Support the Timberjay by making a donation.

Serving Northern St. Louis County, Minnesota

Suit seeks review of Enbridge pipeline

Marshall Helmberger
Posted 12/19/14

SAINT PAUL – The Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy (MCEA) and Friends of the Headwaters (FOH) have jointly filed suit in Ramsey County Court asking for environmental review of a proposed …

This item is available in full to subscribers.

Please log in to continue

Log in

Suit seeks review of Enbridge pipeline

Posted

SAINT PAUL – The Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy (MCEA) and Friends of the Headwaters (FOH) have jointly filed suit in Ramsey County Court asking for environmental review of a proposed Enbridge pipeline across northern Minnesota. Together, MCEA and FOH are asking the court to order a full Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Sandpiper pipeline, which is under consideration by the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission.

The proposed Sandpiper Pipeline would stretch 300 miles across northern Minnesota from the North Dakota border to Superior, Wis. Construc-tion requires a wide right-of-way through forests, wetlands, and streams. According to opponents, the completed pipeline poses an ongoing risk of accidents and spills that could contaminate lakes, streams, wetlands, aquifers, and soil.

“We have felt from the beginning that Minnesota law requires an EIS for a project of this magnitude,” stated Richard Smith, President of the FOH. “An EIS ensures that all Minnesotans can participate in this important discussion about where and whether a pipeline should be built, and what steps may be taken to make it less risky for Minnesota’s environment,” he said.

“The lack of effective environmental review for oil pipelines has been troubling to MCEA for years. We need clarification of this statute, not only for Sandpiper, but for others to follow,” said MCEA Staff Attorney, Kathryn Hoffman. “As a state, we need to do a better job evaluating the risks of pipelines.”

The route of the Sandpiper pipeline, as proposed by Enbridge, would flow near Itasca State Park and the headwaters of the Mississippi River. Critics say that the route passes near some of Minnesota’s cleanest lakes and pristine areas of wild rice production, near sensitive aquifers, and through fragile wetlands.

Opponents noted that Enbridge just settled a lawsuit earlier this month with residents and property owners stemming from a 2010 oil spill in Michigan that dumped more than 20,000 barrels of crude oil into the Kalamazoo River. “We don’t want a repeat of the Kalamazoo oil spill in one of the most beautiful and fragile areas of Minnesota,” said Hoffman.

Enbridge has argued the 610-mile project is needed to bring growing supplies of North Dakota crude oil to refineries.

But the company’s preferred route for the pipeline has run into opposition from state officials and citizens groups.

In September, the PUC ordered the company to consider six alternate routes that would avoid many sensitive lakes, wetlands and aquifers in north-central Minnesota.

Those “system alternatives” will be evaluated as part of the certificate of need process. The commission has set public hearings across the state to begin on Jan. 5, 2015.

“We believe the route we have proposed is the best option for the state of Minnesota,” said Lorraine Little, Enbridge spokeswoman. “It is the shortest, follows existing pipelines and transmission lines, impacts fewer landowners and high-population areas.”

Minnesota Public Radio’s Dan Kraker contributed to this story.