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. (more…)
In a post a couple of weeks ago, we tried to state our objections to the Line 6B project in one succinct sentence, which is this:
Enbridge has run roughshod over the citizens of the state of Michigan and our state elected officials have stood by idly and allowed it to happen.
We’ve had a lot to say about the first part of that sentence: Enbridge running roughshod. Here, we’d like to say a few words about the second part: our state elected officials allowing it to happen. (more…)
On Wednesday, we linked to an article in the Tri-City Times in which Enbridge spokesman Jason Manshum explains the activity in Capac as preparation for integrity digs on Line 5– not, as we wondered after an earlier article in the same paper, preparation for work on phase two of the Line 6B project, for which Enbridge does not yet have MPSC approval. It would surely be presumptuous of Enbridge to be staging construction of a project that has not been approved.
However, there may be reason to be somewhat skeptical about what Manshum has told reporter Maria Brown. Some of our friends, who know far more about pipeline engineering and construction than we do, have pointed out to us that it’s very unlikely the amount of pipe currently sitting in the Capac staging area (see the photo that accompanies the story) is for integrity digs. Those digs rarely require more than a few feet of pipe and typically involve clamping and welding steel sleeves around weak sections of pipe.
There is also reason to wonder about Manshum’s statement that “the company is not required to seek permits for this kind of work.” Construction or maintenance work that could affect wetlands and water resources does require permits from the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality and perhaps other agencies. We don’t know whether this would apply to the area around Line 5– but still we wonder. Manshum does say that “Enbridge did submit a plan to the state for one particular dig”: perhaps locating this plan would be a way to verify Manshum’s statements. We’re looking into it.
In the absence of any clear evidence on the matter, we have little choice but to take Manshum at his word. But we do so with caution. In the meantime, it might be worth paying careful attention to what happens to that big stack of pipe in Capac. We trust that reporter Maria Brown will be paying attention.
If you’ll recall, a couple of weeks ago, Enbridge filed a Notice of Removal to have a POLAR lawsuit heard in federal court. The case is now before U.S. District Judge Robert H. Cleland. The suit filed by POLAR sought both a preliminary injunction and a temporary restraining order asking the court to halt construction work by Enbridge.
Late last week, Judge Cleland issued two orders in the case. First, he “terminated without prejudice as moot” POLAR’s motion for a temporary restraining order. What that means is that he did not rule one way or the other on the merits of the motion; rather, he ruled that the motion is a non-issue because the other motion– for a preliminary injunction– “supersedes” it. In other words, there’s no need for the court to consider both a preliminary injunction and a temporary restraining order. The court will consider just the former.
Why is this good news? Well, because it means that the the motion for a preliminary injunction WILL go forward; POLAR will have its hearing. So Judge Cleland’s second order set a date for that hearing– October 22– and gave a number of very pointed instructions for both sides on how to gather and present facts and evidence in advance of the hearing. (And I’ll tell you, having read lots of orders, filings, and hearing transcripts from county and state courts, it’s clear that these federal judges do NOT mess around; Cleland runs a very tight ship).
So mark your calendars: October 22nd will be a very important date for landowners along Line 6B.
After a few days taking care of other business, we’ve been playing a little catch-up on the blog today. But we haven’t caught up enough; there’s more we’re trying to get to. Such as:
the latest news on the federal suit filed by POLAR–and some of it is good!
a little construction update: the dozers are coming our way!
and our state Rep. Brad Jacobsen has promised us a letter; we can hardly wait!
Now two quick appeals:
Our friends at POLAR are hoping to have members from every county and township along the route. Please consider joining. There is no obligation; you don’t have to donate to join. But if you are concerned about the way Enbridge conducts business and you support efforts to ensure that they respect state and local laws and citizen concerns, then you should consider becoming a member. You can join here: http://polarldf.com
This one’s a little shameless and we’ve been avoiding asking. But: this humble blog is nearing 10,000 total views– not bad in just a few months, but certainly nothing compared, say, to your average Justin Bieber tweet. And anyway, we’re not in it for the glory; mainly we just want to keep our fellow landowners informed. However, the more light that gets shed on Enbridge, the more public pressure we can exert, the better for everyone involved or interested (and that should include every Michigander). Perhaps we can even rouse some elected officials out of their deep slumber. So we’re asking: if you’re a regular reader of the blog or just an occasional one, please help us build our audience. Become a subscriber (at the top right of your window). Share our posts with your friends and acquaintances and neighbors by email or on Facebook (especially Facebook!). “Like” them, “Tweet” them, Google + them or otherwise help disseminate them in whatever way you can think of. Thank you in advance!
