There’s been a lot of speculation, rumor, and uncertainty about the currently proposed ET Rover route. In Rover’s latest filing with FERC they have published maps of their proposed route and alternatives. You can find this filing by searching the docket at FERC; it’s a long document, several in fact. But for most readers of this blog, the map of the alternative route is below. The “alternative route” is the one in blue. The new route is the one in yellow.
And here is what Rover says about the two routes:
Landowners in Oakland County, Michigan identified multiple concerns with the Oakland Alternative with respect to land disturbance associated with construction and operation of the pipeline. The main concern was the addition of another pipeline within developed residential areas that have grown up around existing utility corridors. Some commenters expressed concern about further disruption to their property following recent construction activities associated with the Line 6B pipeline replacement activities.
ET Rover identified several congested residential areas where it would be difficult to route the pipeline without some significant disruption to residents. Therefore, while the Oakland Alternative is shorter by 16.4 miles than the corresponding segment of the proposed route, the proposed route avoids construction through developed residential areas without transferring similar impacts to other areas, and will have reduced impacts on streams, wetlands, and public lands. Therefore, it was eliminated.
In keeping with Rover’s truly appalling communication style, this paragraph not terribly clear. Specifically, it’s not at all clear what “was eliminated.” (If this were written by one of our students, that last sentence would be circled in red with an “unclear pronoun reference” comment in the margin.) But based on the filings, it’s the Oakland Alternative that they’re eliminating.
So, it looks like Rover’s new proposed route avoids Oakland County, now running north from Livingston through Genesee and Lapeer counties. That’s certainly excellent news for Oakland County residents, but in our view the fight shouldn’t be over yet. Livingston, Genesee, and Lapeer residents now need to step up and take action. Otherwise, Roveer is STILL coming to Michigan.
Jeff, so the new route is in yellow?
Yes, sorry. I revised the post to clarify that.
Hi Jeff, we live in Hadley Township and many of us just got our “notice” to survey. First thank you for all the information. So in reading the article below, do they, or do they not have the right to survey my property without my permission?
Hi Aura- Well, keeping in mind that I am not a lawyer (although I have spoken to some about this), I do not believe they have the right to survey without your permission according to MI law. At best, they would need to get a court order to do so. In addition, they have said publicly that they don’t enter people’s property without permission. So in my view, both their stated practices and the law say that they do not have that right. If there is doubt on the law, that is for a judge somewhere to decide, not ET Rover (or a county sheriff).
Thank you. I Called a land rights lawyer in lapeer last night and he said just “wait and see”. This is very new to us but we’re trying to get everyone to educate themselves with the facts…. I saw you at the last meeting in Oxford and appreciated the way you laid out information. Unfortunately, we had to leave right before the end and didn’t get your contact information.
Aura
That’s actually a different Jeff– my friend Jeff Axt. But I’m glad you’re informing yourselves. Be sure you take some time to write to FERC!
I can see 2 routes on the map. Easy to picture that plan B (the dotted line) goes along 36 Mile Rd. The good news is that I don’t believe anything they say. No one should become complacent. Life will be easier for ET Rover if they can get us divided and apathetic. Still need to stay united because any day you really believe what a pipe line company says you are truly ready for assisted living with someone managing all of your assets. Please stay engaged and suspicious of any claims the pipeline company makes. We will only know their intent when the project is completed.
Does anyone have updates for counties in Ohio?
Check Rover’s latest filing with FERC, Karen. That will tell you. If I have some time later, I can look as well.
Thanks Jeff. I subscribe to receive updates but it’s not easy to actually find the information.
I know what you are saying Karen. Jeff does an awesome job finding all this info.
Found the info!
They have now changed the route and it is now on our property. Now what to do……
If anyone would be able to provide assistance on our next step I would most certainly appreciate. We do NOT want a pipeline on our property.
Hi Karen- Sorry to hear this. As a first step, you should deny them permission to survey your property. But beyond that, it’s going to be very important to get your neighbors and local officials involved. As Oakland County in Michigan just demonstrated, that can be very powerful (and successful). Also, you’ve got to write to FERC and get others to do the same. Ultimately, this is going to be FERC’s decision and citizens in all affected areas have to let them know not only that they do not want this pipeline, but that it is NOT a “public necessity.” That’s the most important point of all.
Are you in touch with other people in your area? Are there groups in Ohio working on this? I know of one.
