Minnesotans like to think we are a good government state, with sunshine laws and the ability to file State Data Practices Act requests to obtain public documents.
These laws are well and good, but they don’t replace state agencies’ responsibilities to proactively publish information they know to be of broad public interest.
The Enbridge Line 3 tar sands pipeline provides a number of examples where state agencies have failed at information sharing.
The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) is ordering Enbridge to pay up to $3.3 million in mitigation, restoration and a fine for violating a Line 3 pipeline construction permit.
“Enbridge’s actions are clear violations of state law and also of public trust,” the DNR said in a statement. “This never should have happened, and we are holding the company fully accountable.”
Line 3 workers busted through an aquifer lining in a sensitive ecosystem, leading to a discharge of more than 24 million gallons of water and unknown long-term damage to the environment.
It’s $3.3 million bill to Enbridge is pathetically weak, and doesn’t represent accountability.
Enbridge’s 2010 Kalamazoo spill cost more than $1 billion to clean up. Minnesota regulators feared this could happen here. (Photo: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency)
The current Enbridge Line 3 tar sands pipeline is more that 50 year’s old. It’s badly corroded and only runs at only 50 percent capacity to reduce spill risks.
Monitoring tools inside the pipeline identify potential problems. When found, workers dig down to the pipeline, inspect it, and make repairs. This is called an “integrity dig.” Enbridge estimated the current Line 3 would need 4,000 integrity digs over 15 years for its safe operation. That’s a lot of digging.
There’s a lot more integrity problems than just one old pipeline. Our entire regulatory system has integrity problems, including its failure to stop the dangerous and unnecessary Line 3 pipeline.
Collectively, we need to dig into this corroded system, understand how it got so compromised, and fix it.
A government-Enbridge alliance is doing all it can to block Minnesota citizens from observing and critiquing the construction of Enbridge Line 3 tar sands pipeline.
Tania Aubid, Winona LaDuke, Shanai Matteson and other water protectors arrived around 7 a.m. this morning at the site where Enbridge is drilling a tunnel for Line 3 under the Willow River in Aitkin County. The water protectors found what appeared to be a “frac-out,” the release of pipeline drilling mud into the river.
The state’s response focused more on trying to intimidate the water protectors for their activism than addressing the frac-out, Matteson said.
It’s a sign of the state’s upside down values. It raises questions about the state’s ability and interest in protecting the environment for future generations and who state agencies are working for.
Enbridge new Line 3’s dewatering plan raises hard questions
The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) has approved a permit allowing Enbridge to increase its Line 3 trench dewatering by nearly ten fold, up to 5 billion gallons.
The Minnesota Chippewa Tribe has written Gov. Tim Walz requesting he tell the DNR to rescind the permit, “until such time as the Department consults with the White Earth Reservation and all other impacted tribes” as promised in Walz’s 2019 executive order.
“Time of of the essence,” wrote Catherine J. Chavers, President of the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe.
Line 3’s new dewatering permit raises many questions:
Why didn’t it trigger Gov. Tim Walz’s executive order requiring meaningful consultation with Native Nations?
Why is Enbridge requesting such a big increase in dewatering so late in construction?
Why wasn’t there more public engagement in the process?
What are the potential environmental harms from increased dewatering?
There are more than two dozen Independent Environmental Monitors spread out along the 337-mile Enbridge Line 3 pipeline corridor in northern Minnesota. They are supposed to be the eyes and ears for state regulators, making sure Enbridge is following all permits and rules and minimizing environmental damage.
Half of the 25 independent monitors hired to work on behalf of Minnesota state regulatory agencies have worked on Enbridge projects at some time in the past, according to monitor resumes obtained through a public information request.
It raises questions about how “independent” these monitors really are.
String of pipeline recently laid out west of the Gully Fen Scientific and Natural Resource Area in Polk County. (Photo: Watch the Line)
Two lawsuits are in the works to force a construction delay in the Enbridge Line 3 tar sands crude oil pipeline, which is now well underway.
The Red Lake Band and White Earth nations, the Sierra Club and Honor the Earth sued in federal court last week to delay Line 3 construction, arguing it violates treaty rights and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers granted permits in violation of environmental laws.
Later this week, Honor the Earth says it will join with Red Lake, White Earth and the Sierra Club to go to the Minnesota Court of Appeals to seek a construction delay. The influx of construction out-of-state workers threatens to spread COVID-19 in northern Minnesota, they say. And the Court of Appeals has pending lawsuits against Line 3 that still needed to be heard and decided.
Et tu, DNR? Conservation officers now part of the state’s protest push back
Seventeen water protectors were arrested today in Aitkin County and were being held in jail overnight.
They were arrested at the site where Enbridge plans to bore under the Mississippi River for its new and larger Line 3 tars sands pipeline. Also, a nearby 10-day tree sit ended today when police brought in a crane.
Wild rice is sacred food to Anishinaabe people and Minnesota’s state grain, but the state has no uniform definition of “wild rice waters.”
This creates problems when evaluating the threat to “wild rice waters” from projects such as Enbridge’s proposed Line 3 tar sands crude oil pipeline.
The proposed Line 3 route would cross 340 miles of northern Minnesota — right through the heart of wild rice country — crossing more than 200 water bodies and 75 miles of wetlands. In order to get state approvals, Enbridge needs to show it can build the pipeline through all that water and mitigate the damage to wild rice and other sensitive ecosystems.
Understanding Line 3’s threat to wild rice remains an open and troubling question. Enbridge just submitted a new application to the state for Line 3’s water crossing permit (technically called a Section 401 permit). One might think that Enbridge would want to reassure the public that wild rice would be protected under its plan. Instead, Enbridge submitted highly technical reports that make it nearly impossible for the average citizen to understand this critically important issue.