In a post this morning we linked to another fine report by David Hasemyer at Inside Climate News. The crack team of journalists over there has been doing terrific– and invaluable– work on Enbridge and related matters for months. At the end of our post, we repeated something we’ve said often here and that we’ve heard plenty of others say as well: it didn’t have to be this way. Had Enbridge treated landowners fairly and respectfully, truthfully and consistently, with honesty and dignity they would not be facing the sort of opposition they’re facing now, a level of citizen resistance that Carl Weimer, Executive Director of the Pipeline Safety Trust, calls “extraordinary.” Speaking personally, had Enbridge dealt honestly, fairly, and respectfully with us, there would be no Line 6B Citizens’ Blog nor any of the activity that has gone along with it. If, in fact, we’ve become “activists,” we are activists of Enbridge’s own making.
All of which raises a question that continually gnaws at us: why? Why does Enbridge repeatedly act in ways that alienate stakeholders? Why behave so antagonistically? So disingenuously? So litigiously? Why try to cut corners and try to get away with things? After all, everybody knows that Enbridge is ultimately going to get their replacement pipeline; that’s never been in question. But why not just do it right and save everybody the grief, the aggravation, and (in Ken Weathers’ phrase) “the personal anxiety they have been causing people”? (more…)
A staffer from Michigan state Senator David Robertson’s office once tried to dismiss my concerns about Enbridge by insisting that the Kalamazoo River was cleaner now than it was before the spill. We’ve heard the same thing from others. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, however, thinks that Enbridge still has cleanup work to do: this just in.
This morning, more outstanding reporting by David Hasemyer at Inside Climate News. More than anything else we’ve read, this one accurately gets to the heart of citizen resistance to Line 6B. Here, for example, is Kim Savage, who has always gotten it. She
said people understand the need for a new pipeline but object to the unsympathetic way Enbridge has gone about dealing with them and the evasive answers the company has given to questions.
“Enbridge simply needs to be more honest and forthcoming.”
And here is landowner Ken Weathers:
“I sure hope now Enbridge has a better understanding of the personal anxiety they have been causing people,” Weathers said. “It’s the principle of the thing.”
And Debbie Hense
wishes Enbridge would be more respectful of not only the trees she loves but of every landowner who faces the uninvited demolition and construction.
As we’ve said before and as we’ve tried to explain to Enbridge, it didn’t have to be this way. Had Enbridge treated landowners fairly and with respect from the beginning– as they claim to do– they wouldn’t be facing what Carl Weimer calls this “extraordinary” resistance. We wonder whether they’re listening now.
Here at the Line 6B Citizens’ Blog, we pride ourselves on being calm, rational, and reasonable– even though this is a very emotional issue. We’re talking about disruptions to people’s homes and lives here, after all. But every once in a while, something gets us hopping mad. This morning, that something is Christopher Behnan’s latest story in the Livingston County Daily Press & Argus.
What’s got us worked up and fuming? Well, it’s not just that we empathize with the Nash family (although we certainly do; the clock is ticking on many of our beloved trees as well). And it’s not Behnam’s reporting, which we’ve quibbled with a bit in the past (in fact, despite those quibbles, we’re quite grateful that he has stayed on the story– unlike, say, the hapless Oakland Press). No. We’re all on fire about the remarks of Enbridge spokesman Jason Manshum.
Those keeping up with news and events here and elsewhere know that Enbridge has been spending a lot of time lately suing Michigan landowners in court. We’ve been reporting on these condemnation hearings as best we can, especially on a few cases in Oakland County. But the past few days, all the action has been over in Livingston County. And unfortunately, Livingston makes it much more difficult to get a hold of court records than does Oakland. What’s more, the judge in the recent hearings, Judge Hatty, appears to prefer ruling from the bench, rather than in writing.
