If you read this blog diligently (we know there are precious few of you who do!), you may have noticed recently a fascinating and very troubling conversation in the comments section of our story about the re-route of Rover. There, one of our readers tells of some outrageous strong arm tactics coming from Rover in order to do surveys on landowner properties.
What do me mean by strong arm tactics? Well, threats of legal actions, armed guards (we’re not joking!), and some rather unfortunate support from a county sheriff. Here’s the story:
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 213.54 (3).
Specifically with the following provision:
MCL 213.54(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.
We’ve done some follow up with the poster and we have no reason whatsoever to doubt this story’s veracity. 
A local newspaper even took a photograph of the caravan along with a brief article, unfortunately incomplete in detail, on the matter. Information on all of this is still forthcoming, but we’d like to make a few brief observations in the meantime
First, we think Rover is just plain wrong on the law. They do not meet the definition of a “private agency” as set forth in the statute they cite (MCL 213.51(h): “a person, partnership, association, corporation, or entity, other than a public agency, authorized by law to condemn property.” ET Rover does NOT have the authority to condemn property and will not have it until (that is, if) FERC approves their application. If we’re right, then ET Rover is both mischaracterizing and breaking the law.
Secondly, we have no idea what that county sheriff was thinking or why he was doing ET Rover’s bidding. It appears he simply believed Rover’s (mistaken) account of the law. And since we are pretty sure that sheriffs are neither lawyers nor judges, and since we are equally sure that that sheriff is paid to protect the citizens of his county and not out of state corporations, the sheriff’s actions appear to be shameful. We’ve seen these sorts of cozy relationships between pipeline companies and local law enforcement before. It is a troubling and appalling practice.
Finally, even if ET Rover were right about the law (which we believe they are not), this incident plainly violates both their own rhetoric and their industry standards. Showing up to someone’s property with armed guards is not acting as “a good neighbor.” Nor is it any sort of way, as the industry’s “Commitment to Landowners” states, to build “positive, lasting relationships” based “on mutual respect and trust.”
We’ll continue to report more on this as we learn further details. Based on continually emerging stories about ET Rover’s treatment of landowners, it’s become all but impossible for us to maintain the dime hope we had at the beginning of this process: that ET Rover would not be just like Enbridge.
Can a private “armed” security guard enter someone elses private property ? They may have right to be on the easement but not carrying a weapon?
I live in Lima Township and we were told by one gentleman at our meeting that 40 cars and 3 armed men from ET Rover showed up to force their way onto a piece of property. We have been told to call 911 and report this kind of behavior immediately because it’s totally illegal.
This is simply discussing. As a landowner, I probably would not have had any issues with them surveying my property. However I would be completely insulted if they showed up early and, showed up with arm guards. That’s just simply pathetic on the company’s part. Very disappointing!
When we were having trouble with Enbridge one of the members of our sheriff’s office told me that the Cass County prosecutor would not prosecute Enbridge for anything. When I asked why not, the response was because Enbridge had paid a lot of money to do this. When I asked, twice, who had been paid, there was silence. I hate to say it, but these companies may very well be paying off local law enforcement. And, this isn’t the first time local officers have shown up on the behalf of pipeline companies. I couldn’t walk across my own lawn, far from the pipeline activity on my neighbor’s property at the time, without being followed/tracked by a sheriff’s officer.
I’ll add your example to some talks I’ll be giving this fall.
PM, this is so distressing to hear, right here in Minnesota. We are only seeing the beginning, I’m afraid, if the MN PUC lets the Sandpiper “preferred” route stand. It’s truly frightening.
It would seem that a cease & desist order is needed immediately. Seems that ET Rover has been to the Cliven Bundy school of take whatever you want even if it belongs to someone else.
See the following sections of the legislation: I read it to say the agency must get a court order if permission is denied…
(4) If reasonable efforts to enter under subsection (3) have been obstructed or denied, the agency may commence a civil action in the circuit court in the county in which the property or any part of the property is located for an order permitting entry. The complaint shall state the facts making the entry necessary, the date on which entry is sought, and the duration and the method proposed for protecting the defendant against damage. The court may grant a limited license for entry upon such terms as justice and equity require, including the following:
(a) A description of the purpose of the entry.
(b) The scope of activities that are permitted.
(c) The terms and conditions of the entry with respect to the time, place, and manner of the entry.
(5) An entry made under subsection (3) or (4) shall be made in a manner that minimizes any damage to the property and any hardship, burden, or damage to a person in lawful possession of the property.
