Enbridge’s proposal to reimburse local law enforcement for their involvement in the contentious Line 5 pipeline reroute in northern Wisconsin has stirred debate. This reimbursement plan, managed through the Wisconsin Counties Association (WCA), is set to be reviewed by the Bayfield County board, amid ongoing construction efforts on the $450 million project to divert the pipeline around the Bad River tribe’s lands.
The pipeline reroute is expected to attract protests, prompting Enbridge to offer financial support for public safety services via a WCA-managed account. Two counties have already agreed to this arrangement, but Bayfield County rejected it previously. They are now considering revised proposals. County Administrator Mark Abeles-Allison highlighted the board’s intent to thoroughly evaluate the agreement with WCA and a direct deal with Enbridge, alongside considering ordinances for a neutral recovery of unforeseen public safety expenses.
Concerns about these agreements potentially infringing on constitutional rights to due process have been raised by legal advocates. However, proponents argue that these deals help prevent taxpayer burdens from the costs associated with pipeline protests. “The county board is taking this very seriously,” Abeles-Allison stated. “They’re considering this topic from multiple angles and perspectives, county finances, support for county law enforcement, support for residents’ constitutional rights.”
Comparisons with Minnesota’s Line 3 Project
In 2021, Minnesota witnessed significant protest activity against Enbridge’s Line 3 replacement project, leading to hundreds of arrests and over 900 criminal cases. Enbridge reimbursed $8.6 million to authorities under a state-managed account for those enforcement activities, according to Grist.
Ashland and Iron counties have already entered agreements with the WCA, offering reimbursement for law enforcement aiding Enbridge’s operations. Bayfield County, however, initially declined such a deal, citing concerns over conflict of interest and transparency. Paul Eberth, Enbridge’s Midwest region operations director, clarified that the company wouldn’t directly fund law enforcement, but rather through an escrow account managed by a third party.
Bayfield County District Attorney Kim Lawton highlighted a 2019 law making trespassing on energy infrastructure a felony, with exemptions for lawful assembly and free speech. Lawton expressed concerns over the perceived conflict when law enforcement, potentially reimbursed by the company being protested, assesses the validity of First Amendment rights.
Debate on Policing and Due Process
Mara Verheyden-Hilliard, executive director of the Partnership for Civil Justice Fund, argued that such reimbursement arrangements risk distorting public policing and infringe on protesters’ constitutional rights. “These types of deals can violate the due process clause and thus be unconstitutional because it creates a distortion of public policing and an improper incentivization that also works to suppress dissent,” she stated.
Conversely, Mark O’Connell, WCA’s president, compared these agreements to standard reimbursements received during presidential campaign visits. “If those arguments were to hold true, then local law enforcement would not be able to get reimbursed for extra law enforcement or overtime or additional expenses incurred for those kinds of visits,” he argued.
Bayfield County Sheriff Tony Williams emphasized that law enforcement decisions are made based on public safety, not financial considerations. “We respond based on public safety needs, the law, and the duty to keep both the public and our personnel safe. Any suggestion that this office would alter its enforcement approach for financial reasons does not reflect how we operate,” Williams clarified in an email.
The county board will also decide on purchasing around $100,000 of protective gear in anticipation of protests. The decision includes whether to seek reimbursement from Enbridge or utilize county reserves, with Williams stressing that the focus is on deputy protection rather than increasing arrests.
Transparency Issues with WCA Agreements
Bayfield County District Attorney Kim Lawton raised concerns about the confidentiality of reimbursement requests under the WCA agreement, which could limit public access to information. The WCA is not subject to Wisconsin’s open records law, a point of contention for transparency advocates.
Mark O’Connell of the WCA explained that confidentiality aims to protect sensitive law enforcement tactics. Meanwhile, Bayfield County officials have revised agreements to ensure compliance with open records laws and affirm that they do not intend to inhibit constitutional freedoms.
Andy Phillips, an attorney for the WCA, acknowledged the complexities and potential legal challenges related to the agreements. “We don’t want counties finding themselves in a very, very difficult financial position as a result of this project,” Phillips stated, highlighting the financial constraints counties face.
