On the Pipe

A little thing called democracy has gotten in the way of the proposed Wolverine pipeline. Elected officials (the mayor of Lansing, City Council and Ingham County Commissioner Lisa Deddens) took appointed officials (the state Public Service Commission) to court, which is a perfect example of how our three-part system of government is supposed to work. But because the result went against them, pipeline supporters are crying foul.

The result that has upset them was a ruling by the state Court of Appeals that Lansing’s consent to the pipeline is needed before it can be constructed. The court based its decision on an interpretation of the Michigan Constitution that gives political jurisdictions the authority to exercise “reasonable control of their highways.” Part of the pipeline would run through the I-96 right-of-way.

Pipeline supporters argue that the system is broken when politicians can undo the work of the state Public Service Commission, which favors the proposed pipeline route through south Lansing. We think it’s a good thing when elected leaders (the mayor, City Council members and a county commissioner) can blow the whistle on appointed ones.

The Lansing State Journal, which has pushed for the pipeline since the city decided to oppose it, editorialized that the ruling was “confusing,” apparently because the court said that on the one hand the commission acted correctly but on the other said the pipeline cannot be built without Lansing’s permission. What’s confusing? The court found no reason “to substitute our judgment” for that of the commission on the merits of the pipeline plan. But it said Lansing has the constitutional right to withhold permission to build it.

As often happens when people don’t like the law, the Voice of the Establishment says the decision defied “common sense” – in other words, pipeline opponents won on a technicality of law. That so-called technicality is what has allowed the largest political entity along the pipeline’s route to protect itself against a pipeline it does not want and which it has properly blocked through the efforts of its elected officials. The Journal goes on to urge the legislature to change the law so that the people can no longer get in the way of a ruling by appointed officials.

If we’re going to deal in technicalities, then how about this one: The same court ruling rejected the argument that the pipeline is an example of environmental discrimination not because it isn’t but because pipeline opponents didn’t raise the argument at the right time. Which is too bad, because it’s an important argument that the Journal and other pipeline advocates refuse to address.

Basically, the argument is that the commission rejected a route that would have put the new pipeline through Meridian Township and approved putting it through more densely populated and more minority-occupied south Lansing. In October 2002, a commission administration law judge rejected a Meridian Township route because “with more people living and working near the transmission lines, the severity of damage from pipeline failures from all causes is likely to increase.” The risk in Lansing is just as great, if not greater, yet the commission OK’ed the south Lansing route. Could it be that the commissioners (who live in East Lansing, Okemos and Williamston) have one standard for the wealthier, whiter ‘burbs and another for poorer, blacker Lansing?

What happens next is anyone’s guess. Perhaps the courts will have to decide whether the city of Lansing is being “reasonable.”.Meanwhile, we applaud Dedden, City Council, former Mayor David Hollister and his successor, Tony Benavides for fighting the pipeline route, despite the cost of more than $100,000. If we can afford new downtown parking ramps, we can also afford to express the will of the people.

Care to respond? Send letters to letters@lansingcitypulse.com. View our Letters policy.