By Dave Fidlin
Correspondent
The City of Whitewater is the latest governing entity to go on record and request additional information about a proposed tar sand oil pipeline expansion. While the infrastructure is not expected to run through the city, it would graze its municipal boundaries.
Council member Sarah Bregant had suggested the city go on record and ask the state Department of Natural Resources to conduct an environmental impact study of the pipeline expansion. Canada-based Enbridge Energy owns the infrastructure.
Supervisors in Dane, Jefferson and Walworth counties have already gone on record and made a similar of the DNR.
Bregant presented her elected colleagues with a proposed resolution at a Common Council meeting Oct. 21. The document passed on a 4-1 vote. Council member Phil Frawley abstained from voting because he owns an oil company, and council member Lynn Binnie was unable to attend the meeting.
“While it doesn’t directly affect the City of Whitewater, some of the pipelines and the expansion projects by Enbridge do come up right outside the city,” Bregant said. “I think this might be appropriate for us to consider.”
The Enbridge pipeline in question, known more technically as Line 61, runs from Wisconsin’s northwestern corner to northern Illinois. Locally, the pipeline enters Jefferson County near Waterloo and heads south as it crosses under the Rock River, just outside Fort Atkinson and Lake Koshkonong.
Enbridge also runs two additional lines, one on the eastern end of Rock County, near Whitewater, and the other through western Walworth County.
The council was overwhelmingly supportive of going on record and requesting more information be furnished about the pipeline expansion. But there was some dissention within the elected body.
Council member Stephanie Abbott said she could not support the resolution because it specifically named a private company.
“I’m not sure if I have enough expertise to condemn this company,” Abbott said. “I don’t think Enbridge has been secretive in this process.”
But Bregant said the resolution she was presenting to the council was about the issue itself — not Enbridge.
“We’re not trying to slam Enbridge,” Bregant said. “This is more of a disclosure issue. We want more information.”
Prior to taking action, the council heard from several speakers, many residents, who had similar concerns about the expansion and what impact it would have on Whitewater if a spill were ever to occur.
From a practical standpoint, resident James Hartwig suggested the council ask for the additional information because the city would likely need to allocate resources if an unfortunate event, such as a spill, were to occur.
“We’re the ones who will suffer the consequences … if something were to happen,” Hartwig said. He described it as a health and safety issue.
Steve Roalstad, a community relations consultant with Enbridge, was on hand at last week’s meeting and addressed the council.
“Enbridge, like you, is very concerned with pipeline safety,” Roalstad said. “It has invested, over the past four years, over $4 billion in technology, tools and the training necessary to elevate performance and safety to all-new highs.”
