1/21/22 One-Year Anniversary Update of Enbridge’s Rupture of the Clearbrook Aquifer
As Water Protectors gather for the 1-year Anniversary of Enbridge’s Rupture of the Clearbrook Aquifer ~ 1/21/22 1300 hrs 19°F 24 mph winds ~ we see a rapid clearing of the worksite.
Much of the infrastructure has been pulled, from hoses to the grout building, along with the grout silo trailer, though this 1/21/22 video could not confirm if the drill rig had been removed (both silo and rig were visible on-site 1/20/22).
Much of the work appears to be pulling up timber matting (frozen to the ground, so no easy task), coiling up hoses, and loading contaminated soil for off-site disposal. There was a set of three dump trucks pulling loads of contaminated soil from the work site in two instances during a visit of about an hour on a very blustery Friday afternoon.
The most concerning aspect of this video was the grey discoloration in the area of the dewatering stations on the northwest corner of the worksite that seemed to indicate the settling and other processing, including the dewatering stations, were not filtering this fine contaminant from the water that has infiltrated back into the landscape. There has been no reporting from the state agencies on any monitoring done or results determined at this clean-up site.
1/20/22 Possible grout contamination from the work site leaching into the landscape? Image Courtesy of Honor The Earth
As we were wrapping up the gathering, we got a little entertainment from the Precision Pipeline Dump Truck who came in a bit too hot to the Aquifer Breach worksite.
Check out the previous video focused on the Dump Truck that blockaded the Access Road ~ and the Rapid Response Art Team that had a ready banner!! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=77z7Jm3uBek
This past week sure has been a long, fun, crazy week of planning and preparing, learning and loving, understanding and sharing… as we approached the one-year anniversary of the day Enbridge ruptured the Clearbrook Aquifer adjacent to their Terminal Tank Yard.
Hands and hearts working together in the public, as the State continues to ignore, oppress, and gaslight those of us working to protect Sacred Water, Nibi, the Source of all Life.
Ignoring the Public
We know the Agencies are ignoring us as we’ve been working to wake them up to Enbridge’s lies, dangers, and destruction for almost a decade now. And yet, Line 93, Enbridge’s Relocation and Expansion Pipeline, has been built and flowing Tar Sands through my back yard since October. Meanwhile, Enbridge’s reporting to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission shows their imports to the Mainline System ARE ON THE DECLINE!
Mainline System Imports vs. Capacity Q1-2004 through Q3-2021 Why is capacity going up… while imports are on the decline!
So WHY did we need to cull our water-holding, oxygen-giving forests? WHY risk our water-filtering wetlands and rivers, if the declining fossil fuel extraction could have been served with EXISTING infrastructure… WITHOUT DISTURBING and DESECRATING the NATURAL INFRASTRUCTURE – on which all life depends?
It seems humans are so intent on their own wishes, they forget that ALL of those wishes are only fulfilled by a robust and healthy biodiverse environment.
Oppressing the Public
While we found solidarity in our work this week, none seemed possible with the Agencies who continue to conceal the damages done by Enbridge across our state, all while not monitoring the ongoing concerns.
The Twin Cities Breach-iversary event Friday ~ planned for the front walk of the DNR Office Building in St. Paul where previous Press Conferences have been carried out in the past ~ found Water Protectors instead pushed to the street!
DNR Security harassed people about parking… in a parking lot that was perhaps 15% full! They would not allow us to be on the sidewalk in front of the DNR building!! Instead, they PUSHED the group to the public sidewalk by busy Lafayette Road!
Why this continued HARASSMENT of Water Protectors by DNR Officials???
I suspect it is because the DNR is telling us that We Are NOT WELCOME and WILL NOT BE HEARD.
