Preview:

STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS


CITY OF LANSING, Plaintiff-Appellant, v STATE OF MICHIGAN and WOLVERINE PIPE LINE COMPANY, Defendants-Appellees.

FOR PUBLICATION May 8, 2007 9:00 a.m. No. 272927 Ingham Circuit Court LC No. 05-000918-CZ

Official Reported Version

Before: Saad, P.J., and Hoekstra and Smolenski, JJ. SMOLENSKI, J. In this declaratory action, plaintiff city of Lansing appeals as of right the trial court's order granting summary disposition in favor of defendants Wolverine Pipe Line Company and the state of Michigan and denying plaintiff 's cross-motion for summary disposition. We affirm. I. Facts and Procedural History In 2000, Wolverine filed an application with the Michigan Public Service Commission (PSC), seeking authorization to replace an existing liquid-petroleum pipeline with a new larger diameter pipeline. See PSC Case No. U-12334. After encountering opposition to the proposed replacement, Wolverine agreed to withdraw its plans to replace the portion of the pipeline that ran through Meridian Township. Instead, Wolverine proposed to reroute the pipeline to avoid the disputed area. Under the revised route, a new section of pipeline would be constructed longitudinally in the right-of-way of Interstate Highway 96 (I-96), including a portion of I-96 that runs through plaintiff 's municipal boundaries. In February 2002, Wolverine sought plaintiff 's consent to construct the new pipeline within plaintiff 's municipal boundaries. In response to this request, plaintiff enacted Resolution No. 423 in August 2002. In Resolution No. 423, plaintiff 's city council found that the proposed pipeline (1) would disparately affect minority populations, (2) constituted an unreasonable risk to groundwater and surface water, and (3) constituted an unreasonable risk to persons and property and that (4) the city lacked the resources to mitigate a catastrophic pipeline failure. For these reasons, plaintiff rejected Wolverine's request for consent.

-1-


Although Wolverine had not received plaintiff 's consent, it nevertheless applied to the PSC for approval of the proposed new section of pipeline. The PSC approved Wolverine's plan over plaintiff 's objections in July 2002. See PSC Case No. U-13225. Plaintiff appealed the approval. See Lansing Mayor v Pub Service Comm, 257 Mich App 1; 666 NW2d 298 (2003) (Lansing Mayor I). On appeal, plaintiff argued that Wolverine was required by Const 1963, art 7,

Download CITY OF LANSING V STATE OF MICHIGAN.pdf

Michigan Law