- PUC rejects nearly $100,000 in Line 3 reimbursements sought by the Beltrami County Sheriff
- Northern Lights Task Force launches “Operation River Crossing” for Line 3
- Enbridge faces tough questioning on the need for Line 3
- U. of M. students press Regents to denounce and defund Line 3, seek public support
- Stronger Together to Stop DAPL, Line 3 event Tuesday, March 30
The Minnesota Court of Appeals Tuesday rejected an appeal by the Red Lake and White Earth nations to stop construction of Enbridge Line 3 until all the legal challenges could be heard.
While a big disappointment, Line 3 opponents still have a separate request for an injunction on construction pending in federal court.Continue reading
PUC to hear Red Lake, White Earth requests for pipeline delay on Friday
Native Nations, environmental groups, file suit today to block MPCA’s Line 3 permit
Native Americans are bearing a disproportionate burden of the coronavirus pandemic and getting inadequate government support.
It’s true nationally and in Minnesota. Here, Gov. Tim Walz’ administration has put Indigenous lives at risk by failing to delay Enbridge Line 3 construction and the pandemic risks it entails.Continue reading
CORRECTION: An earlier version of this story incorrectly stated where the motion was filed. It was filed with the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission.
In a motion filed today at the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission (PUC), the Red Lake and White Earth nations have asked for a “stay” of Enbridge Line 3 construction until the Court makes a ruling on pending legal challenges.Continue reading
The Minnesota Supreme Court today declined to review a case that could have required the state to complete a traditional cultural property survey before it could permit large construction projects such as the Enbridge Line 3 crude oil pipeline.
“We are profoundly disappointed that the Minnesota Supreme Court felt more interested in siding with the rights of a Canadian corporation to proceed with a high-risk project than protecting the rights of the Minnesota Anishinabe and indigenous people and the rights of nature,” Winona LaDuke, Co-founder and Executive Director of Honor the Earth said in a statement. Continue reading
Minnesota’s top political leaders — Gov. Tim Walz, Attorney General Keith Ellison, and U.S. senators Amy Klobuchar and Tina Smith — have failed to take a stand and show leadership opposing the proposed Enbridge Line 3 crude oil pipeline, a dangerous and unnecessary project.
Why are farm/agricusiness groups supporting the pipeline?
The proposed Enbridge Line 3 crude oil pipeline that would cross 340 miles of northern Minnesota and violate treaty rights is now tied up in legal knots, creating greater uncertainty and delays in the process.
A number of business interests are pressuring the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission to expedite a fix to problems identified by litigation. Most bizarre, farm/agribusiness groups are supporting Line 3 in spite of the pipeline’s long-term negative affects on agriculture.
The Minnesota Court of Appeals has ruled that the state’s environmental impact statement for the Enbridge Line 3 crude oil pipeline is inadequate “because it does not address the potential impact of an oil spill into the Lake Superior watershed.” It ordered the issue back before the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission (PUC) for further evaluation.
It’s only a partial win.
The Court of Appeals rejected other key arguments made by Line 3 opponents. Opponents argued the environmental impact statement had failed to adequately analyze route alternatives to Enbridge’s preferred route. They also argued the PUC shouldn’t have approved Line 3’s environmental impact statement before the “traditional cultural properties survey” was complete. (Such a survey makes sure projects such as Line 3 take into account potential damage to places of historic and cultural significance.) The court rejected both arguments.
Honor the Earth is suing to stop Enbridge Line 3 in the Minnesota Court of Appeals, saying the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission (PUC) approved the project based on a faulty and inadequate environmental impact statement (EIS).
Honor the Earth filed the legal challenge earlier this month, the first of what could be several lawsuits by various parties seeking to stop the pipeline. Honor the Earth’s lawsuit says the PUC’s decision “was contrary to law, not supported by the evidence, and arbitrary and capricious.” Continue reading
Passing along a couple of recent court victories against fossil fuel industries, their pipelines and frac sand.
MPR reported Monday that a divided Minnesota Court of Appeals upheld Winona County’s ban on frac sand mining. According to the story, “Winona County has some of the largest deposits of silica sand, which is used in the controversial technique to force oil out of the ground. … An estimated 100 tons of silica sand are needed each year to support oil drilling.”
The Dakota Access Pipeline is one example of a project that needs frac sand. Winona was the first Minnesota County to pass a countywide ban on frac sand mining.
In other news, a federal judge in Virginia revoked a natural gas pipeline permit saying the federal government had not provided adequate review of its impact on national forests, according to a July 27 story in the Washington Post. The story begins:
A panel of federal judges on Friday rescinded permits for a massive natural gas pipeline to cross the Jefferson National Forest, saying two U.S. agencies had not fully vetted the project and had simply accepted assurances from the builders.
Environmentalists called the decision a major blow against the 303-mile Mountain Valley Pipeline, which is being built from West Virginia though the rugged terrain of far Southwest Virginia. It will pass through 3.6 miles of the Jefferson National Forest along the West Virginia line in Giles County, tunneling under the Appalachian Trail.
Click on the links above for the full stories.