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources why do you discriminate? What did you base your decision on today—which press conference can stand at our DNR doorway and which one gets pushed to the sidewalk? We are literally trying to work with you to protect our water (train us to be monitors!) but you “greeted” us with security hassles while parking and then told us we could not stand at our state agency. Next you’ll be arresting us for standing peacefully, exercising our first amendment rights. Oh wait! You’ve already done that to me and many others! I used to be so proud of you, DNR, and had dreams of working for you but honestly, I don’t know who you are and what your purpose is anymore. Well, other than to protect the interests of foreign corporations. I know there are good folks that do good work for the DNR but it appears you are being suppressed. Please, I beg of you (I’ve been known to get down on my hands and knees!) it’s time to blow the whistle! There are millions of Minnesotans who will support you! First photo is Stop PolyMet press conference I was honored to attend in 2018. Second photo is from today.”
I commented:
Thank you for speaking to the oppression citizens are seeing by the Minnesota DNR. Most wouldn’t believe our stories of the DNR but we all know we’ve seen a lot of gaslighting of citizens and refusals to meet with us, or even to respond to our inquiries. I imagine there are many employees whose hearts are with us… even if their job restrictions don’t allow them to stand with us in public in front of their employer. We all know the Mark Toso v. MPCA cases could be far more common. We’ve seen the process. We’ve watched the hearings, read the documents, heard the stories, had the quiet conversations. The people will stand for protection of all life. We pray for everyone to join us in this work, whether agency employed or not. Because it’s clear the process is broken. When a foreign multinational can destroy our lands without any way for us to stop them… or even slow them down… let alone hold them accountable… for the unfixable, it’s clear the people take second place to corporations ruining our landscape and poisoning our water, one project at a time.”
At least there was a quick chance for a Photo Op at the DNR Entrance… Photo courtesy of Honor the Earth
Gaslighting the Public
And, yes, they are gaslighting us as well.
On Thursday afternoon, the DNR held their first 2022 Commissioner’s Office Hours event – focused on 2022 Legislative priorities. I asked my questions and, when I finished, Gail Nosek, Communications Director of the DNR said this:
Thank you for the questions and comments, Jami. I do want to make sure to remind people that we understand there is a lot of passion around these issues, but these are meant to be respectful conversations as well.”
Gail Nosek – implying I’d been disrespectful!?!?! …without any evidence provided to back that up?
I’d ask you, WHERE EXACTLY was I disrespectful??? Here’s what I said (including the MANY corrections to their meeting transcript capture below. My actual wordsare in non-italics amidst their often incomplete and stricken inaccuracies. Interesting to note that, for as many interactions as they have with them, the transcriber simply CANNOT SEEM to capture the word “Enbridge”… not ONE single time! 🧐 I highlighted the most interesting of their misquotes…):
I took a look at the DNR proposals for funding and noted that it appears the lion’s share of the focus is on anthropogenic purposes like trails through the wilderness and economic management of selling off our natural resources as opposed toinstead of protecting them and the rich biodiversity on which we all depend. We watched as the DNR has done a miserable job of monitoring the line three project that tore through our state at a breakneck pace resultingresulted in a flurry of environmental damages throughout the new corridor that still await re-meditation. They’veWhile Enbridge has been pumping oil since October, we see just this morning toa report that they finally managed to stop the flow at the Clearbrook Aquifer Breach which they created by willfully violating the DNR’s lo-res Low Risk Construction Permit. It is obvious from the re-meditation order details that theythe DNR failed to manage the monitoringthe process to detect this egregious violation, in part because Enbridge failed to report it for, really clearly, for almost six months. And it appears we need to address the permanentPermitting activity for which we give the DNR authority. I would ask, where were the on-site DNR officials during the obvious permit violations and environmental concerns, why did the egregious violation of the construction permit not result in a stoppage of work until the aquifer was repaired, instead they wereEnbridge was focused on completing their pipeline, allowing the uncontrolled flow of the aquifer throughout the last year, and the DNR allowed them to do so. I would ask, what it is exactly that would’ve called for a stoppage of the project if not violations of the permit. It isIs the agency to fill ustoothless with regard to protecting our natural resources from bad acting applicants willfully desecrating our land? Will the DNR be seeking legislation that allows more authority as we look to reduce the environmental impacts of humans or will you continue to look at what appears to be a techCheck-box approach, allowing our state to be destroyed one project at a time? It seems the agency lacks technical capacity to determine that the engineering data and bridge Enbridge provided did not accurately account for the geology and the topography of our landscape, which was truly the worst place for our a Tar Sands pipeline. IfSo can you could speak to the funding around the permitting work and I just close with this. I It would’ve really to me seemed— it would’ve been a better use for DNR commission Conservation officers andin deploying them along the project route with unannounced monitoring visits to determine what exactly was happening andin our environment instead of what they mostly spent their time doing, which was banging heads of citizens to quell the public outcry to this destructive project. Which we know is not needed as we’ve seen in thisa decrease in imports fortheEnbridge’s mainline system. So please let me know, what are you doing to assure that you have the technical expertise to complete the projects that we need done in a way that doesn’t damage our landscape, but instead protects the things that are important to life.
