By Susan Bromley

Staff Writer

Brandon Twp.

– Three years after Enbridge replaced the Line 6B petroleum pipeline in the township, Chad Rummel said his property still hasn’t been restored as promised by the company.

“I think everyone thought we were done, and the problem won’t go away,” said Rummel, who resides off Granger Road near Baldwin Road. “I’ve been fighting with Enbridge just to bring back grade to my property.”

Enbridge announced plans in late 2011 to replace the Line 6B petroleum pipeline, a project that spans 210 miles in total, from Griffith, Ind. to Sarnia, Ont., including 6 miles of pipeline and a pump station in the township. A rupture in the original Line 6B in 2010 in Marshall, Mich. resulted in one of the largest oil spills in U.S. history when 1 million gallons of crude oil spilled into the Kalamazoo River.

Replacement of Line 6B involved in

stalling all new pipeline alongside the existing pipeline, which was deactivated and capped.

Enbridge signed an agreement last year with the state of Michigan to never again use the old pipeline.

Construction on the new Line 6B began in 2012 in the township, but the project had some hurdles, drawing the ire of township officials and neighbors, particularly after the multi-billion dollar company failed to obtain proper permits and violated township ordinances.

Township residents in close proximity to the 12,000 square-foot pump station located off Seymour Lake Road have complained of noise from the facility that is capable of pumping up to 500,000 barrels of crude oil per day. These residents also voiced concerns during a pump station tour last year about poor drainage after construction of the facility that resulted in damage to gravel roads.

Enbridge was required to get residents to sign documents stating they were satisfied with the condition of their easements following completion of the pipeline.

Lara Hamsher, spokesperson for Enbridge, said a project department oversees the restoration of land from the Line 6B replacement.

“The vast majority of restoration and land issues have been resolved,” she said. “There are a few outstanding issues, Chad is one of those. We pay very close attention and monitor issues and they are a priority. We are committed to working with those landowners and identifying issues with them.”

However, while Hamsher said Enbridge has monitored Rummel’s case and has been to his property “a number of times,” to hear his concerns, she adds, “We feel we met the terms.”

Rummel begs to differ and said he has proof they did not— photos of his property taken before and after the pipeline replacement that show a contrast in soil and water levels. He also points to Enbridge data that has incorrect measurements on elevation of a barn that was already on the property.

The lack of a proper grade is causing flooding, and inhibiting his ability to grow crops and keep livestock.

“I’ve been waiting four years to put corrals and pastures up— I don’t want them to get stuck,” said Rummel.. “Their (Enbridge’s) contractor that put the pipe in and head contractor at the time, he quoted 2500 yards of dirt to get my grade back. It’s like $60,000-$70,000, this sucks for a company that makes a billion dollars a quarter…They are saying it’s at the same elevation it was before and it’s clearly not, even to the naked eye you can tell it’s not.”

To help resolve the issues, Rummel has retained attorney Kim Savage, who said her client is justifiably frustrated with the company. She is unaware of any other residents along the pipeline who are still having problems with restoration, but she points to three concerns regarding her one outstanding Enbridge client.

“First, the LIDAR survey is obviously flawed and/or grossly inaccurate, for one simple reason: it shows that the buildings on the property have changed elevation, too,” said Savage. “If you correct for that obvious error, the survey actually seems to prove Chad’s point. Second, regardless of what any before-and-after survey may show, the property is not draining the way it used to. In other words, even if the elevation is substantially similar to what it was pre-construction, Enbridge has caused some change in the property that has adversely affected its drainage. Whereas there was no standing water on the property pre-construction, there is often standing water on it now. This, obviously, renders the property less suitable for farming and pasture area. Third, and finally, Enbridge has completely ignored its obligation (and express agreement) to restore Chad’s auxiliary drive. It has offered no reason for that.”

Hamsher said Enbridge takes property owners’ concerns seriously. She defended Enbridge’s efforts in regards to Rummel’s concerns.

“We are in consultation, but my understanding is that throughout the course of the last several years and numerous times out to his property, we have made the best effort to address concerns,” she said. “There will be additional consultation once the summer season comes upon us and we transition to the operations side… Any property owners that ave outstanding issues, they should have a land agent contact, with contact information now that we have transitioned from projects to operations…We appreciate and are committed to landowners and communities along our right of way and make ourselves available way beyond the completion of the project. Please bring forward any issues.”

Rummel has brought forth his concerns and still has no resolution, even after seeking help from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and the Michigan Public Service Commission.

“Assuming Enbridge does not resolve this situation voluntarily, Chad’s only recourse, as far as I’m aware is to sue them,” said Savage. “For that reason, he’s kind of stuck – litigation will be very expensive, as it will be his burden to prove the damage, and Enbridge has seemingly endless resources to defend against litigation like this. It is extremely unfortunate that there seems to be no regulator out there that has any interest in mediating these types of landowner concerns.”