That’s my reading, too, CB (I decided not to take the post too deep into the legal weeds). What’s more, that section only applies to an “agency,” which ET Rover is NOT.
Welcome to the police state where you have no rights…..
their approach is very disturbing to say the least.
Oh boy! They’ll love the LCSD then. And vice versa. Old Kalaquin is probably already planning an early retirement. This is just wrong on all levels. Their little gopher came by and tried to get my bosses consent to do the survey. He not so politely told them where they could go and for no reason whatsoever were they allowed on his property. So how long before he should expect the certified letter and are there any steps that could be taken now to prevent them from being able to come in anyway? A Cease and decist order or even a restraining order against enbridge and it’s offiliates? I would be getting a state trooper to come out. Not some local yokel good old boy.
Tim are you from Lenawee County? If so we should probably compare notes.
Tim, you probably have a better idea of where the proposed line is going in in Lenawee county, can you tell me where that line is. And it appears to be a hush hush subject in this county as The Daily Telegram has not returned our calls and there have been no reporting on this.
Has anyone actually determined what our rights vs their rights (ET ROVER) are as far as entering our property for surveying without eminent domain? I’m not sure if this is already a dead horse issue in our case since they already entered our property in Hadley Twp, but their seems to be a whole lot of wheels spinning on this issue and it would be nice to get clarification from the actual legislation rather than interpretation.
The problem, Dee, is that the legislation is NOT clear, so it can’t provide any clarification. That leaves only interpretation. The important thing is that a JUDGE does the interpreting. It’s certainly not up to sheriffs or ET Rover land agents (or me) to decide the question. But until such time as this question is placed before a judge, in a court proceeding, all we have are different ways of reading a convoluted statute. Eventually, someone is going to have to get a lawyer and press the issue so that it gets a hearing in court. I hope that happens because I believe (obviously) the interpretation I have offered is the correct one.
Thank you for your quick response Jeff and the amazing effort you have put toward this blog! I sent a brief email to Rep Daley asking for a concise clarification of that as well. Not sure if that what response I will get. I certainly appreciate your interpretation as it makes the most sense. Do you know of any good lawyers equipped to handle this question?
My pleasure. And thanks for the kind words. I’d be shocked if any legislator was willing to weight in on the question, but it will be interesting to know what response you get. As for a lawyer, yes, I absolutely do know one who is not only equipped to handle it, but (I think) keen to do so. If you are interested, feel free to email me back channel.
How do I do that?
Where in Michigan did this armed guard incident take place? I am in Lapeer county and ET Rover is currently trying to get permission to survey our property.
This was down near Adrian, Jennifer.
Is this a done deal? Why werent the citizens of Lapeer county asked? I honestly was unaware that this was done. Then I saw signs but no where have been able to find out if there are petitions to sign. I wasnt even aware there was a meeting?
Hi Debra-
No, this is far from a done deal. This is the beginning of the process. The reason the citizens of Lapeer were not asked is that ET Rover only needs federal approval– from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). But they haven’t even filed their application with FERC yet, so this project, if approved, is nearly two years away. However, if citizens do not want this project, NOW is the time to let FERC know! There’s lots more information about all of this here on the blog.
Hi Debra, there is only a small handful of us residents in Lapeer county getting out to try to get information out and signatures to petition against the pipeline. We could always use more help collecting signatures and making residents aware if you are interested in helping. Meanwhile you can still write to FERC and you can find petitions at Hadley Twp Hall. As Jeff mentioned there is a lot of information on this blog about this. 🙂
Dee-
Where do Lapeer county residents turn for info, mtg times, and petition info? I know several family members and friends who have not heard much about planned events
Hi Sue,
Right now I suggest watching the Hadley Twp page. I don’t know about other twps but Hadley Twp website has info about the meeting coming up Oct 10th. I imagine Lapeer Twp does too. Shirley Kautman-Jones, Atlas Twp Supervisor, is planning a large meeting either Oct 30th or November 6th that I believe will include residents from both Genesee and Lapeer Co.. You can subscribe to email updates from individual Twp websites and of course, keep your eye on this blog. It really comes down to residents requesting their Twp board members to step up to the plate to get actively involved with other twps, if they already haven’t, and to inform their citizens. I know that Hadley Twp office has petitions at their location on Pratt Rd. And I think it’s been said, but important to repeat, that the county and townships are well aware that citizens do not want this pipeline, but what we need is information and resources to help us fight this and our twps are in a good position to help provide that.