Rivers At Risk

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41

Case Study
of the
Pigeon River
Hydrocarbon
Development
Plan IMAGE imgs/rivrisk12.gif

Awaste pit for brine, cuttings, and
drilling mud during oil exploration
in the Pigeon River Country.

(continued from previous page)
WMEAC Et Al. Vs. Natural Resources Commission
On September 17, 1976, three months after the DNR and Shell had approved the Pigeon River
Hydrocarbon Development Plan, the West Michigan Environmental Action Council (WMEAC) and eight other
conservation groups filled suit to block its implementation.
The lawsuit claimed that the agreement the DNR and Shell signed to manage the drilling was entered into
unlawfully and would lead to impairment of wildlife, a violation of the Michigan Environmental Protection
Act.
The lawsuit came as Shell was preparing to begin drilling for the first time since 1973. Abiding by the
terms of the 1976 hydrocarbon plan, Shell filed an application in January 1977 to drill 10 exploratory wells.
Public hearings were held on the application, with many citizens expressing opposition.
In March 1977, WMEAC initiated a new legal action that resulted in a flurry of court and administrative
decisions. First, the group petitioned the DNR to intervene in order to gain a contested case hearing on Shell's
application. That approach failed on May 26, 1977, when Judge Brown denied the motion.
Then, on August 24, 1977, DNR Director Howard A. Tanner notified Shell that its permit applications had
been granted. Two days later, on August 26, WMEAC filed an appeal of Mr.Tanner's order, and sought an
injunction. The state Appellate Court denied the injunction, but the three-judge panel ordered a trial on the
merits of the case to commence immediately.
The trial, which began in October 1977, did not initially go well for WMEAC. On December 5, as Shell
prepared to drill the first well in the Pigeon River Country in more than four years, Judge Brown issued an
order that dismissed the case.
WMEAC appealed the ruling the next day, only to have the state Appellate Court uphold the lower court
on December 15.
- Supreme Court Decides -
Again, WMEAC appealed. And this time the group, and its young lawyer, Roger Conner, prevailed. On
December 22, 1977, the Michigan Supreme Court granted an injunction that stopped Shell from drilling. Two
weeks later, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case.
The oral arguments in WMEAC et al. vs. Natural Resources Commission were heard on May 8, 1978. On
February 20, 1979, the justices handed down their ruling.
By a 4-3 vote, the court barred the 10 exploratory wells, determining that their completion would harm
habitat and the elk herd in the Pigeon River Country and thus would be a violation of the Michigan
Environmental Protection Act. The decision startled the oil industry and the state. But the glow from the
victory party for WMEAC and its partners turned out to be short-lived.
Shell Oil Seeks To Weaken The Law
Soon after the decision, Shell Oil turned loose its lobbying muscle and began rallying support in the
Legislature for Senate Bill 1119, which would have seriously weakened the Michigan Environmental
Protection Act.
Arguing that the Pigeon River Country lay above a domestic energy reserve worth billions of dollars, Shell
successfully linked development in Michigan to the national energy debate that had taken hold of Washington,
D.C., and the Carter Administration.
When SB1119 was introduced in April 1980, 28 of a total of 38 state senators were co-sponsors. Gov.
Milliken sought to blunt the momentum by announcing that without changes he was likely to veto the bill,
especially if it did not contain special protective measures for the Pigeon River Country. However, the
bi-partisan support for the bill was so strong that it was not clear to the environmental community whether a
veto could be sustained.
ANew Compromise Emerges
As a result, WMEAC circulated an internal memorandum that urged the environmental community to
consider negotiating a compromise. The memorandum was written by Dave Smethurst, a leader of the Pigeon
River Country Association, an influential citizens group.
"It is my judgment that unless a compromise is negotiated over Pigeon River, SB1119 will pass the
Legislature in a damaging form," Mr. Smethurst said. He proposed that the compromise plan start with the
1976 development plan, and then go further.
(continued on next page)



	Case Study of the Pigeon River Hydrocarbon Development Plan
		Awaste pit for brine, cuttings, and drilling mud during oil exploration in the Pigeon River Country.
(continued from previous page) WMEAC Et Al. Vs. Natural Resources Commission On September 17, 1976, three months after the DNR and Shell had approved the Pigeon River Hydrocarbon Development Plan, the West Michigan Environmental Action Council (WMEAC) and eight other conservation groups filled suit to block its implementation. The lawsuit claimed that the agreement the DNR and Shell signed to manage the drilling was entered into unlawfully and would lead to impairment of wildlife, a violation of the Michigan Environmental Protection Act. The lawsuit came as Shell was preparing to begin drilling for the first time since 1973. Abiding by the terms of the 1976 hydrocarbon plan, Shell filed an application in January 1977 to drill 10 exploratory wells. Public hearings were held on the application, with many citizens expressing opposition. In March 1977, WMEAC initiated a new legal action that resulted in a flurry of court and administrative decisions. First, the group petitioned the DNR to intervene in order to gain a contested case hearing on Shell's application. That approach failed on May 26, 1977, when Judge Brown denied the motion. Then, on August 24, 1977, DNR Director Howard A. Tanner notified Shell that its permit applications had been granted. Two days later, on August 26, WMEAC filed an appeal of Mr.Tanner's order, and sought an injunction. The state Appellate Court denied the injunction, but the three-judge panel ordered a trial on the merits of the case to commence immediately. The trial, which began in October 1977, did not initially go well for WMEAC. On December 5, as Shell prepared to drill the first well in the Pigeon River Country in more than four years, Judge Brown issued an order that dismissed the case. WMEAC appealed the ruling the next day, only to have the state Appellate Court uphold the lower court on December 15. - Supreme Court Decides - Again, WMEAC appealed. And this time the group, and its young lawyer, Roger Conner, prevailed. On December 22, 1977, the Michigan Supreme Court granted an injunction that stopped Shell from drilling. Two weeks later, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case. The oral arguments in WMEAC et al. vs. Natural Resources Commission were heard on May 8, 1978. On February 20, 1979, the justices handed down their ruling. By a 4-3 vote, the court barred the 10 exploratory wells, determining that their completion would harm habitat and the elk herd in the Pigeon River Country and thus would be a violation of the Michigan Environmental Protection Act. The decision startled the oil industry and the state. But the glow from the victory party for WMEAC and its partners turned out to be short-lived. Shell Oil Seeks To Weaken The Law Soon after the decision, Shell Oil turned loose its lobbying muscle and began rallying support in the Legislature for Senate Bill 1119, which would have seriously weakened the Michigan Environmental Protection Act. Arguing that the Pigeon River Country lay above a domestic energy reserve worth billions of dollars, Shell successfully linked development in Michigan to the national energy debate that had taken hold of Washington, D.C., and the Carter Administration. When SB1119 was introduced in April 1980, 28 of a total of 38 state senators were co-sponsors. Gov. Milliken sought to blunt the momentum by announcing that without changes he was likely to veto the bill, especially if it did not contain special protective measures for the Pigeon River Country. However, the bi-partisan support for the bill was so strong that it was not clear to the environmental community whether a veto could be sustained. ANew Compromise Emerges As a result, WMEAC circulated an internal memorandum that urged the environmental community to consider negotiating a compromise. The memorandum was written by Dave Smethurst, a leader of the Pigeon River Country Association, an influential citizens group. "It is my judgment that unless a compromise is negotiated over Pigeon River, SB1119 will pass the Legislature in a damaging form," Mr. Smethurst said. He proposed that the compromise plan start with the 1976 development plan, and then go further. (continued on next page)