Enbridge dredges the Kalamazoo River after a tar sands release in 2010.

Does the Michigan settlement with Enbridge brush aside future environmental protections?

Posted on Posted in Fortify, Restore, Sustain, Unite
Yesterday the State of Michigan announced a settlement agreement with Enbridge Energy for the 2010 tar sands oil spill into the Kalamazoo River watershed. This settlement, which gives large credits to Enbridge for their spill cleanup work, raises some interesting questions about the State’s long-term focus on pipeline safety. 

According to Michigan Radio, here’s how things shake out:

Money already spent by Enbridge:

  • $18 million spent by Enbridge to remove the Ceresco Dam and restore the historical flow to that part of the river.
  • $10 million spent to construct and improve recreational and boating access sites for the public at five locations and provide an endowment for perpetual maintenance of these sites.
  • $12 million paid in reimbursement of the state’s costs in conducting and overseeing cleanup work, restoration and mitigation, and attorney’s costs.

Money to be spent by Enbridge:

  • $5 million “mitigation payment” to the state for additional enhancement and restoration of the Kalamazoo River, to be paid within 30 days of the entry of the agreement.
  • $30 million as estimated costs for Enbridge to restore or construct 300 acres of wetlands in the watershed for permanent protection.

 

First let me say that I’m pleased to see that there’s secure funding going towards the restoration of the Kalamazoo River. As a lifelong resident of this watershed, this investment is a wonderful development and one that we all should celebrate.
Ceresco Dam removalThat being said, the rest of the settlement is a little hairy for me. It appears as if the State is crediting the responsible party for what should be required clean-up. This is not the approach I would have expected. The dam removal, in particular, raises a lot of questions. While I applaud Enbridge for restoring the river to its natural flow, that is not the sole reason that structure was removed. This dam was the first major stopping point for all the oil, so incredible amounts were pooled all around it. Enbridge faced major problems addressing this point so their removal of the dam allowed for additional oil recovery. Because of the way the State chose to classify settlement projects, it appears that Enbridge is now okay to say that $18 million went towards restoration efforts vs. clean-up costs.

Overall, I wish the State would have looked holistically at the issue and focused some of their power on pipeline safety improvements. This could have taken the form of additional conditions for improving the pipelines in the State or applying a fine that carries some real weight with both Enbridge and their shareholders. 

By not applying punitive penalties, is there a disservice to the folks living along the river or to those landowners that continue to live with pipelines in their backyard? Are we sending the right message to ensure our resources are a priority for protection? 
The simple fact is that Enbridge has only been fined a couple million by PHMSA, and that’s it. And while we know the PHMSA penalty was pathetically low, it at least had some safety requirements, both with their agreement and through several corrective action orders.
Enbridge Line 6B new build
Enbridge Line 6B new build

The big picture is this: all pipeline operators run cost benefit analyses when considering safety investments and without fines attached to spills like this, how can we ensure that safety is being taken seriously? This is a critical point for the State of Michigan since we are a major epicenter for oil and gas pipelines in the Great Lakes. Can we now expect this kind of approach for all major water spills, including in the event of a rupture in the Straits? We can expect that Enbridge (and their lawyers) will use this as a precedent for future negotiations. 

I love that there will be major improvements made to the Kalamazoo River, but in my eyes those should be additional conditions and not the entire settlement.

To end on a positive note: sometime within the next few months we should hear from the Environmental Protection Agency on their fines around this spill and Clean Water Act violations. I truly hope the agency will take a big picture look at the spill and how their actions can help reinforce the need for regional action on pipeline safety for our citizens and Great Lakes protection.

 

Do you think these types of agreements work well for our State and resource protection?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...
Facebooktwittergoogle_plus

One thought on “Does the Michigan settlement with Enbridge brush aside future environmental protections?

  1. I would enjoy information to follow this subject. As a resident of Michigan and a vacationer to Lake Michigan (and several of the Great Lakes) for over 55 years I am appalled at my own ignorance of these pipeline issues and how our government allows construction and further does not take precautionary measures for proper monitoring, especially with recent issues with the Gulf of Mexico and BP, the Kalamazoo River and most recently the issue in Santa Barbara. It appears our Federal and State Governments will be our own demise!!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *