Line 3 pipeline
[11] That multi-billion dollar project would allow Enbridge to restore their historic operating capacity and move nearly 800,000 barrels of oil per day.
[18][19] The permitting process has been more complicated in Minnesota where climate justice organizations, Native American groups, and government agencies have resisted the project.
[23] Enbridge began construction of the new Line 3 oil pipeline across northern Minnesota in December 2020, shortly after final permits were issued.
[29] Several parties, including Ojibwe tribes, environmental organizations, and the Minnesota Department of Commerce, are still appealing the project in court.
[30] The plaintiffs brought forth several challenges to the pipeline, most notably questioning whether the energy transfer company had ever proved that there would be enough continued demand for tar sands oil to justify construction of Line 3.
[31] Outside the courts, Indigenous-led groups have organized opposition to Line 3, delaying construction along the pipeline route through non-violent direct action and protest.
[32] Groups like the Giniw Collective,[33] Camp Migizi,[34] Honor the Earth,[35] and the RISE Coalition[36] staged dozens of protests attended by thousands of people in the first four months of construction.
Climate justice groups such as the North Star Chapter of the Sierra Club,[46] MN350,[47] and Honor the Earth[48] have campaigns to "Stop Line 3.
[16] In fact, a study authored by over a dozen climate justice organizations found that the greenhouse gas emissions from constructing the new Line 3 pipeline would be equivalent to building 50 new coal-fired power plants.
[51] The MN Department of Commerce under Governor Mark Dayton formally denounced the proposed Line 3 project on environmental grounds.
[55] The decision to approve the permit sends a clear message that the Walz Administration and the MPCA hold no regard for the well-being of Minnesotans or our relatives around the world, who depend on us to dramatically, rapidly, and justly transition our economies away from fossil fuels.
This is the final straw after increasing disappointment in the MPCA’s failure to build on the hard work of dedicated EJAG members over the years.
A press release cited how the pipeline would "add five times as much greenhouse gas annually as Minnesota transportation produced in total in 2016.
[65] Those treaties established reservations, as well as land use rights for Ojibwe people to hunt, fish, and harvest manoomin (wild rice) on the rest of the ceded territory.
[67] Several Ojibwe communities have said that construction of the pipeline would violate treaty rights by disrupting and threatening the resources promised to them on their ancestral land.
[67] The Environmental Impact Statement acknowledges that construction of Line 3 would disrupt Native historic and cultural sites such as burial grounds.
[72] In August 2018, the Fond du Lac band signed a right-of-way agreement with Enbridge, allowing the company to route the pipeline through their reservation.
[79] They demanded an end to the Line 3 project citing, among other things, “the direct link between the fossil fuel industry and Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Relatives.”[80] The Environmental Impact Statement on Line 3 acknowledges that connection as well, saying “The addition of a temporary, cash-rich workforce increases the likelihood that sex trafficking or sexual abuse will occur.”[81] Under the EIS, Enbridge was required to prepare a Human Trafficking Prevention Plan for the project.
[90] Many landowners along the old route worry that they will bear the financial burden for the decommissioned pipe, either through costs of cleanup, removal, or lost property value.
A large study published by the University of Minnesota Duluth in 2017 claimed that the Line 3 Replacement Project would create thousands of jobs.
[94] While there might not be significant long term job creation, supporters assert that even some temporary employment would be a key source of income for numerous families in Minnesota.
[98] Those opposed to the pipeline are unconvinced about the promise of that revenue,[99] however, citing lawsuits in which Enbridge claimed that they had been overtaxed, and left counties across Minnesota in debt for tens of millions of dollars.
[4] The group Minnesotans for Line 3 says that by approving the pipeline, government regulators could ensure safer transport of millions of barrels of oil a year.
[107] The Minnesota Department of Commerce, in their testimony against Line 3, questioned these projections, claiming they fail to consider a variety of possible future demands for oil.