My comments to the DNR during the January 20th Commissioner’s Office Hours event
While I asked Gail, both publicly and privately for an explanation in the chat, she gave me NO RESPONSE WHATSOEVER. THIS is how the DNR treats ENGAGING CITIZENS. They IGNORE us, OPPRESS us, and/or GASLIGHT us.
Later in the meeting, another citizen asked (again, with corrections to the DNR’s transcript, and a key concern noted early on…):
I actually wrote my comments in the chat. It seems to me that the DNR [Perhaps THIS RIGHT HERE – inaccurate listening and transcribing – is one of the problems???]isn’tIS engaged in promoting recreation by building more and more trails inon public lands. Motorized recreation exasperates climate change in a number of ways by burning fossil fuels, but also by requiring bigger vehicles, trucks, SUVs to pull trailers, that consume fossil fuels at a higher level, to pull these trailers of ATVs and snowmobiles to their recreation destinations. I’m wondering how does the DNR — square their development and it’s engagement in the development of more and more OHV trails with its responsibility trying to mitigate climate change impacts andon all the natural resources… and so forth. I wasI’m still having trouble seeing the DNR doing those, things that are really in conflict with one another. That is my question. Thank you.
Don Pietrick’s OHV (Off-Highway Vehicles) Question at January 2022 DNR Office Hours event
Gail had NO Criticism for Don being disrespectful… though perhaps it’s because she was confused trying to hear him… even though his question had already been posted in the chat… TWICE!?! [Which he mentioned as he began speaking… meaning she could have simply read along, as some of us did to understand Don’s question? Alas, she could not.] But HEY! At least the Chat was PUBLICLY TRANSPARENT!! That’s a change I often requested in complaints to the DNR in 2020 & 2021 regarding their continued apparent unwillingness to have publicly visible comments between attendees at these events. Just giving them clues on how to TRULY Engage the Public!! 😀 [One small change I was able to help bring about… only took a couple years, eh? Though we’ll see if they continue this practice in February? We now know that they can!! So if they don’t continue this bit of transparency, it will be just one more nail in the coffin labeled “The DNR Just Doesn’t Want Public Engagement”?] Here are a couple of the great public chat comments:
Public Chat is NOW AVAILABLE in the DNR Office Hours events!
Perhaps most concerning is, for those hard of hearing or reading the transcript after the fact, the real question Don asked is HIDDEN by DNR’s verbiage. Their transcript 1) implied DNR is NOT making more trails, 2) minimized the impacts Don shared about trailering and increased fossil fuel use, and finally 3) obfuscated Don’s main focus of SQUARING the DNR’s heavy OHV focus with their proposed mission of mitigating climate change. Though, reading this sentence – as DNR captured it – may be telling: “I’m wondering how does the DNR — trying to mitigate climate change impacts and all the natural resources.” Yeah, they do seem, Don, to be “mitigating… ALL the natural resources” …and by that, I mean all these appropriate synonyms: reducing, diminishing, weakening, and, most often… deadening our natural resources.
