This is a guest post by Sara Gosman, a water resources attorney for National Wildlife Federation. 

On July 25th, 2010, the Great Lakes region experienced one of the largest oil spills in Midwest history—and it was from a pipeline buried underneath the ground.

Almost two years after the spill, the pressing question is whether laws governing oil pipelines protect the Great Lakes Basin and its communities from more spills. In a legal analysis I authored with University of Michigan Law students, “After the Marshall Spill: Oil Pipelines in the Great Lakes Region,” we conclude that federal laws are inadequate, and states have not passed their own laws to fill in the gaps.

The report analyzes federal and state laws in three areas: routing of new pipelines; operation and maintenance of existing pipelines; and spill response planning and reporting.

State vs. Federal Pipeline Safety

First, we look at where oil pipelines go—the laws on routing of pipelines. We find that there is no federal review of the long-term risks associated with routing, or federal consideration of the cumulative impact of pipelines on entire watersheds such as the Great Lakes Basin. And we find that only three Great Lakes states—Michigan, Minnesota, and Illinois—regulate oil pipeline routes. Of these, only Minnesota and Illinois consider a range of environmental factors.

Second, we look at what happens when oil pipelines are in the ground—the laws on maintaining and repairing pipelines. We find that the federal risk management program for pipelines (the Integrity Management program) does not cover all environmentally sensitive areas, only those that are considered to be of “high consequence.” Our report webpage has an interesting map that shows recent spills in southeastern Michigan and the location of environmentally sensitive areas. States can only regulate the safety of intrastate oil pipelines—those pipelines that are solely within the state and do not affect interstate commerce. Only Indiana, Minnesota, and New York have programs to regulate intrastate oil pipelines, but these states have adopted the federal standards.

Third, we look at oil pipeline spills—the laws on planning for spills and reporting them if they happen. We find that federal pipeline spill response plans may not address all environmentally sensitive areas because oversight is divided between several federal agencies. Until this year, when Congress directed that spills be reported within an hour, the only specific time limit for reporting was 30 days after discovery of the spill. No Great Lakes states require spill response plans from pipeline operators. We also find that two states—Illinois and Michigan—exempt pipelines from reporting oil spills.

Throughout, we find that public involvement in federal regulation of oil pipelines is limited, as is public access to information. The situation at the state level is no better.

Improving Pipeline Regulations

Based on these findings, our report offers recommendations to improve the regulatory framework governing pipelines. For example, we suggest that:

• The framework should consider the effects of oil pipelines on the Great Lakes Basin as a whole.
• Pipeline safety regulations should protect all areas that are environmentally sensitive to oil pollution, not just high consequence areas.
• Pipeline information should be publicly available, consistent with national security interests.
• States should regulate intrastate pipelines and participate in the oversight and inspection of interstate pipelines.

There is an old adage—out of sight, out of mind. Oil pipelines are out of sight, but that doesn’t mean the risks of these pipelines should be out of mind. The best way to mind these risks is to ensure that federal and state law is fully protective of the environment and the communities that depend on it.

I want to thank the Michigan Law students who worked with me on the report and the Environmental Law and Policy Program (ELPP) at the University of Michigan Law School for its support of the research project. I moderated a panel discussion on oil pipeline safety at the Law School on April 3, 2012, which was sponsored by ELPP, the University of Michigan Environmental Law Society; and the Michigan Energy Law Association.

In light of his otherwise sensible policies to reduce our dependence on dirty energy, we are extremely disappointed in his decision to promote Keystone Lite. Several times the President has emphasized the need for a rigorous review of Keystone XL’s consequences for the environment, public health, and our economy: In January, after a failed attempt by Congress to expedite construction, he criticized Republicans for trying to prevent “a full assessment of the pipeline’s impact, especially the health and safety of the American people, as well as our environment.”  He recognizes what’s at stake, having argued that “folks all across the country aren’t going to say to themselves, ‘We’re going to take a few thousand jobs if it means our kids are potentially drinking water that would damage their health.’”

Is President Obama's pipeline policy about to take a wrong turn? (photo: Flickr/voxeros)

Three unanswered questions loom large as the President steps to the podium:

Will president Obama protect drinking water from toxic tar sands spills?

Keystone Lite extends an existing pipeline network that is already capable of carrying abundant toxic tar sands oil to Cushing for transport to Gulf coast refineries that have been upgraded to handle the heavy, dirty crude.

Cleanup crews are still working to scoop tar sands sludge off the Kalamazoo riverbed (photo: Mic Stolz)

Like the Deepwater Horizon disaster preceding it, the Kalamazoo spill showed us what happens when regulators aren’t allowed or equipped to do their jobs, and the situation is largely unchanged since then. Tthe Pipelines and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration is working on an important study on tar sands pipelines; at the very least, President Obama should ensure that no tar sands flows through Keystone Lite until the study is complete and acted upon to ensure the safety of communities, farmland and water supplies.

Will President Obama stop the bullying of American landowners?

TransCanada has constantly used thuggish tactics to seize private land from American ranchers, farmers, and other landowners along the proposed pipeline route, including lawsuits and threatening letters. Eminent domain is intended for projects that serve the public interest, but Keystone XL and Keystone Lite would only enrich foreign corporations like TransCanada at the expense of US citizens. This pipeline extends to refineries owned by the Saudis and other foreign interests, and its oil will be shipped overseas to feed global demand. And while Big Oil complains about the “glut” of oil in Cushing, if Keystone Lite is built, the only effect would be to raise prices for Midwestern consumers.

Will a foreign oil company get better treatment than Tribes?

Tribal representatives at an anti-Keystone XL protest last fall (photo: Clayton Thomas-Muller)

Fast-tracking dangerous and dirty tar sands pipelines like Keystone Lite is the wrong thing to do. If President Obama is serious about protecting our natural resources and public health, he should renew his call for a thorough review that factors in the enormous harm these pipelines would do to American interests, as well as the Canadian boreal forest and our global climate.

We need your help to stop tar sands development and protect our wildlife, health, and the global climate! Visit NWF’s Choose Your Cause to learn more.