We can, however, say this much: the news out of Livingston is mixed. In the cases that have come before him, Judge Hatty has ruled that Enbridge’s easement language (the part we’ve discussed before, which says that they can send any old thing they want through their pipe, exceeds what the MPSC approval allows. That’s good news. However, unlike the TWO judges in Oakland County, Judge Hatty did not, therefore, dismiss Enbridge’s suits altogether. Instead, Hatty’s position seems to be “no harm, no foul”; let the suits commence. Also, in at least one case, Hatty ruled in favor of Enbridge on the question of “necessity”– which means, essentially, that Enbridge gets to “take” (ie, use) the land it wants. On the other hand, compensation still needs to be determined and we remain hopeful that the courts will help ensure that whatever agreement is reached is fair to the landowners, both in terms of monetary compensation and the language of the agreements, which should grant as many protections and assurances as possible to the property owners.
We thought we were done with our series on Enbridge spokesman Larry Springer’s outrageous statement a couple of weeks back. You remember: Springer insisted that Enbridge’s actions show that they deal openly and honestly with stakeholders, despite what those pesky “special interest groups” and their compatriots in the media who just want to stir up controversy would have you believe.
We took exception with that statement (again and again). We think we made our point quite clearly (and factually). We were prepared to give it a rest for a while.
But then examples of not-so-open and not-so-honest dealings by Enbridge just keep coming. Here’s a recent one: (more…)
We just came across a very interesting little story in the small Tri-City Times newspaper, covering the eastern part of the state (the area around Imlay City, Almont, Capac and Dryden). Some sort of Enbridge pipeline construction activity or preparation appears to be taking place in Capac. That’s very near portions of the Line 6B pipeline that Enbridge plans to replace in phase two of their project– the phase for which they do not yet have MPSC approval. Therefore, it’s not clear what’s going on over there– and evidently Enbridge isn’t saying. We’re curious.
A while back we linked to the disturbing story explaining how dilbit is exempt from the federal tax that helps fund the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund– the fund used to cover cleanup costs of oil spills like the one in Marshall in 2010. What that means is that Enbridge did not pay taxes on all that bitumen they dumped into Talmadge Creek. Yet they nevertheless drew money–more than $40 million– from the Trust Fund to help pay for the cleanup (they are supposed to pay it back).
But just this week came news of proposed legislation that would close the dilbit exemption (and more). The Tar Sands Tax Loophole Elimination Act, introduced by three Democrats, Ed Markey of Massachusetts, Earl Blumenauer of Oregon, and Bill Pascrell Jr. of New Jersey, would ensure that tar sands is taxed just like other forms of “crude oil.”
This is potentially good news, of course. But we can’t help notice one little thing: none of the sponsors of this bill are from Michigan. Why, for instance, couldn’t Rep. Fred Upton, who represents the Kalamazoo area, have proposed this kind of legislation? For that matter, why hasn’t Fred Upton proposed any sort of legislation following Marshall and the NTSB findings about Marshall? We also can’t help but wonder whether our own Congressman, Rep. Mike Rogers, will support this proposed legislation. What about your U.S. reps? We recommend that you let them know, forcefully, that support of this bill is the very least they can do. Heaven knows they haven’t done much of anything up to this point.
Enbridge– in the form of spokesman Joe Martucci; we don’t know about any others– will be at tomorrow morning’s Livingston County commissioners’ meeting. Time will be set aside for public remarks. We won’t be able to attend, but we urge anyone who can to do so– and to speak. Tell your story and ask questions. Or, if you aren’t sure what to say, our archives are jam-packed with information and unanswered questions. Feel free to use whatever you find here! Based on our experience, we’d have low expectations for anything helpful or productive coming out of the meeting, but it is vitally important to let your local officials know that their citizens have not been dealt with openly and honestly and fairly by Enbridge– because you can be sure that Enbridge is telling them you have been!
The meeting begins at 7:30 am. Public remarks will open at 8 am. It will be held at the Livingston County Administrative Building, 304 E. Grand River Ave., Howell, MI.
