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."