Case Number: 13-0446

26 results
  • September 25, 2013

    I oppose Enbride's attempt to use eminent domain for a tar sands pipeline. This is a sneaky and unethical way to get what you want. A this pipeline is going to help only Enbridge, may temporarily "help" some people with a little money and some jobs, but will permanently ruin our ecosystem. This is not a future-forward solution because there is only enough case for at most 100 years. We need to think of renewable energy that does not harm the earth and that has no end to how much we collect, such as wind and solar.
    Laura Edwards
  • September 25, 2013

    DO NOT SELL US OUT, particularly to know polluters. Our efforts need to be invested in CLEAN ENERGIES, not for dirty old energy sources. I strongly oppose Enbridge's drive to use eminent domain for a tar sands pipeline. Illinois deserves better!
    Susan Hildebrandt
  • September 18, 2013

    AS the representative for Will County Board District 1 which is comprised of the townships of Will, Peotone, Monee and Crete where Enbridge seeks to install a new pipeline, I oppose the use of Eminent Domain to take private property from my constituents. As a profitable business, Enbridge should be able to offer the landowners a price for their property that is agreeable. Far too often we in America allow the use of eminent domain to strip away our citizens right to own property - I think we need to take another look at what we allow to happen. It's wrong to allow a private industry to make a profit on land they take away from our citizens to the property owner's detriment. I strongly support private property rights and implore you to note give Enbridge Pipeline this authority.

    Thank you in advance for hearing my concern.

    Judy Ogalla
    Will County Board District 1

    Judy Ogalla
  • September 10, 2013

    I am against this pipeline for three reasons.
    First, I believe that the pipeline is ill-advised. Given the very "dirty" type of oil being extracted, and the repeated leaks and failures of existing oil pipelines, the wisest course is to build a refinery near those oilfields. This would benefit Canadian producers as well.
    Second, I believe that, since we live in an imperfect world and mistakes happen, the idea of putting a pipeline across vital farmland and irreplaceable water aquifers is foolish in the extreme, particularly given the type of oil to be sent through it.
    Third, I believe that acquiring the land for the pipeline by eminent domain is a misuse of this power, as in this instance it is not for the public good but for private profit: taking people's land without their consent should be done only for the highest and greatest good, not for a project that will not only threaten the viability of surrounding farmland but endanger the only fresh water aquifer in Central Illinois.
    In conclusion, I am convinced that this pipeline is a disaster in the making which offers no benefits to those whose land and water are threatened by it, and I am firmly opposed to it. Please guard the public interest -- that of the current public and of the generations to come -- and deny permission for this pipeline.

    Mariel Q Davis
  • September 4, 2013

    Uncontaminated air, water and soil are vital for life, period. Any leak from a pipeline carrying Alberta tar sands oil is an irreversible environmental disaster. Enbridge has a dismal history of massive leaks, inadequate responses and inept leadership. Public entities like I.C.C. are mandated to act in the best interest of the public which fundamentally includes protecting our life-giving air, water and soil first and foremost. To that end, take the step that ensures a livable Illinois far into the future: say no categorically to the Enbridge pipeline proposal and any use of eminent domain for its purposes.
    Margaret Keylin
  • August 30, 2013

    Enbridge has not pursued settlements with landowners to the extent that they should now turn to the Commission for eminent domain authority. The pipeline route was approved 5 years ago. Enbridge has not shown they earnestly intend to move forward and work with landowners on a fair settlement.

    Enbridge chose to put the route on the backburner for the past several years. The lack of activity demonstrates that Enbridge is not serious in working for fair settlements with landowners. The route was a low priority based on Enbridges lack of action, but now suddenly they want to skip working with land owners and go straight to eminent domain.

    Buying old pipeline routes is not proof that they are working with people. Enbridge should work with land owners in good faith on a fair settlement. Enbridge should not be granted emminent domain authority.

    Rob Holstine
  • August 28, 2013

    I strongly oppose the use of eminent domain in the case of 13-0446 Enbridge Pipelines.

    The Illinois Commerce Commission previously, and correctly, refused to provide for eminent domain and instead stated that additional negotiations were appropriate. Specifically the ICC called on Enbridge to make reasonable attempts and have good faith negotiations.

    Despite Enbridge claims that they have "worked doggedly" in negotiating with landowners they openly admit some tract owners have been contacted as little as 2 times in this entire process. Providing a couple community meetings in which representatives are available to answer questions does not constitute an attempt at negotiations.

    Blanket mailing to all landowners of an "option" which is later changed to an "offer" and again mailed to all landowners is not sufficient to be considered a reasonable attempt at good faith negotiations. Allowing time to pass and then refiling a request for use of eminent domain does not constitute reasonable efforts and does not translate to good faith negotiations.

    The fact that landowners, in large numbers, felt that the Enbridge offer was not reasonable and did not accept the offer on it's initial terms does not, as Enbridge would like the ICC to believe, mean that "future efforts to attempt to negotiate would be pointless."

    Enbridge has not shown that further negotiations would be pointless, indeed their lack of action and absence of good faith negotiating has made it clear that negotiations have not even been given a fair opportunity.

