2004 House Bill 6314: Prohibit local government blocking gas pipe line

Legislation watch

Comments on this legislation Post new comment Text and Analysis Add to Watch List
Previous Next

Introduced by Rep. Joseph Rivet (D) on November 4, 2004, to remove the authority of a city, village, or township to block utility lines and structures approved by the Michigan Public Service Commission, including pipelines. The bill was introduced after the state Supreme Court found that the plain language of the current statute does not prohibit local governments from blocking such projects that pass through their jurisdiction. That case involved the City of Lansing blocking a gasoline pipeline proposed by Wolverine Pipeline Company along Interstate 96. The court “invited” the legislature to revise this statute.
- Referred to the House Energy and Technology Committee on November 4, 2004.
  - Reported in the House on November 10, 2004, without amendment and with the recommendation that the bill pass.
- Amendment offered by Rep. Michael Murphy (D) on November 10, 2004, to make an exception in the bill for cases in which a petroleum pipeline is proposed within 500 feet of one or more public water wells in a city, village, or township. This describes the Lansing pipeline. The amendment failed 36 to 62 in the House on November 10, 2004.
  Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No"
- Amendment offered by Rep. Michael Murphy (D) on November 10, 2004, to make an exception in the bill for cases in which a petroleum pipeline is proposed within 500 feet of an existing school or existing public or private child care center or day care center or public or private child caring institution. This describes the proposed Lansing pipeline. The amendment failed 37 to 64 in the House on November 10, 2004.
  Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No"
- Amendment offered by Rep. Hoon-Yung Hopgood (D) on November 10, 2004, to make an exception in the bill for cases in which a petroleum pipeline is proposed within 500 feet of an existing hospital or nursing home. The amendment failed 37 to 63 in the House on November 10, 2004.
  Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No"
- Amendment offered by Rep. Alma Stallworth (D) on November 10, 2004, to make an exception in the bill for cases in which a petroleum pipeline is proposed in a city, village, or township in which 1,000 or more residents live within 1/4 mile of the pipeline. The amendment failed 36 to 63 in the House on November 10, 2004.
  Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No"
- Amendment offered by Rep. Jack Minore (D) on November 10, 2004, to make an exception in the bill for cases in which a petroleum pipeline is proposed within 500 feet of an existing entertainment facility with a seating capacity of 2,000 or more. The amendment failed 33 to 61 in the House on November 10, 2004.
  Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No"
- Amendment offered by Rep. Michael Sak (D) on November 10, 2004, to make an exception in the bill for cases in which a petroleum pipeline is proposed within 500 feet of an existing recreational facility which includes a swimming pool frequented by minor children. The amendment failed 38 to 65 in the House on November 10, 2004.
  Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No"
Passed 61 to 45 in the House on November 10, 2004.
Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No"
Received in the Senate on November 30, 2004.
- Referred to the Senate Government Operations and Reform Committee on November 30, 2004.

Most Recent Comments

Add Comment

1) "No vote explanation" of Reps. Waters, Murphy and Phillips by Admin003 on November 11, 2004
Reps. Waters, Murphy and Phillips, having reserved the right to explain their protest against the passage of the bill, made the following statement:

"Mr. Speaker and members of the House:

I voted no on House Bill 6314 because it is legally flawed and morally offensive, and because its outrageously expedited passage through this lame duck House session was disrespectful of both the legislative process and the citizens of this state.

The bill would reverse statutory language that currently serves an important purpose in the protection of public health and safety. Local units of government have the primary responsibility to protect the public health and public safety of their communities, including in particular their public water supplies. The current statute appropriately serves to balance the responsibility of local units of government regarding local public health and safety, with the regulatory responsibility of the state regarding energy accessibility and rates.

Local consent in such cases is a right guaranteed by Article 7, Section 29 of the Michigan Constitution, which states: "No person, partnership, association or corporation, public or private, operating a public utility shall have the right to the use of the highways, streets, alleys or other public places of any county, township, city or village for wires, poles, pipes, tracks, conduits or other utility facilities, without the consent of the duly constituted authority of the county, township, city or village" and that "Except as otherwise provided in this constitution the right of all counties, townships, cities and villages to the reasonable control of their highways, streets, alleys and public places is hereby reserved to such local units of government." Nevertheless, the unreasonably rushed passage of this bill did not allow for the consideration of this serious legal concern.

Furthermore, the question of whether or not it's good public policy to locate liquid petroleum pipelines in the rights-of-way of Michigan's busiest highways warrants public discussion and a thorough study of potential risks from both accidental damage and intentional damage. Locating a pipeline on a highway easement may decrease the pipeline's likely exposure to certain types of third party activity (namely excavation by residential or commercial developers) but it will increase the pipeline's likely exposure to other types of third party activity. An average of 40,500 vehicles per day travel on the section of I-96 at issue in the Lansing case, causing significant vibration. Also, maintenance and construction activities using heavy equipment take place regularly on highways and on highway rights-of-way as roads get repaired, widened or replaced.

Finally, and I think most egregiously, this bill is an attempt to force the implementation of a unjust decision made by members of the Public Service Commission in 2001-02: a decision that would discriminate against racial minorities and low income persons. House Bill 6314 will also pave the way for further instances of environmental discrimination in the future. If decisions involving the placement of liquid petroleum pipelines and other potential environmental hazards are allowed to be made solely at the highest levels of government, then it is only those with the greatest power and influence on the highest levels of state and federal government who will have their voices heard."

Reply

Line

2) 2004 House Bill 6314 (Prohibit local government blocking gas pipe line ) by admin on January 1, 2001
Introduced in the House on November 4, 2004, to remove the authority of a city, village, or township to block utility lines and structures approved by the Michigan Public Service Commission, including pipelines. The bill was introduced after the state Supreme Court found that the plain language of the current statute does not prohibit local governments from blocking such projects that pass through their jurisdiction. That case involved the City of Lansing blocking a gasoline pipeline proposed by Wolverine Pipeline Company along Interstate 96. The court “invited” the legislature to revise this statute

The vote was 61 in favor, 45 opposed and 4 not voting

(House Roll Call 905 at House Journal 86)

Click here to view bill details.
Reply

Line

View Full Conversation