3. State agencies made flawed approvals of Enbridge’s Line 3 pipeline

Photo by Fibonacci Blue (flickr) via Creative Commons

Problems: At every major turn in the Line 3 environmental review process, the regulatory system seemed to favor the polluter over the public. The project went against state pipeline routing rules that said they should avoid wetlands and areas with high water tables. (The new Line 3 runs 337 miles across northern Minnesota, crossing more than 200 water bodies and 78 miles of wetlands.) The Line 3 environmental impact statement was flawed, lacking the specific information needed for the required cost-benefit analysis. Regulators saw benefits as concrete and costs as abstract. Decisions went against state policy, such as the goal to reduce fossil fuel use. The project violated Treaty Rights. Line 3 construction resulted in predictable environmental damage, including multiple artesian aquifer breaches.

Regulatory failures: The Public Utilities Commission approved a system of “independent” environmental monitors (IEMs) to do on-the-ground monitoring for state regulators during construction. Enbridge reimbursed state agencies for their salaries. However, Enbridge got to hire and train the IEMs, bringing into question their independence. Efforts to identify hydrological problems were either not done, or weren’t thorough. The Department of Natural Resources (DNR) failed to require detailed information on sheet pilings, which were driven deep into the ground to block groundwater flow and keep trenches dry enough to work. The sheet pilings were responsible for the aquifer breaches. An independent citizen’s group, Waadoodawaad Amikwag, continues to monitor the Line 3 corridor. It has been finding environmental damage caused by Line 3 construction that state regulators have either missed or ignored.

Aquifer breach next to the Fond du Lac Reservation in St. Louis County. The breach released a minimum of 263 million gallons of groundwater. In this location, Line 3 ran through a swamp-shrub carr wetland. The pipeline was installed in the winter. Image: Enbridge report to the DNR.

Weak excuses: In approving Line 3’s water crossing permit, the DNR wrote that Enbridge doesn’t have to follow the pipeline routing rules “if it is not feasible and prudent.” It begs the question: feasible and prudent for whom? The DNR’s order doesn’t say. The clear answer is that it was not feasible and prudent for Enbridge. (The company used that same language in its permit application.) The DNR should do what is feasible and prudent for the public, not a multinational corporation.

Links: 

• Minnesota Environmental Project: Understanding the Line 3 Aquifer Breach and Spills

• Stop Line 3 Fact Sheets

• Overview of Damages — Waadookawaad Amikwag

• DNR Line 3 page

• NTSB report on Enbridge’s Kalamazoo spill

• Minnesota Dept. of Commerce: Enbridge Line 3 documents and timeline

• MPCA: Minnesota enforcement action

• Healing Minnesota Stories blog posts

• Like the old Line 3 pipeline, Minnesota’s regulatory system is corroded and compromised

• Revisiting the PUC’s tortured logic to approve Line 3 regardless of treaty rights violations

• Legislative Auditor Report: PUC has done “poor job” in public engagement

• Enbridge Line 3’s aquifer breaches: A summary

• Information once on the MPCA website has been taken down