Should a new natural gas pipeline affect protected wetlands or private property?
That was part of the debate at a Wednesday, June 23 public hearing conducted by the Michigan Public Service Commission at the Springfield Township Civic Center.
A proposal from Consumers Energy for a new West Oakland Pipeline has garnered protests from those critical of a route which includes natural features such as the Great Huron Swamp in Springfield Township and Buckhorn Lake in Rose Township.
The plan calls for 24.4 miles of a 36-inch natural gas pipeline to be built through Rose, Springfield, Independence and Orion townships. Some claimed the utility’s maintenance and construction easements would involve a 100-foot wide path along the route.
The original proposed route is roughly the same as that used by an existing 22-inch line installed in 1951, but proposed deviations brought protests from property owners who say protecting the wetlands will destroy many trees and cause potential safety problems.
With about 100 people attending, Administrative Law Judge Sharon L. Feldman and MPSC staff listened to 35 speakers, most of whom protested plans for the pipeline.
Those supporting the plan were representatives of labor unions whose members would benefit from the jobs to build the pipeline. In addition, Wixom Mayor Mike McDonald gave testimony to a good relationship between that city and Consumers Energy in a 1990’s pipeline project.
Springfield Township resident Warren Galbraith said Consumers already has a bad track record in connection with the current pipeline easement. He said maintenance crews have come to cut trees on a neighboring property, ‘and just left them on the ground.?
‘This is no way to protect the environment,? he said.
Eugene Acey was one of several to remind the MPSC that a federal agency denied permission for a similar pipeline route in the 1990s, citing wetland concerns. Acey went further with his protest, however.
‘We are very concerned about the wetlands and the birds and the animals,? he said. ‘I’m concerned about the people. This pipeline affects more than wetlands; it affects land owners. It will take out 99 feet of their land, land they will not be able to use as they so desire, land they paid for.?
Acey acknowledged the need for a pipeline, and said accommodating public utilities is part of the price for some property owners.
‘It’s like paying your debt to society, I suppose,? he said. ‘We have already paid that debt. Why must we pay it again??
Peter Marchbank, head of a citizens group which has fought a new pipeline for several years, said there are about 20 water wells along the route ? including one on his Shaffer Road property ? unaccounted for in Consumers? survey.
‘Is this an oversight by Consumers, or is this an outright possible deviation in terms of what they’re trying to do to understate the well locations and the impact on the homeowners?? he said
Marchbank said the proposed route and the wide construction easement would effectively take out his front porch. After years of fighting the proposal, he said he and his wife have decided to build a new house elsewhere on his property, to avoid the risk of a pipeline explosion.
Marchbank said the citizens group collected between 400 and 500 signatures from those opposed to the route.
‘I believe there’s a pipeline needed,? he said. ‘We’re not against that. We’re against where it is put.?
Several public officials and environmental groups weighed in at the public hearing.
State Rep. John Stakoe (R-Highland) called for ‘continued dialogue? to solve the problems, citing the ‘unique and pristine area? in western Oakland County.
‘Part of the problem is we weren’t engaged early on [with Consumers Energy’s plan],? Stakoe said. ‘Some of that has been resolved, but it’s left some difficult feelings here. There were a lot of decisions made early on in this process without involving local authorities.?
County Commissioner Bill Bullard presented a county board resolution opposing the original route, and Springfield Township Supervisor Collin Walls said township consultants had not had time to evaluate the alternative routes. The Springfield and Rose township boards had previously filed ‘petitions to intervene? in opposition to the Consumers Energy plan.
Michael McGee of the Huron-Clinton Metropolitan Authority, whose Indian Springs Metropark is adjacent to the proposed route, said the authority has no problem with the suggested alternate subject to their approval of construction and restoration methods.
Also arguing for protection of wetlands were representatives of the Huron River Watershed Council and the North Oakland Headwaters Land Conservancy.
Consumers Energy officials did not speak, but several were on hand to offer information and answer questions. Linda Sims, community service manager, said she understood some of the residents? concerns.
‘It showed us there’s a lot more we need to do to communicate with the people who are affected,? Sims said. The company had requested but were denied permission to have an open house prior to the public hearing.
‘The need for the pipeline has not changed,? Sims said.
According to MPSC procedures, testimony and cross-examination will continue through September. The target date for a commission decision is Dec. 1.