MinnPost had a good piece on these concerns Friday as well, noting: “Sustainable environmental policy needs more holistic oversight and that is limited in this state.”
Peter closes with a strong argument and a few great suggestions:
The state should have a high-level group for strategic thinking on sustainable environmental policy options, but then decisions on priorities need to be refined by preferences elicited across all the important stakeholders including the tribal nations. There will undoubtedly be urgency and political pressures to act as more funds flow so it will be impractical to ask everybody about options all the time. Community leaders will be important. Increasingly, though, we should involve the power of the internet, big data and crowdsourcing in informing decisions. To deliver for the economy, environment and people taking account of the present and future generations needs a holistic approach. Balancing the inevitable trade-offs in a way that is transparent and sensitive to public preferences is the challenge. The state has a way to go in delivering on this.
I’d agree on the Minnesota Agencies’ LONG WAY TO GO in Transparency, for sure… as well as their inability to be sensitive to public preferences… though I might take friendly disagreement with his earlier statement on technical expertise. While technical experts may exist in our agencies, it seems they lack the capacity to piece through the misinformation and deceptions presented by Engineers representing Applicants. This might be no more clear than in the Enbridge Aquifer Breach at Clearbrook.
The DNR was unable to detect the inaccurate information presented in applications by Enbridge’s engineers, which drove them to allow Enbridge a “Low Risk Construction Permit” at this location. A huge mistake as the site of the breached aquifer is quite close to two Calcarious Fens, which are specially protected entities. It’s hard to comprehend, as the state geologists and hydrologists should surely have been able to understand that this area – an old washout of a long ago river – would be full of irregular geology that might cause problems in trenching?
OUR experts could see the issues. And we testified about the problems of putting a new tar sands pipeline through this area of our state, giving proposed alternative routes, and begging for agency officials to COME SEE THIS LAND with their OWN EYES… all to no avail. And, in the end, the DNR obviously lacked the necessary technical resources to properly and/or completely READ THE MONITORING REPORTS and determine that something was amiss and more urgent attention was clearly needed at the work site… for over 5 months!
Perhaps Gail’s comment on my being “disrespectful” was because she didn’t like the FACTS that I was disclosing about the DNR? 🧐
All this said, it does seem the tide is turning.
The people continue to speak… even when they are PUSHED from the Public Right-of-Way.
We continue to make valid points and ask concerning questions that the Agencies CONTINUE TO IGNORE and NOT ANSWER.
Yet we persist. Even with all the gaslighting techniques employed by the DNR.
It’s time for Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison to FOLLOW THIS LEAD, writing an amicus brief to all Law Enforcement Agencies that banged heads for Enbridge along the corridor – arresting PEACEFUL CITIZENS and Tribal Members ON THEIR OWN LAND – as Jaci mentioned at the start of this blog. He must insist that they DROP THE CHARGES!
The counties were reimbursed by Enbridge to the tune of almost $5M – with more filings expected so likely to be higher still? – for their LE officers “trouble” in harassing citizens on Enbridge’s behalf. But Enbridge’s escrow account manager refuses to FINANCE the prosecutions… as they are outside the allowed reimbursables. Just another way Enbridge creates more costs and cleanup for local people as it leaves their environment and communities in disarray.
It is ridiculous to me that Water Protectors, standing for us all, face criminal charges and fines geared to disable them in major ways… while the real criminal, Enbridge, gets to continue hiding it’s damages, paying pittances of fines, and facing no criminal charges for poisoning our air, land, and water.
Still, we have pending suits remaining against the project. (Why is Biden’s Court taking OH SO LONG to rule on filings made 12/24/20 and 1/24/21? And WHY did they refuse to even HEAR the case where Tribes asked for an injunction on the Line 3 project?) Seems so many agencies, courts, and officials have colluded to keep this project from stopping… while ignoring the obvious science, climate chaos, and voices speaking in opposition.
