In the final weeks of his term in office, Gov. Mark Dayton took a stand against approving the Enbridge Line crude oil pipeline. The project threatens clean waters (think Mississippi River and wild rice beds), breaks treaty rights, and generates climate damage equivalent to 50 coal power plants.
Dayton sat on the sidelines of the debate for a long time. But in the end, he supported the Minnesota Department of Commerce’s appeal to the Minnesota Court of Appeals to overturn Line 3’s approval. (See MPR story: Minnesota governor’s administration files Line 3 appeal.)
“I strongly support my Commerce Department’s appeal of the Public Utilities Commission’s Order,” Dayton said in a statement. “Enbridge failed to provide a future demand forecast for its product, which is required by state law. Instead, the company presented its analysis of the future oil supply from Canadian tar sands extractions.”
Gov. Walz. a Camp Wellstone graduate, has taken his spot on the sidelines, going squishy on this critical issue. Walz is undecided on whether to support the lawsuit begun under the Dayton administration. (See MinnPost story: Walz Administration Reconsidering Lawsuit Against Enbridge Pipeline Project.)
He needs to here from constituents. Here’s how.
MN350’s Andy Pearson put together following ask:
- CALL: 651-201-3400 (the governor’s comment line) and leave a message: Tell Gov. Walz “The Department of Commerce’s lawsuit against the Line 3 tar sands crude oil pipeline lawsuit must be allowed to proceed.”
- TWEET: @GovTimWalz and @LtGovFlanagan, saying that the DOC lawsuit against Line 3 must move forward: sample tweets here, here, and here.
Additional talking points for calls/tweets:
- The Department of Commerce’s appeal is based on state law and sound science.
- If Gov. Walz cares about the facts, he will keep the appeal.
- The rich case record shows that Enbridge did not properly justify Line 3, and that the pipeline would harm Minnesotans more than it would help them.
- The Line 3 pipeline situation raises questions that are best answered by the courts — let the appeal play out there.
Note: An earlier version of this blog incorrectly stated that Dayton had not taken a position on the Enbridge Line 3 pipeline.