Spokane plans ‘just-in-case’ well site

More than 240 miles of pipelines carrying gas, oil and other hazardous materials run through Spokane County, many of them over the aquifer that supplies the region’s water.

The Yellowstone Pipeline, which crosses above the Spokane River twice in the city, passes within 50 feet of the city’s Parkwater well site, which was built in 1945 and provides up to 40 percent of the city’s water. The proximity of the pipe and well has concerned city officials enough to commence with plans to sink a backup well just north of Corbin Park.

“In the event we have anything happen to the ConocoPhillips pipeline, we’re in trouble,” Dan Kegley, director of the city’s water and hydroelectric services, told the city’s Public Works Committee Monday.

Brian Coddington, the city’s spokesman, said the move was precautionary.

“From the mayor’s perspective, the well is about redundancy planning,” he said. “You plan for the worst and hope for the best. This is just-in-case planning, and making sure we’re covered and have some redundancies in place, just in case.”

The Yellowstone line was approved by the City Council in 1979 to be built along the city’s streets, roads and alleys. At the time, the pipeline company agreed to pay the city $200 a year. Marlene Feist, a spokeswoman with the city’s utilities department, said it was unclear how much is currently paid by the pipeline’s owners – ConocoPhillips, ExxonMobil and Sodexo – but compensation has grown over time.

The original agreement between the city and the pipe’s original owners had a term of 25 years. It lapsed in 2004, and the city has been negotiating for a new franchise agreement since then. Since no new agreement has been finalized, the old one remains in effect, Feist said.

“The franchise is still open on that and it’s been open for a long time,” said Feist. “Initially, there were a lot of issues. They’ve narrowed the issues.”

Feist said the city and companies are meeting again next month to continue negotiations, but noted that the city is interested in expanding insurance coverage for the pipe and seeking money to help build the new well site.

“The biggest concern is insurance coverage. One of the things we can negotiate is insurance coverage,” she said. “Mitigation for a new well site is still on the table. But we’re also asking, ‘What kind of protections can you offer us? If you’re going to be here, what kind of assurances can give us that you’ll maintain your pipeline?’ ”

The proposed well will be near Faith Bible Church in the city’s Emerson-Garfield neighborhood. The city will purchase 1.67 acres for $220,000, the assessed value of the land, if the City Council approves. In all, the new well site is expected to cost about $10 million.

Kegley said the site was preferable to the other options by Audubon Park or near East Sixth Avenue and South Havana Street. The aquifer is 300 feet thick below the proposed well site near Corbin Park but just 50 feet thick near the other sites.

The Yellowstone Pipeline is one of three major pipelines that run through the region. The Chevron Pipeline carries the same hazardous fuels as the Yellowstone north of the city, and the Williams Pipeline transports natural gas.

A handful of entities regulate pipelines in Washington, primarily the state Utilities and Transportation Commission and the U.S. Department of Transportation’s Office of Pipeline Safety.

Bob Beaumier is a former assistant Spokane city attorney who worked on the Yellowstone’s franchise agreement. Currently, he serves as chairman of the state’s Citizens Committee on Pipeline Safety.

Beaumier would not speak specifically to the Yellowstone pipeline or the franchise agreement. Generally, he said, cities are limited in what they can compel companies to do with a franchise agreement.

“It’s a contract,” he said. “Both sides have to agree. Does the city have the power to persuade a company to pay for something? Do you have the power to persuade me to buy your house?”

Beaumier said he had no concerns about the lapsed agreement because federal rules regulate the pipe’s safety. He is concerned with pipeline safety overall, but urged people to consider the value of transporting hazardous material by pipe.

“Pipelines are essential. Pipelines are immensely safer than trucks or trains,” he said.

“Still, we also want to protect our aquifer. Obviously.”