To close, here’s a little Fun Stuff from the Clearbrook Breach-iversary event! It seems perhaps Enbridge is ready to get involved with us!?!? 🧐
How screwed up is a species that allows the destruction of forests and water bodies for the creation of a tar sands pipeline? So screwed up they’ll also allow the destruction of the Boundary Waters for a nickel or copper mine? And so addicted to oil they will allow a CO2 pipeline, full of gas that can kill in minutes, to be built… only so ‘enhanced oil recovery’ can continue… thus further poisoning the atmosphere with carbon?
All this with no accountability for cleaning up our messes?
Interior’s analysis found there are more than 130,000 documented orphaned wells in the United States — far more than the 56,600 tallied in a report by the Interstate Oil & Gas Compact Commission in 2019. Many more wells exist that were drilled before regulators began requiring documentation in the mid-1900s.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency estimates that there are more than 3 million total abandoned oil and gas wells. About 2 million of those are estimated to be very old and never properly plugged. The agency believes such wells are responsible for most of the methane emitted from abandoned wells.
When will enough be enough? When we obliterate the very sources of life itself? Clean land, air, and water? When the last fish has been eaten? The last tree culled?
This is how screwed up: Around the world, humans are struggling to survive raging wild fires, flooding, tornados, ice storms… and all these in unexpected places and/ot during atypical times.. Yet, as our systems are failing, we continue… business as usual.
But there is a better way.
The aquifer breach Enbridge created almost a year ago now, is a calamity that should never have happened. Had there been proper oversight by the state agencies, the many problems created in our lands during the building of Enbridge’s new Line 3 might never have occurred. (Enbridge named this new pipeline “Line 93”.)
If agencies had bothered listening to those of us warning of the dangers, especially of believing Enbridge lies, perhaps they would have denied this project and our trees would still be standing.
Or, if the DNR hadn’t given Enbridge the benefit of the doubt, trusted them to be forthcoming, trusted their “independent” environmental monitors (almost half of whom are previous Enbridge employees!?!?!) to be unbiased observers. If they’d visited the work sites more or even simply bothered to READ the reports on the project, we might have avoided these issues? Had they bothered to look at this land, and realize this is no place for a tar sands pipeline from the beginning, we would not have drilling mud embedded at so many rivers across Minnesota and ww could have avoided this year of dewatering at this aquifer breach in Clearwater County. So many failures of the DNR.
Perhaps their mission should have been a red flag? With its focus on “commercial use” of our land, air, and waters, perhaps they for the part that says, “in a way that creates a sustainable quality of life”? As we hear often, and seems more evident every day, it’s all about the Benjamins?
The mission of the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) is to work with Minnesotans to conserve and manage the state’s natural resources, to provide outdoor recreation opportunities, and to provide for commercial uses of natural resources in a way that creates a sustainable quality of life.
[This soooo reminds me of that question I asked DNR Commissioner Sarah Strommen back in 2019 around what her department does besides simply keep an account of who is buying all our natural resources.]
As the DNR protocols to evaluate projects showed a failure to fact check the inputs by Enbridge, which might have saved so much, had it been done. DNR has not been cautious. They have seemingly colluded with Enbridge to allow continued construction… even when it was discovered Enbridge had completely violated their construction permit. And failed to report it for months!
So what can they do now? The DNR can come clean on why they allowed such egregious violations to go without repercussions to the applicant. They can open their processes to public scrutiny and engage with Native and scientific voices to assure our natural resources are protected, not just sold off to the most readily available bidders.
It’s time. If ever there was a time for action, it is now. As we are observing the exponential changes in weather, climate, and risks… all of which mean more losses and more costs with a business as usual approach.
