|
|
The Pipestone City Council during their April 1 meeting voted to send a letter to the Minnesota Department of Commerce expressing opposition to two pipeline routes proposed by Magellan Pipeline Company.
The route Magellan proposed in its route permit application to the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission on April 10, 2023 would put the pipeline right between New Woodlawn Cemetery and Old Woodlawn Cemetery, which Mayor Dan Delaney said during a special April 1 meeting “is unacceptable.”
“If there ever was a failure in that pipeline we could have contamination in our cemetery, and plus we would be bottlenecked where we wouldn’t be able to expand through that area,” Delaney said. “We’ve had some conversation with the landowner in that area as far as donating or purchasing that property, and that would put a stop to that.”
City council members and city staff discussed a future need to expand the cemetery during a planning session in February. Public Works Director Mike Bloemendaal said then that there wasn’t an immediate need, but that eventually the existing cemetery will run out of space.
Another route proposed by Magellan would put the pipeline just to the west of New Woodlawn Cemetery and the St. Leo Catholic Cemetery.
“Again, it bottlenecks us, it’s too close to the cemetery for contamination and so we’re not interested in that route either, and so both of those routes would be unacceptable,” Delaney said.
Delaney said two alternative routes that are further from the cemeteries “would certainly be acceptable to the city of Pipestone.” One of those routes was developed by the Mille Lacs Band of Ojibwe and the other was developed by the Upper Sioux Community.
The routes proposed by Magellan would be the shortest and least expensive at 1.34 miles and an estimated $6 million, and 3.4 miles and an estimated $8 million. The route identified by the Mille Lacs Band of Ojibwe is 13.1 miles and estimated to cost $25 million and the route identified by the Upper Sioux Community is 18.68 miles and is estimated to cost $34 million.
Delaney made it clear that he did not oppose the pipeline, just the proposed locations near the cemeteries.
“Personally, a pipeline is a good thing and I’m not against the pipeline and I don’t think the city of Pipestone should be against the pipeline,” he said. “We’re just concerned about the possible placement of it and what that’s going to do to our cemetery area.”
Other council members expressed similar opinions. Councilor Verdeen Colbeck said an alternative route that would run south and east of Pipestone would be more acceptable to him than the others because it’s further from Pipestone National Monument and the cemeteries and crosses the fewest creeks. Other council members said they did not think they should express a preference for any of the routes, but only make it clear which routes they oppose.
“I wouldn’t want to be the one saying you have to have a five-mile buffer or anything like that because, first of all, we’re not in the city limits to begin with out here and we have no business telling someone they have to go five miles out of town and go out and go on these guys’ farm fields,” said Councilor Scott Swanson. “We have no jurisdiction doing stuff like that.”
He said the city is an adjoining property owner on the two routes near the cemeteries and therefore has reason to comment on those.
During its regular April 1 meeting, the council directed city staff to submit a letter indicating the city’s position, as discussed.