    Allowing the use of eminent domain in this case, where Enbridge has done very little in the form of negotiations and done even less in the form of "good faith negotiations" would not be proper in this instance.

    I strongly urge the ICC to deny the request for use of eminent domain in this instance.

    Kevin Holstine, Towanda

    Kevin Holstine
  • August 28, 2013

    We respectfully urge you not to allow the use of eminent domain to force Illinois farmers to allow Enbridge to put its pipeline across their farms. We cannot understand why American farmers, whose land is their livelihood, should be forced to accept the risk of an oil spill so that a Canadian energy firm can make huge profits. Where is the justice in that?
    Americans will not benefit from this pipeline. It will carry Alberta tar sands oil to refineries on the Gulf coast, to be shipped overseas, largely to China and Japan. But our farmers and our water supplies will bear the risk.
    Although born in the U.S., I grew up in Canada, before returning to the U.S. I love Canada. This is not about Canada. This is about whether ordinary hard-working individuals of any country have any hope of standing up against the power of huge corporations which appear to care only about massive profits, no matter the cost to individuals or the planet. Tar sands mining is devastating Canada's boreal wilderness, and is a major contributor to climate change.
    Please do not allow Enbridge to use eminent domain to bring its environmentally costly oil across Illinois farmlands, endangering our water supplies and risking the livelihood of the courageous farmers who are standing up to Enbridge.

    Meredith Schroeer
  • August 28, 2013

    Enbridge should be denied eminent domain for its pipeline. The transportation of tar sands oil through our state is clearly not in the public's interest, but clearly is in the economic interest of Enbridge alone. Landowners are resisting, since they won't benefit much and there's always the possibility of an accident on what is rich and valuable Illinois farmland. The oil from tar sands will not benefit us, or bring "energy independence," because the point of the pipeline is to transport it to the gulf where it will be exported. The scariest aspect of the tar sands oil, however, is that their extraction will likely be "game over" for the climate, as former NASA climatologist pointed out. It is clearly not in our interest that Enbridge be granted eminent domain, against the wishes of Illinois landowners and the health of people and the planet.

    Right now, many Illinoisans agree. Over 500 people have signed a petition against granting eminent domain to Enbridge, and the petition has just started. To access it, visit

    Corey Mattson
  • August 28, 2013

    Please do not use eminent domain to force landowners to accept an Enbridge pipeline on their farmland. So much of our farmland has been used for other purposes already. We need this land to produce food. There is never a guarantee that an accident won't occur which would render even more farmland useless. Do NOT infringe on these farmers' rights, take away productive farmland, contribute to global warning, and create an opportunity for an oil spill.
    Jackie Bauer
  • August 23, 2013

    We are very against this land takeover. With the history of Enbridge (see Marshall, MI), the last thing we want to do is give them the right to do the same thing to Central Illinois.
    Diana and Byron Blair
  • August 23, 2013

    Enbridge has put this on the backburner for 5 years. Now that they are deciding to move forward with the project they are seeking eminent domain. They have had years to try and work with landowners to reach a fair settlement but they chose not to. Now that they have decided to move forward they just expect everyone to immediately move forward and for the ICC to allow them to do this. I think it is clear they have no intention of trying to reach fair settlements.

    All of this is on top of the fact the route causes great concerns for a potential corruption of Bloomington/Central Illinois water supply.

    Jonathan Holstine
  • August 23, 2013

    Enbridge has a horrible record of oil spills in the states (Wisconsin, Michigan, Minnesota, North Dakota) and Canada. Please have some sense and know that if approval is given, any promise of safety goes out the window in the name of profit.
    Ryan McMahon
  • August 20, 2013

    Allowing this company with a know past of pollution to install a pipeline in McLean County will lead to pollution here. Additionally, allowing this private company that produces dirty fuel eminent domain on private property is shameful and undemocratic. It is evident that they are more interested in making a profit than the welfare of the people who live in the area. Enbridge Pipelines should not be given permission to work in McLean County.
    Susan A Hildebrandt
  • August 20, 2013

    We do NOT want this case to be approved! 148 local landowners are in danger of losing their property rights to a Canadian oil firm. They should not be allowed to have eminent domain to cross the owners' land.
    Micky Smith
  • August 20, 2013

    Very much against this pipeline. Do not approve. I believe a owner/farmer has a right to own their land and use it for farmland and not taken away for a project that threatens the environment especially this company who has a track record of deceit and unreliability.
    robert connelly
  • August 19, 2013

    I am for using eminent domain regarding the case before ICC. 13-0446
    John Gramm
  • August 16, 2013

    This is not a suitable use of eminent domain.
    Geneta Miles
  • August 16, 2013

    Please, please, please, no pipeline anywhere!! You can't really believe that nothing will go wrong. We must always assume that something WILL go wrong. We cannot take chances with our water or good land. And to use eminent domain is just wrong. Thank you.
    Susan Sloss
  • August 16, 2013