Jeff, denying permission to survey appears not to be a significant deterrent to ET Rover. Property owners who have denied access to survey are now finding survey crews on their properties without permission. ET Rover’s survey crews are within the laws of the State of Michigan with MCL 213.54 (3) it seems. https://www.legislature.mi.gov/%28S%28iiaqpa3stdosr045x5kbn555%29%29/mileg.aspx?page=getObject&objectName=mcl-213-54
THE UNIFORM CONDEMNATION PROCEDURES ACT (EXCERPT)
Act 87 of 1980
(3) An agency or an agent or employee of an agency may enter upon property before filing an action for the purpose of making surveys, measurements, examinations, tests, soundings, and borings; taking photographs or samplings; appraising the property; conducting an environmental inspection; conducting archaeological studies pursuant to section 106 of title I of the national historic preservation act, Public Law 89-665, 16 U.S.C. 470f; or determining whether the property is suitable to take for public purposes. The entry may be made upon reasonable notice to the owner and at reasonable hours. An entry made pursuant to this subsection shall not be construed as a taking. The owner or his or her representative shall be given a reasonable opportunity to accompany the agency’s agent or employee during the entry upon the property. The agency shall make restitution for actual damage resulting from the entry, which may be recovered by special motion before the court or by separate action if an action for condemnation has not been filed. The term “actual damage” as used in this subsection does not include, and an agency shall not make restitution for, response activity, as defined in section 20101 of part 201 (environmental remediation) of the natural resources and environmental protection act, Act No. 451 of the Public Acts of 1994, being section 324.20101 of the Michigan Compiled Laws, or diminution in the value or utility of a parcel that is caused by the discovery of information as the result of a survey, an appraisal, a measurement, photography, or an environmental inspection made pursuant to this section.
Thanks for the comment. However, I don’t think you are correct on the law. The UCPA is not applicable mainly because ET Rover is not an “agency” as defined in the statute. If you look there, the law defines a “Private agency” as “a person, partnership, association, corporation, or entity, other than a public agency, authorized by law to condemn property.” ET Rover does NOT have that authority and won’t have until (and if) FERC approves their application.
More to the point, I’m sure refusing to grant them permission to survey isn’t a deterrent to ET Rover. These pipeline companies don’t care much what the public or landowners think. But they do care about roadblocks and impediments (which affect their bottom line). So in the end, denying them permission isn’t really about preventing the surveys. It’s a way for landowners to send a clear message to ET Rover (and hence to FERC) that they are opposed to this project, that they understand that it is not a public necessity. It’s not going to stop the project, but it’s a step in that direction and a way for landowners to feel a little less powerless.
Even the primary natural gas trade group recommends avoiding trespass without landowner authority: “Trespassing by pipeline or contractor personnel should be avoided; approval by the landowner or duly authorized state agency of court is required for access to the right-of-way.” See pay 13 of this link: http://www.ingaa.org/File.aspx?id=19618
I’m curious whether someone from ET Rover told you that they could conduct surveys without landowner permission under the Michigan UCPA?
Well Jeff it is not so much ET Rover survey crews have told us they could conduct surveys without owner permission, they have in fact done so this week.
Initially the request to survey was denied by several property owners. On the August 22th a certified letter were received by several property owners stating if the enclosed survey consent letter was not returned within 30 days. Legal action would be taken to acquire a court order to proceed with the survey.
On August 25th the survey crews unexpectedly (without any notice) entered the properties to survey. Along with the survey crew were 6 – 8 security guards (some armed) as well as 20-30 individuals to walk the potential easement right of way area looking for artifacts. When informed they were trespassing and to leave the property at once they refused and offered to call the County Sheriff. When the County Sheriff arrived he informed the property owners the survey crew were within the law and could not be stopped from entering the property.
It was the ET Rover Landsman who then brought forward MCL 213.54(3) as being the legal grounds for the survey crews to enter the properties, although the property owners were only given two days over the weekend to respond to the certified mailing. Also there was no consideration given to the property owner by ET Rover before entering the properties to survey with exercising their rights under MCL 213.45 (3).
Specifically with the following provision:
MCL 213.45(3): The entry may be made upon reasonable notice to the owner and at reasonable hours. An entry made pursuant to this subsection shall not be construed as a taking. The owner or his or her representative shall be given a reasonable opportunity to accompany the agency’s agent or employee during the entry upon the property.
