The Fight Against Line 3

January 22, 2021

The fight against Line 3 has been going on for years, but has taken a turn as Enbridge received the last permits needed to start construction late last year. They have started construction quickly because of ongoing legal disputes that could end up reversing the decision to permit construction, but they are being met by activists and tribal members who are working to halt and slow construction.  

Background

All parties involved have now accepted that the current Line 3 is unsuitable to remain in operation, even the owner of the pipeline - Enbridge. Built in the 1960s, the pipeline doesn’t meet current standards, and it threatens a disaster like 1991 Line 3 rupture where 1.7 million gallons of oil flowed into the Prairie River. Luckily, a thick ice cover prevented the spill from flowing into the Mississippi River, and a catastrophe worse than Enbridge’s 2010 Kalamazoo Oil Spill was avoided. 

However, Enbridge has claimed that the Line 3 pipeline is still necessary and that a replacement is needed even as demand for oil shrinks from a dying tar sands industry. The replacement to the existing Line 3 is in an entirely new location, and Enbridge has said they would shut down the existing Line 3 if the replacement line is finished. The new Line 3 was proposed in 2014 and met immediate opposition with calls to shut down Line 3 completely. 

If the Line 3 replacement is completed, it will double the carrying capacity of the current line by initially carrying about 760,000 barrels of crude oil per day across Northern Minnesota from Canada to Superior, Wisconsin. This expansion would be disastrous for the fight against climate change as it would add 193 million tons of CO2 into our atmosphere, which is more than the entire state of Minnesota currently emits and is equivalent to adding 50 new coal power plants or 38 million new vehicles to the road.

The pipeline would also cross over 200 bodies of water, including the Mississippi River twice. This puts watersheds and affected regions at risk during construction and at risk of spill if it is completed as Enbridge have had over 800 spills in the last 15 years. Some of these affected areas are territories where Ojibwe tribal members have protected property rights backed by treaties. The dangers of a new pipeline violates these treaties and threatens the Anishinaabeg’s culture and way of life. 

Recent Developments

Despite all of these issues with the new proposed Line 3 and fierce opposition from tribal members, environmental organizations, and committed community members, Enbridge still received the required permits to begin construction. The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency approved water quality and wetland permits to Enbridge on November 12, 2020, which resulted in most of the agency’s Environmental Justice Advisory Group resigning out of frustration over the decision. A few weeks later, the US Army Corps of Engineers approved additional permits giving Enbridge the clear to start construction on Line 3. 

These permits were issued during an ongoing legal battle over the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission’s (PUC) decision to approve the Route Permit, Certificate of Need, and Final Environmental Impact Statement in May 2020. Multiple environmental organizations and tribal bands joined the legal battle citing Covid-19 impacts, climate change, oil market collapse, and risks of spill as main concerns. Even the Minnesota government’s own Department of Commerce filed an appeal against the PUC’s decision over claims of inaccuracy in Enbridge’s oil demand forecast. 

As the legal battles loom over Line 3, Enbridge is taking advantage of their greenlight and attempting to push for quick construction, but they are being met with resistance from grassroots activists. Hundreds of protestors and Anishinaabe dancers have been gathering at Enbridge construction sites, peacefully holding space, and preventing construction from being done. Over the past few months since Enbgridge began construction, protestors have been blocking roads, locking themselves to equipment, and participating in sit ins that have sometimes lasted over a week in an effort to delay construction on Line 3.

Both the legal battles over Line 3 and the direct action at the construction sites are crucially working together to stop Line 3. The legal actions can shut down Line 3 permanently, but they need time to do so. The direct action is providing that time by successfully delaying construction while also preventing damage to wildlife and sacred sites that lie in the pipeline’s path.  

 

How you can help:

 

Written by Beto Spielvogel, Organizing Intern with the Sierra Club Wisconsin Chapter