Public Utilities Commission Continues to Downplay Line 3 Pipeline’s Threat to Clean Water

St. Paul, MN -- Today, the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission (PUC) released an updated environmental impact statement downplaying the risks of Enbridge’s proposed Line 3 pipeline to Minnesota’s water resources. 

The PUC was forced to redo its analysis following a ruling from the Minnesota Court of Appeals that rejected the PUC's approval of the project because their environmental review failed to adequately address the potential impact of a spill in the Lake Superior watershed. If built, Line 3 would cross 211 bodies of water, including lakes, wetlands, and rivers, endangering freshwater resources and the pristine lake country of northern Minnesota where Native Americans harvest wild rice and hold treaty rights.

"Even on this court-ordered third try, the PUC has produced yet another inadequate review that fails to recognize that this pipeline would pose an unacceptable risk to Minnesota's clean water and should never be built," said Sierra Club North Star Chapter Director Margaret Levin. "Now it's more important than ever that Governor Walz and the Pollution Control Agency do everything in their power to stop this dirty tar sands pipeline once and for all."   

“As before, the data shows that Line 3 would hurt Minnesotans,” said Andy Pearson, Midwest Tar Sands Coordinator at MN350. “Now we know that a spill into Little Otter Creek could travel 20 miles in just 24 hours and send over 500,000 gallons of tar sands crude in the direction of Lake Superior. We all remember the impacts of a similar spill in Michigan: over $1 billion in cleanup costs and ongoing environmental damage. In addition, Line 3 would have the climate change impact of 50 coal power plants, and when young people are striking all over the world for urgent climate action, we must not build this project that would destroy our state’s ability to meet our climate goals. The MN DOC’s longstanding position that Line 3 should not be approved because it doesn’t meet MN’s legal standards is only bolstered by this revised EIS.” 

"The revised EIS assumes that there is no significant risk to Lake Superior, because it will consider only spill sites in Minnesota and not Wisconsin, and because it will assume that the oil will spread only about 20 miles downstream.  In contrast, the Kalamazoo spill spread over 30 miles,” said Winona LaDuke, Executive Director and co-founder of Honor the Earth. “Since this process began four years ago, the tar sands oil industry has drastically crashed and more alarming climate change studies have been issued. Both of these stark realities put Minnesotans on the hook for any ruptures of the current and proposed new line, which the state's DOC originally said was not justified economically or environmentally. We need to reject this new EIS outright since it blatantly ignores the current financial viability of Enbridge and the climate threats to our lands and water which we are already experiencing here in Minnesota."