A fantastic follow-up article in the Los Angeles Times by Matt Pearce, a smart reporter who clearly understands the situation here in Michigan and beyond. Pearce writes:
The next big oil pipeline battle is here [in SE Michigan], and hardly anybody knows about it.
And here’s a money quote from one of our very own local residents:
“It saddens me to say that all evidence points to us being better informed about this project than our elected officials,” [Katy] Bodenmiller said. “But that’s only because officials and the press, with a few exceptions, have failed to advocate for those they serve.”
Please share this article as widely as possible. Send copies of it to your elected representatives.
Excellent coverage with some details of the resolution on Enbridge that Brandon Township will consider at tonight’s meeting– from Eric Lawrence at the Free Press. A taste:
“I do find it interesting that they can assure that the pipeline project in Alberta is built and operated to the highest standards yet in the (United) States, we’re not necessarily assured those same standards will be met,” [Supervisor Kathy] Thurman said.
It’s been almost exactly one year since Enbridge filed its application with the Michigan Public Service Commission seeking approval for its Line 6B “replacement” project. And in that year, we’re not aware of a single elected official from Michigan at the state or national level who has made a single public statement on the matter– much less one who has taken a coherent position that reflects a concern for the important public issues at stake. (If someone knows of such statements, we’d love to hear them).
Because of this extraordinary silence, this leadership vacuum, we’ve spent a fair amount of time over the past few months contacting the officials elected to represent our interests in Michigan and Washington D.C. (And we would urge you to do the same!) We have been met with varying degrees of responsiveness– and we’re not afraid to name names: (more…)
We will be attending tomorrow night’s (August 20 at 7 pm) Brandon Township Board of Trustees meeting, where we expect them to once again take up the issue of whether to give consent to Enbridge for their work within the township limits. Many of you know that we have written about the “local consent” issue before, in more ways than one. That issue is tremendously important both in terms of preserving local authority and autonomy– especially given the astonishing willingness of state and federal agencies to give Enbridge a free pass at every turn– and as yet another measure of how well (or how poorly) Enbridge lives up to its own publicly stated policy of “respecting the national and local laws of the countries and communities where we operate.”
Brandon Township supervisor Kathy Thurman and her board have shown real leadership in this area. Enbridge claims that they do not need to seek local consent. But sooner or later, that claim is going to need to be tested (most likely in court). For that reason, the more attention Brandon’s actions receive the better. We hope to see you there and we hope you will bring with you your local and state elected officials and your friends and contacts in the news media!
The non-profit legal defense fund POLAR (Protect Our Land and Rights) has launched its new website. Concerned citizens are invited to join and donate. Check them out here.
A fantastic article in this morning’s Los Angeles Times by Matt Pearce and Neela Banerjee– and not just because we make a brief appearance in it. Check out the great lead paragraph:
A major rival to the controversial Keystone XL oil pipeline project is vastly boosting its U.S. pipeline system, but it’s avoiding the same scrutiny that federal regulators, environmentalists and landowners are giving Keystone owner TransCanada Corp.
NPR’s “All Things Considered” just did an excellent story on tar sands oil (or “dilbit,” as it is often called). They even take a visit to Kalamazoo. Remember, this is the stuff that will be flowing through the new Line 6B.
The (appalling) situation in Livingston county is (rightfully) getting lots of attention. Here and here and here and here. Let’s hope this wakes some people up.
In Part 2 of our series on Core Issues for Landowners a couple of week’s ago, we wrote about the issue of local consent– the requirement, according to the state constitution and the Highway Act, that Enbridge seek consent from local municipalities before beginning work within them.
And just this morning, we posted a story from the Livingston Daily in which Enbridge even admits that they have yet to secure all the requisite state and local permits for their project– even though they have already begun construction.
In the former instance, the law seems fairly clear, although Enbridge disputes it and perhaps (I don’t think so, but perhaps) they have a case. In the latter instance, Enbridge claims that they are in the process of securing the necessary permits. So, for the sake of argument, let’s grant that there is at least a bit of wiggle room on these two matters.
Here’s a bit of breaking news: today the MPSC approved, in part, the appeal to delay a decision on phase two of the Enbridge project. The commission did not grant as much time as the intervenors requested, but they did give them more time than Enbridge wanted. So overall, I’d say the news is good. At the very least, it suggests that the commission understands that there are interests here other than Enbridge’s and that Enbridge does not get to dictate the terms of the process entirely– so that’s something. The commission says it wanted to “strike a balance between the interests of Enbridge and the intervenors.”
Thank you to all who attended last night’s Groveland Township Board of Trustees meeting. It’s not clear that they were convinced to take any action, but it was great to see residents speaking up and expressing their many and varied concerns– and it is so important that public officials here those concerns. Please keep it up. Contact your congressmen and senators, contact local reporters, talk to one another.
Interesting reports from Canada: it appears that Enbridge would rather not have the NTSB report on the Marshall spill as part of the discussion of their Canadian Northern Gateway project:
Not surprisingly, Enbridge has also argued that the NTSB report is irrelevant in the matter of MPSC approval for phase two of their Line 6B project:
the information contained in the NTSB Report is not relevant to any material issue in this proceeding. Extending the case schedule in this proceeding pending the issuance of the final NTSB Report is without merit and counterproductive. Even if the NTSB’s Report were relevant, which it is not, the NTSB’s conclusions and recommendations have already been released..
There’s been some interesting legal maneuvering taking place with regard to the appeal of phase one (U-16838), which we wrote about last week. Enbridge has filed a reply brief to the appeal and they’ve also asked to have the appeal dismissed. Counsel for those who filed the appeal has filed a reply to Enbridge’s reply (I told you it was legal maneuvering). It’s all pretty interesting stuff for law geeks.