Oh, and if anyone cares to send me a report afterwards, I’d love to see it. You can reach me here.
As we reported earlier today, two more of Enbridge’s condemnation suits were dismissed this morning. Last week, Oakland County Circuit Court Judge James M. Alexander dismissed an Enbridge suit, ruling that their “good faith offer”– a requirement prior to any taking– was defective, since it included language claiming “use beyond that allowable under the Michigan Public Service Commission Order approving [Enbridge’s] application.” This morning, Judge Phyllis C. McMillen likewise accepted the defendant’s argument regarding the same Enbridge overreach. Judge McMillen puts it this way: (more…)
Take a look at the progress that’s been made by the persistent folks at Bold Nebraska on the Keystone XL matter. The situation there, you’ll see, is extraordinarily similar to ours– from the lethargy of elected officials right down to basic questions about High Consequence Areas! But they’re getting results. They’ve moved their governor and their own Public Service Commission to take notice. This is exactly why we keep urging everyone to contact our state officials, from the governor to your local congresspersons. Can you imagine Michiganders writing Michigan’s rules?
This just in: two additional condemnation suits brought against landowners in Oakland County court have been dismissed– this time by a different judge than the one who ordered the dismissal last week. The grounds for the dismissal are similar (Enbridge overreaching), but there are some interesting and heartening nuances in this morning’s ruling. We’re looking over and digesting the relevant documents and will have more to say about this good news later today. Stay tuned.
Regular readers of this blog know that our concerns about the way Enbridge conducts its business are many and varied. But if we had to state our objections to the Line 6B project in just one sentence, it would be this:
Enbridge has run roughshod over the citizens of the state of Michigan and our state elected officials have stood by idly and allowed it to happen.
Obviously, there’s much to elaborate upon here– and that’s what we’ve been trying to do for the past three months or so. But that sentence, we think, more or less sums it all up. What makes it all worse, of course, is that Enbridge has behaved this way and our elected officials have let them behave this way in the wake of Marshall. We continue to find it truly astonishing after such a terrible betrayal of the public trust as the Marshall spill– which, we repeat yet again, the NTSB has shown was NOT just an accident–that Enbridge would not do everything possible to earn back that trust and that our elected officials would not be firm and vigilant in making sure that Enbridge act responsibly. Yet Enbridge has had its way. Enbridge has been allowed to have its way.
Which brings us to our most recent example: Brandon Township’s Woodlands Preservation ordinance. (more…)
Another request from our friends at the POLAR legal defense fund: if you’ve been keeping up with events, you know that some of the legal tussles have begun to heat up. POLAR’s suit, for instance, appears to be heading to federal court. Other legal challenges are pending as well. These cases are expensive. If you are able to make a donation to the legal defense fund, please consider doing so. You can do so right through the POLAR website.
Before I even begin this post, an apology and/or warning: here we’re going to tackle some sticky legal questions, some of them theoretical. I fully recognize that lots of folks might not have much of a taste for the kind of jurisprudential nerdiness that is about to be on display here. If that’s you, I won’t be offended if you choose to quietly excuse yourself from the blog for a little while (just as long as you promise to come back!). It’s just that sometimes I get an intellectual itch that I have to scratch or it will drive me crazy. However, if you do stick around, I’ll do my best to try and make this interesting and worth your while. Deal? (more…)
It appears Enbridge has not conceded to any of the [Township’s] demands, but instead gave extensive explanations as to why the replacement pipeline is various widths at various places.
An important blog entry from the always razor-sharp Anthony Swift at the National Resources Defense Council. Swift calls our attention to more essential investigative work at Inside Climate News, this time by Lisa Song (whose work we’ve praised before). From Swift:
Enbridge’s Kalamazoo tar sands spill presents another case undercutting industry’s claims about pipeline safety and leak detection. As the InsideClimate piece notes, “Just 10 days before the accident, Enbridge Inc., which operates the Michigan pipeline, told federal regulators it could remotely detect and shut down a rupture in eight minutes. But when the line burst open, it took Enbridge 17 hours to confirm the spill.”