Let’s change the systems that currently decide our future. The lawsuit filed by Mark Toso against the MPCA gives hope that some from our Agencies are courageous enough to challenge the current culture.
Let’s hold them accountable and assure this kind of atrocity NEVER HAPPENS AGAIN.
When we’re buried together in the rubble of the apartment building, does it matter what news sites we watch? Or is the hand you can reach a comfort regardless?
When we carry buckets in the fire brigade, does it matter if you are ‘red’ or ‘blue’? Or will I, regardless, take the bucket from you?
When we’re filing sandbags to prepare for rising waters, will I care if you read Marx or O’Reilly? Or will I be happy to fill your bag… nonetheless?
When we’re sharing the soup made by many hands, will I fill only the bowls of those who look like me? Or will I feed everyone regardless?
When we search for children’s bodies after the shooting at the high school, will I gather only the Republican or Democrat bodies? Or will I rescue any child I can… regardless?
When we recognize the humanity in each other, we find connection.
And when we don’t? Well, we see what we’re seeing in ‘Murica now. Continued division, collusion with corporations, and ignoring the voices of those suffering most… our children.
Kate Kahlert Supervising Attorney Minnesota Public Utilities Commission 121 7th Place E, Suite 350 St. Paul, Minnesota 55101-2147
RE: Minnesota Public Utilities Commission to Amend Rules Governing Certificates of Need and Site Permits for Large Electric Power Plans and High Voltage Transmission Line, and Notice Plan Filing Requirements
Dear Ms. Kahlert,
While I spoke at the ALJ Hearing, I am submitting my comments with additional concerns I witnessed during the Hearing. The irony of this Hearing being a microcosm of the failures we’ve experienced as “the public” with the PUC was not lost on me. And I am hopeful, after reading this, it will not be lost on you.
As a wheelchair user, I would hope that Judge Kimberly Middendorf would be better suited than most to understand the limitations that our systems create for some, and not others. Our systems are primarily designed for those who are white, housed, educated, and male… not those who are blind, deaf, or without good access to food, mobility, or medical care. Surely she sees more clearly than most, the changes happening? With more access being available today for those, not only in wheelchairs, but also those with other conditions of limitation in this system as it exists? Though injustice continues to abound.
What we need now is a focus on allowing those who are impacted to be able to speak to the things impacting them, which has been lacking for a plethora of reasons, notably, poor communications and practices by our State Agencies and Commissions, and a focused effort, it seems, on not including the voices of citizens.
Just as the State is providing more access to those who’ve been ignored in our day-to-day lives, we Climate Justice Advocates are seeking equal participation in the processes and policy-making as that given to Applicants and others, who find a much friendlier welcome by not only the Public Utilities Committee, but State Agencies across the board.
How many are surprised by the horrific results we’re seeing with water quality degradation, land-use favoring white and privileged places, and an inability to be prepared for the weather chaos – a result of the changes we’re making, often and usually, with regard to energy production?
In the ALJ Hearing, there were three objectives: • Does PUC have legal authority? • Has PUC fulfilled all relevant legal and procedural requirements? • Has NEED FOR and REASONABLENESS been assured?
I’d answer that they have usurped their legal authority by not including voices they are required to hear, namely the voices from the Tribes of Minnesota. Perhaps the laws are written for them to proceed in all other veins, but this one, they cannot pretend they have heeded legally. And with regard to Need, we might consider the health of the planet as a Reasonable thing to protect? You know, since our very lives depend upon it? Just a thought…
During the ALJ Hearing, Susan Gretz noted, “We had many commenters express concern about the rules not addressing Climate Change, Greenhouse gasses, and environmental justice. The Briefing Papers recommend to the Commissioners, and again, they are the decision-makers, that the rules explicitly require consideration of these factors in several different places. So that is Staff’s recommendation to the Commission.”
