Vector gas line (Enbridge owns a 60% stake of) placed in 2000, an original 6B line replaced in 2011, and the most current line placed in 2013. For our family it has been a difficult experience! In 2010 Enbridge trespassed assuming they had all rights of lands ‘within reason’ as they told us time and time again – they did NOT.
However had we not fought and been advised by our attorney Gary Field we would not have known the extent of their un-rightful taking. The taking was heart-wrenching and the lack of communication extremely frustrating! It felt in most cases we had to pull teeth to get any viable information, after multiple requests and multiple efforts to work with Enbridge. Communication was never fully available. That said, efforts were made by Enbridge when they realized we weren’t going away but it still did not come with any sort of ease.
Pipeline construction activity right outside the Nash’s front door.
The compensation Enbridge offered didn’t even cover replacement costs of damages for 2011; therefore. we would not accept them. For 2013 we were offered $3k for an expanded easement which is divided down the front sidewalk and 6ft from our home… we obviously knew better and dug our feet it. We were not going to stand for Enbridge to railroad us again. Therefore, we went into condemnation – which proved to be long and exhausting. Yet what choice did we have? NONE! We almost gave up several times feeling threatened and hopeless. Looking back we are thankful we fought for what was right – and are grateful in time we will move on… We learned many things, one is that the law really isn’t written in the protection of the people which for us was eye opening and we are thankful for the laws that do exist that held to bring forth some compensation.
Currently we are still living on the property as tenants rent-free as part of our negotiated terms until we find or build a new home. Because Enbridge purchased the home, they will not be restoring it fully. So things are still a mess and we are anxious to be in a new home.
Another twist to this story: It is believed that Enbridge did not bury the pipeline on this property, near the home, at the appropriate depths. I requested that PHMSA send an inspector since the landowner knew for a fact that Enbridge was in violation. This was the response from PHMSA to the Nash family:
“I have contacted Enbridge and have been assured that the pipe will meet federal requirements and that Enbridge had already agreed to provide you with a final depth of cover after final restoration is completed. At this time, it is premature for PHMSA to be involved in trying to determine if this pipe may or may not be deep enough to meet federal code. It is my understanding that there is an Enbridge employee assigned to directly assist you and your attorney with Enbridge issues.”
All this says is that PHMSA is taking Enbridge’s word for it…
They also told me Enbridge would contact me regarding my complaint and explain the situation. I never heard from Enbridge and now Enbridge owns the property. There’s A LOT wrong with this picture.. First, Enbridge continues to be the one reporting to PHMSA on what they are doing – where are the inspectors from PHMSA?! Second – What does this mean for the ongoing question around Enbridge meeting depth requirements? Enbridge will do one of two tings: turn around and sell this home once they have restored the property or they will hold onto the property because of the known issue over depth. IF they do sell, who’s paying attention to the disclosure?
The really sad thing here is that the Nash’s did the right thing and stood up for themselves. Sadly, many many homeowners along this ROW are lied to or don’t know their rights and i’m sure there are several other situations where this same scenario is playing out, but in the favor of Enbridge.