Lorraine Little of the Enbridge
Company keeps telling regulators and the public that 96 percent of
the landowners along the proposed route of the Sandpiper Bakken oil
pipeline are friendly and supportive. I don’t believe it.
That might be because of comments
submitted to the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission: Some 459
opposed the pipeline route, while 37 were proponents of the route. Of
those opponents, 387 expressed environmental concerns, 131 expressed
concerns about the tribal impact and 347 wanted an alternative route,
outside of the lakes. (Remember Rep. Rick Nolan, D-Minn., came out
opposing the pipeline a couple of weeks ago and some 20 state
representatives expressed deep concerns about the pipeline process at
the PUC.)
So, not sure how Enbridge does math,
but I learned my math differently. Let’s think about where Enbridge
might have gotten its numbers. The support might be somewhat true in
North Dakota, or at least almost, because the North Dakota Public
Service Commission has approved the route of the pipeline. This is
not surprising, for several reasons.
First, preying on elderly farmers is
always a good way to get agreements, particularly with the threat of
a lawsuit if you don’t let the company onto your land. Second,
let’s be honest, North Dakota is a state where oil revenues may
have caused policymakers to lose regulatory sanity. After all, they
are flaring off around $50 million of natural gas because it’s too
complicated to capture it. North Dakota is also where policymakers
seem to lack regulation of the millions of gallons of fracking fluid
and toxic byproducts spilling out of fracking wells and injection
wells onto the land and water, and millions of radioactive filters
left at road side.
There may be some support for
Enbridge; not sure about that 96 percent figure. Enbridge is suing
James and Krista Botsford, who own farmland in Grand Forks County,
for not giving Enbridge an easement to put its pipe across their
land. Enbridge told Botsford that its rights trump his rights. The
Botsfords have hired an attorney to defend their land and all of our
water. They’re hoping there are other landowners in North Dakota
who will join them. It turns out the Botsfords’ case affects all of
our water because property lines are not aquifer borders.
So this is what I’ve got to say to
Enbridge: “This is Minnesota, Enbridge, and we value our water more
than we value your oil.”
In Minnesota, we are not sure of the
route, nor is Enbridge. The Public Utilities Commission has discussed
that route, with the PUC looking only at routes proposed by Enbridge,
not the routes proposed by citizens groups, and in fact favored by
the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. Enbridge claims that everyone
likes the route just fine, but actually Enbridge, at every turn, has
opposed hearings, extension of public comments or presentations of
maps at the hearings by anyone but Enbridge. That’s not the
behavior of a company that has 96 percent of landowners welcoming its
pipeline.
The Coalition of Lake Associations,
all of the northern Minnesota Ojibwe tribes and thousands of citizens
have opposed the route suggested by Enbridge. In short, I’m pretty
sure that 96 percent figure is pulled out of, well, thin air. It’s
time to say something – to the PUC, to your legislators, to your
county commissioners and your township commissioners, if you don’t
want a company with 800 oil leaks to put one, maybe two or three new
pipelines across the lakes.
Enbridge had planned starting
construction by January, but it turns out not everything works out
for the company. And not everything the company says is accurate.
Love water, not oil. I think we
actually believe that in Minnesota.
LaDuke is executive director, Honor
the Earth, and an Objibwe writer and economist on Minnesota’s White
Earth Reservation.