A couple of issues at play involve (a) whether someone can be considered an aggrieved party for purposes of an appeal if that person was not a party to the original case; and (b) whether the law allows appellants to remain anonymous. Enbridge, obviously, says no and no.
We hope the Court of Appeals will disagree with Enbridge on both points, neither of which is directly relevant to real basis of the appeal: whether the MPSC’s Notice of Hearing was defective.
The appeal is probably a long shot, but we’re remaining hopeful. A decision is likely to come down from the Court of Appeals this week. Stay tuned.
For those who live in or near Groveland Township, the Enbridge project is on the agenda for this Monday’s (August 13) meeting at 7 p.m. at the Township Hall on Grangehall Rd. We will be there prepared to say a few words during the public comments portion of the meeting. If you share our concerns about public safety, landowner rights, and local authority, please join us.
Some good news from our friends in Indiana, courtesy of Nicole Barker, Executive Director of Save the Dunes. It illustrates the fact that with enough public awareness and pressure, Enbridge will respond.
I am pleased to share that I just received word that Enbridge has agreed to present their proposed 6B pipeline project work (Phases I & II) at the upcoming Northwestern Indiana Regional Planning Commission’s (NIRPC) Environmental Management and Policy Committee (EMPC) meeting on Thursday, September 6th. The meeting is at NIPRC offices, 6100 Southport Road, Portage, IN. The meeting normally runs from 9am to 10:30am but often goes a bit longer.
Save the Dunes and many other agencies, nonprofits, businesses and other organizations are part of EMPC, so this is an exciting and quite balanced forum in which to hear about the work.
I have respectfully requested all agencies tasked with review/approval of the project to attend. The invite list included US Fish and Wildlife Service, US Army Corps of Engineers, Indiana Department of Environmental Management, Indiana Department of Natural Resources, the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission, and several others.
Thanks to everyone who has signed our petition and demonstrated interest in this important project. Please pass on to others who may be interested as well.
Also, we signed a separate petition to have DNR hold a hearing related to their stream crossings. They did schedule a hearing, but it is solely limited to construction in a floodway. It is on Thursday, August 23rd at 4pm Central Time at the Valparaiso Public Library, meeting room B, 103 Jefferson Street, Valparaiso, IN. See attached flier for more information about that meeting.
Rebuilding old lines that don’t meet modern safety standards is a commendable goal. But property owners along the route are skittish — understandably so, given Enbridge’s run of trouble.
And their confidence doubtless isn’t helped by knowing that an attorney representing some landowners was able to give significantly better compensation for her clients than that originally offered by Enbridge representatives.
On August 24th, a hearing will be held before Administrative Law Judge Theresa Sheets to consider a petition to delay a decision on phase two of the Line 6B project. It’s very important that as many concerned citizens attend this hearing as are able. The MPSC needs to know that many residents have serious concerns about the project. Please plan to travel to Lansing if you can. Details are here:
[We received the following appeal to residents of Livingston County from POLAR and attorney Gary Field. Plaintiffs are needed for an action to suspend Enbridge’s construction activities pending complete approval of the project]:
“A newly formed non-profit organization – Protect Our Land and Rights (“POLAR”) Legal Defense Fund – has voted to support the filing of complaint in Livingston County Circuit Court to seek a Temporary Restraining Order and a Preliminary Injunction, requiring Enbridge to halt all construction in Livingston County.
The basis of the argument is rather simple. Enbridge is building a pipeline from one end of the state to the other end of the state. They are starting in Livingston County – which is in the middle. However, Enbridge doesn’t have the approvals it needs to connect the pipe on either end. Enbridge should not be allowed to simply assume that it will be able to obtain all needed approvals – especially where the unobtained approvals are substantial and numerous.
The complaint will focus on five points:
Enbridge has not gotten approval from the MPSC to build the pipeline on either end. MPSC Case No. U-17020 is still pending. An order in that case is not likely to be issued until Spring or summer of 2012.
The MPSC case that authorizes construction in Livingston County has been appealed to the Michigan Court of Appeals. The case could result in Enbridge losing all right to commence construction in Livingston County.
Enbridge has admitted in its responses to discovery that it hasn’t obtained the necessary environmental permits.
Enbridge has not obtained consents from any of the townships or municipalities.
Language in existing easements is vague and without sufficient definition. Such easement language needs to be clarified.
Enbridge should not be allowed to disrupt peoples’ lives and take their property to install a pipeline from nowhere to nowhere. We need a Temporary Restraining Order and issuance of a preliminary injunction.
This effort will be financially supported by POLAR Legal Defense Fund. It is very important that we have landowners sign on as plaintiffs. Without plaintiffs, we can’t file the complaint and seek an injunction. If there are landowners who have not yet reached a deal with Enbridge and are willing participate and help the cause, they should contact me at glfield@fieldlawgroup.com.
-Gary”
A new appeal has been filed asking the Michigan Court of Appeals to vacate the state regulatory body’s approval of phase one of the Enbridge Line 6B “replacement” project due to “defective notice to landowners.” Let me explain (and please bear with me; it’s all pretty interesting).
First, a little background for those who might need it: Enbridge’s project is taking place in two phases. Phase one involves the “replacement” of a 50-mile segment of pipe running from Stockbridge to a pumping station in Ortonville (this is the part that runs through our property). Phase two will run from Ortonville to Marysville, Michigan (and on into Canada). (more…)