These are the facts as best I can relate them. Therefore I conclude the easement right of ways can be surveyed without property owner permission.
Wow. That is fascinating– and disturbing. But you are basing your conclusion on ET Rover’s (mis)interpretation (or misuse) of the Michigan statute. As I said before, the section you are quoting does not apply to ET Rover because they are NOT an “agency” as defined by the statute (go see MCL 213.51: subsection h). So they can threaten legal action all day to intimidate landowners; that doesn’t mean their position would hold up in court.
In fact, this sort of thing has been a very serious problem for the industry in other states– and it hasn’t looked good for the operators. Here’s a good example: http://lancasteronline.com/news/local/pipeline-company-apologizes-fires-survey-crew-for-trespassing-incidents/article_df7fb298-1e56-11e4-8b07-001a4bcf6878.html
Bottom line: just because a tough-talking company and/or its land agents says something is true (or legal) does not make it so. Shame on that sheriff for believing them and not the citizens he is supposed to protect.
Hi Jeff, I received the following email from David Drullinger, an Environmental Quality Specialist of the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality. I do not know if this is helpful. In any case I am still looking into it.:
“Hello Deanna, the pipeline company should have an easement that shows up on your property deed in order to legally cross your property. We don’t have a way to confirm or deny what your deed says, so we can’t make a determination on your property rights verses those of ET Rover. If they do have an easement on your deed, they probably don’t have a responsibility to seek permission to enter onto the easement. There may be a responsibility for them to notify you ahead of time, but we can’t confirm that. Property rights issues are beyond our authority or expertise in the DEQ.
If you don’t have a copy of your deed, you could check with your County Register of Deeds. Their office may also be able to explain the rights of an easement holder.
It is unlikely that eminent domain would be invoked for this commercial purpose. Eminent domain is generally applied by public entities or governments, not private companies. Under rare circumstances, a private company could have power of eminent domain, but only for public or civic uses of the property, not a commercial pipeline.”
Hi Dee-
No, that is not helpful. With all due respect to David Drullinger, he doesn’t appear to know what he’s talking about. He’s sort of right (in a general way) about rights of access for existing easements. But we know ET doesn’t have an easement on your land or anybody else’s in this area. So you’re not going to find anything at the County Register of Deeds.
But he is completely wrong about private companies and eminent domain. Private companies are granted that right by states of federal agencies all the time– for commercial pipelines. That’s the whole point of the FERC process. And Enbridge was granted that power by the Michigan Public Service Commission. How someone at the DEQ could not know that is completely beyond me– and very troubling.
And really, all of that is beside the point. ET Rover, when it files its application with FERC, will be seeking the right of eminent domain. They do not have that right now; that fact is not in dispute. The question at hand is whether, prior to being given that right, ET Rover can legally enter your property to conduct a survey without your permission.
Hope that helps.
Jeff
Thanks Jeff for setting that straight. You are a wealth of knowledge and help especially for someone who is just starting to learn the ends and outs of this disaster!
I received the same certified letter. Today a “security guard” said some surveyors were going to survey the property to the west of me and that if I someone on my property not to be alarmed. Two minutes later two surveyors and the “security guard” came walking up my driveway. I immediately stopped them, told them they were trespassing and I didn’t give them permission to be on my property. The surveyors immediately left. The “security guard” said he was mistaken what the surveyors needed. I told him he lied to me to gain access to my property. The “security guard” said that the surveyors needed GPS coordinates of my home. I told him to leave. He called the rep for et rover. I gave him an ear full. The “security guard” come to find out is a retired police chief from Unadilla twp and on the Pinckney police force part-time.
Just read the link Jeff. So basically they trespassed, performed their survey and left. Then the pipeline company calls landowners to say we are sorry. As I see it, the pipeline company still won as they got what they wanted.
With ENERGY TRANSFER EQUITY, L.P. (NYSE:ETE) and Energy Transfer Partners recognized as national pipeline companies along with ET Rover Pipeline Company LLC’s documents submittal in compliance with 18 C.F.R. Section 157.21(f) under PF14-14 to the FERC. Possibly this gives ET Rover standing as an “agency” as defined in MCL 213.54?
