{{featured_button_text}}

I spoke at the Columbia County Planning and Zoning Committee meeting April 3 when the proposal on conditional use permitting for pipelines was tabled. The Portage Daily Register article (April 5) reports that Enbridge spokesperson Becky Haase said the company has no plans for new development in the Line 61 corridor.

If that's true, Enbridge should have no problem publicly encouraging the committee to drop the proposal to give up the county's right to issue conditional use permits for pipelines.

But we'll be mighty surprised if they do, because there is so much evidence they are planning to build a new tar sands pipeline in the Line 61 corridor that cuts diagonally through Columbia County. They are seeking a permit to lay a new, larger replacement pipeline for Line 3, which comes from the Canadian border, through Minnesota and into Superior. They've already started building the Canadian and Wisconsin portions of that new line. If they get permission from Minnesota and complete the line, where will the additional oil go after arriving in Superior? The only credible answer is through a new Line 66 in the Line 61 corridor.

Keep reading for FREE!
Enjoy more articles by signing up or logging in. No credit card required.

The Columbia County Board should reject the proposed attack on local control.

Michelle Arnold, Rio

(0) comments

Welcome to the discussion.

We welcome reader interaction. What are your questions about this article? Do you have an idea to share? Please stick to the topic and maintain a respectful attitude toward other participants. (You can help: Use the 'Report' link to let us know of off-topic or offensive posts.)