    In general I am against the concept of eminent domain. But that is when it involves the destruction of property (such as homes for a road). But in the case of the pipeline....a hole will be dug, a line laid down and then covered up.... The land will once again be usable.
    I know there seems to be a lot of worries about "what if the pipeline ruptures...or does this, that or the other thing". I could make the same comments about what if the chemicals the farmer uses to plant his field should have some unforeseen thing occur in their delivery. What I am saying is in reading some other comments that the worries are about things that might happen. Maybe they need to realize they better not leave their home today as they are more likely to be involved in a car accident than a problem happening with the pipeline. So let's all stay at home because what if.... The pipeline should be built if nothing else to answer the question what if we construct it how much money and work will it bring to a state that isn't exactly on the top of the list for new employment opportunities

    Charles Jackson
  • August 16, 2013

    The purpose of eminent domain is for the State to acquire lands for public or civic use, NOT to benefit private entities. We have already seen situations in this state where there have been shortages of clean drinking water, although primarily due to acts of nature which we can recover from. Manmade disasters are frequently an altogether different story, being much longer lived as well as extensive. Enbridge in particular has a history of such events, including a fairly recent one in Michigan that has not been fully rectified, and may never be. Enbridge is a private corporation, not a public utility. The potential damage to the residents of this State outweigh the short term financial benefits of this proposal. Please do not grant eminent domain to Enbridge Pipelines (Illinois) L.L.C.
    J Balmer
  • August 16, 2013

    I urge the ICC to reject the petition from Enbridge LLC to build a pipeline to ship crude shale oil from Canada through Illinois. This form of oil is full of toxic chemicals and is much heavier and sludgier than crude petroleum. It poses greater risks to the environment should leaks develop, as they will over the next 25 years. Shale sludge has proven to be very difficult to clean up in other states. With many alternative sources of energy available to consumers, there is no reason for the citizens of Illinois to bear the risks posed by this high-cost, low-priority form of energy.
    Christopher P. Prendergast
  • August 16, 2013

    I happened to be in Marshall Michigan when that fiasco happened and the devastation was tremendous. Some people will never have back their water supply. With a huge aquifer in our county, people should be very concerned about what a broken pipeline can and will do. I am very concerned about a pipeline crossing the entire county.
    Sally mangina
  • August 15, 2013

    I object to pipeline coming through the NE section of McLean County in Illinois. This is the watershed area that supplies two water reservoirs for the city of Bloomington and lake residents. I am one of those lake residents. With the project and pipeline, there is the potential of spill and contamination of this water supply. It would be appropriae for another route to be designed to avoid compromising the watershed and reservoirs in this area.
    Elizabeth Foeller
  • August 14, 2013

    Thank you, ICC, for wisely refusing to apply the law of eminent domain to the taking of property in Illinois counties for the use of oil and gas companies. I hope you will again take such a stand despite Enbridge Pipeline's petition 13-0446. The government of Illinois is charged with protecting the public interest. To equate public interest with the interest of one industry would be a mistake that would threaten the public interests of so many others in Illinois.

    In McLean County 148 rural land owners are resisting attempts by Enbridge to run an oil and gas pipeline across their land. They point to accidental pipe ruptures in Texas, Michigan, Ohio and Colorado as reason that they cannot trust an oil and gas company to construct a 100% safe pipeline. I would also like to point out that if and when pipe failures occur, landowners affected must accept sub par clean-up efforts by the oil and gas industry, as well as the resolution of disputes in the courts that take years to settle. Ordinary citizens who are doing business on lands like these--farmers especially--simply cannot ride out multiple years of uncertainty while they hope the system will make their lives right again with awards. Even when the courts find in favor of the state or of individuals, the winners must often cope with companies that declare bankruptcy, rendering any awards granted by the courts as realities of pennies on the dollar.

    The 148 of McLean County seem intent on preventing the above untenable situations by protecting their land from the oil and gas companies. They should have the right to use their land as they wish. They are also working in the public interest: safeguarding our drinking water across the county and producing food and other products that will be for the benefit of all.

    I urge you to weigh the public good already being provided by those who occupy and take care of this land in McLean County against the temporary and dangerous demands of the Enbridge Pipeline that may put into jeopardy any other individual or business interest connecting with these pieces of property. I hope the thinking that prevailed when you denied the last eminent domain petition related to this situation will again prevail.


    Sandra Lindberg
    Bloomington, IL

    Sandra Lindberg
  • August 14, 2013

    1201 Russell St.
    Normal IL 61761
    August 8, 2013

    Many more than one hundred forty-eight local landowners are in danger of losing their property rights to a Canadian oil firm if the Illinois Commerce Commission allows Enbridge to use Eminent Domain to cross their land with a 42" pipeline to carry Alberta tar sands oil through eastern McLean County to the Gulf coast.

    Enbridge is the oil company responsible for the Marshall, Michigan spill in 2010. That spill is still being cleaned up, and the heavy "dilbit" oil, which has sunk to the bottom, may never be able to be completely removed.

    In McLean County, the pipeline will cross tributaries to Bloomington's water supply at Buck Creek, the Mackinaw River, and Money Creek. Construction is planned for 2013 and 2014.

    I beg the Illinois Commerce Commission to deny Eminent Domain rights to Enbridge.

    Anne McGowan

    Anne W. McGowan