Well, yes. I’m sure that’s what Rover would like everyone to believe. But the point is far from settled (legally). Rover’s legal opinion is not the law. So until a court rules on the question, landowner rights and preferences should prevail. Wouldn’t you prefer to err on the side of private property rather than a corporation? I sure would.
One thing I’m missing about the new proposed route, where is the MichCon delivery point?
ET Rover says the route has changed but last week survey crews were working within the road easement on Dequindre. Last year, Enbridge told me they were going to move their pipeline further from the house so I relaxed and did not write to anyone. Then they came and said suddenly that the 2 alternate routes wouldn’t work and it was back to their original route. So I feel we should write to FERC as if it was along the 36 mile corridor until FERC says it isn’t.
Better yet, Linda, we should write to FERC and tell them that this pipeline project is NOT a “public necessity,” and therefore should not be approved at all!
Linda, are you sure they were from ET Rover? Is it possible they were Enbridge?
Jeff, I know that the FERC website is posted on here with instructions. I think it would be easier to have a link on the home page for everyone.
Jeff, where can I find the detailed map through Washtenaw County for the pipeline. Also November is an election year. This pipeline is just one issue with an industry that seems to be running the state. Oil and gas drilling is a real problem for people in many areas of the state. The new law that was put into place basically stripped townships and people of any rights. This group of legislators also passed laws that allowed great eminent domain for the industry. The CO2 that will be used to frack oil wells of course will be transported via pipelines. Because of laws passed this spring, it is now easier for the industry to run these lines through your property whether you like it or not. I suggest people really research who they are voting for and where their candidates stand on the issues.
Hi Ruth- There should be detailed maps available at your county library or some other nearby library. Have you checked? And I’m totally with you on the elections this year!
Until they started surveying our property a couple of weeks ago – yes, we had okayed it – really didn’t know what it was all about – for the ET Rover Pipeline. We are in southern Genesee county the new proposed route sounds like it would be going thru our one lot. We were never informed of the open house in July – but we have an “informal” open house this Tuesday night. I have tried to read up on this thing. But am really confused – what do we need to do. I sure don’t want a pipeline of any kind going thru my property. But can I fight it or should I. Please give me some insight. Are there questions we should ask?
Hi Yvonne,
I know you’re in Genesse County but if you come to ET Rover open house in Metamora (Metamora Lions Club 3790 Oak Street) this Wed Sept 17th @ 5:30 pm, there will be others with informational packets on how to write in to FERC and protest. You can attend no matter what county your in.
Aura
Thank you for making this blog available. Since we do not have a good (any!)local newspaper any more we have poor communication options these days. Sort of funny since we are supposed to be in this era of advanced technology and communication. Providing this forum is a REAL service to folks.
Thanks. That’s why we (I) do it, Mark. I am in this to help my neighbors and fellow landowners stay informed and protect themselves. And I work very hard to provide detailed and accurate information (though I do not hide my point of view), based on experience and careful research.
If an apology is in order then consider it given. In the past I have found other blogs that allow people to throw out innuendoes and false assertions about people trying their best to do their jobs despicable….especially when they can do it anonymously. Perhaps that made me a bit over reactive.
Keep up the great work Jeff….the people need to be informed!!!!!!
No problem, Mark. And thanks. And in my case, I confess that I’m a little bit sensitive about unresponsive public officials, having banged my head against the wall for two years when Enbridge was steamrolling everyone. But I’ve also been quick to praise all the excellent action and leadership that’s been shown by lots of officials with regard to ET Rover, especially at the township level.
Question for anyone involved with Enbridge and other pipelines. Was there this much opposition to those pipelines? Do others know if this is going to really make a difference. People I have talked to have said that submitting comments to FERC is not really going to change anything. Thoughts?
Great question, Karen. To your first one: no, there was nowhere near this level of opposition with Enbridge– for lots of reasons (all of which our documented here in our archives). For one thing, there was virtually NO opposition at the township level– with one important exception. As to your second question, you know we always give it to you straight here: this is an uphill battle. FERC is definitely industry-friendly and, in my view, not very responsive to ordinary citizens. So it’s possible that citizen comments won’t change anything. I’ve been trying hard to find an instance where FERC denied an application and haven’t found one. However, here is the important part: if citizens do NOT comment, then it is ABSOLUTLY GUARANTEED the Rover will get its way. So while the odds may be long, I’d still take “remote possibility we can make a difference” over “total certainty Rover will get its way” any day.