She continued, “We also received many comments that the rules do not properly reflect tribal sovereignty and the need to consult with Tribes on these projects. Staff is also recommending in the briefing papers that the Commission be required to maintain a separate list of the eleven federally recognized Tribes … the purpose of this list is to provide notice of applications and to require the Commission to engage with Tribal governments in accordance with its Tribal Engagement and Consultation Policy.”
I’d ask: If the Commissioners haven’t adhered to date… and they have been asked to do so, including in their own policies, then WHY SHOULD WE BELIEVE they will do it if asked again? If having a policy that requires it allows the Commission to IGNORE SAID POLICY, then why should the public have any trust that this quasi-judicial body will be ADHERING to any NEW policy moving forward?
I’d further ask if this is something the Commission is being advised to do NEXT TIME??? Or are they being asked to revisit this decision itself? Are they just going to run with their near decade of work on this and pretend to include some indication of where they felt they DID engage with the Tribes and simply MOVE FORWARD? Or will the process be STOPPED and RE-DONE to INCLUDE the Tribal voice – as required by law and policy?
I ask because this is something we’ve seen over and over in the Line 3 opposition. We ask for consideration and the MPCA, DNR, USACE all say some form of: ‘Ah, Thanks for letting us know you’re interested! Next Time We WILL Consult with you! Pinky Promise!!’
WHY SHOULD WE TRUST THAT ANYTHING WE SAY WILL HAVE ANY INFLUENCE?
Why should we trust that we will be given even an appearance of consideration?
Yet, still, I write to you today. Because what else can I do?
We’d like to see changes made with public engagement in our civic processes, a situation which has, via my experience in Minnesota, proven to be DIFFICULT, even in the best of circumstances.
Your own presentation of the Rulemaking Advisory Committee – a point of contention mentioned in many of the public comments shared at the December 6th Hearing – shows no Tribal representation and including mostly monied orgs and those hoping to profit from said rule changes:
Look who is MISSING on the Public Utilities Commission Rulemaking Advisory Committee… and who is included.
WHERE IS THE PUBLIC??? Where are Minnesota SCIENTISTS?
And most especially, where are the Tribes whose land upon which Minnesota was founded? They were Excluded from Participation. Never even notified?
The shame of our injustice toward Anishinaabeg continues to present day.
And this lack of public engagement was itself the focus on an audit process, for which we are still awaiting outcomes to provide remedy. I ask again: Is there any real interest in engaging us?
Or is this all simply a smokescreen to pretend our voices matter? Our only option remaining… to MAKE you SLOW DOWN and LISTEN by requesting a public hearing when the PUC wanted to rush these rules through without it? As my good friend from Fond du Lac keeps asking me, “How many times do we have to say ‘No’, huh?”
Bret Eknes, whose presentation was so garbled as to be unintelligible was again an example of how unimportant it appears to be to the PUC for the public to be informed, even during the actual process designed to bring better understanding, the ALJ Hearing.
Utter frustration filled me as I listened to this poorly done response to public concerns. An addition of 150+ pages of information… less than ONE BUSINESS DAY prior to this hearing??? We get a LARGE NEW ADDITION of data from Staff for consideration? {Note: Clearly stating in one instance that this information is “illustrative and not binding.” Well, of course! The PUC can do as it wishes, this seems to further indicate.}
Where were these recommendations during the development process? Why ONLY after dozens and dozens of citizens let the PUC know we’re watching… do we get any response? And perhaps this is just lip service, as this body seems want to do as it wishes… and continues to push the public from their processes, and seemingly from their consideration?
Save Matt perhaps, as one public speaker – Jaci, speaking for many of us – commented on Commissioner Schuerger’s courage to stand for the right decision on the Enbridge Line 3 project – the focus of my comments as it’s been the focus of my life for the last half dozen years. As is obvious in the graph below, Schuerger has been proven right, it seems, as the throughput on the Enbridge lines is on the decline as CJ Advocates suggested it would be. Throughput is not surpassing the capacity Enbridge had with OLD Line 3 in service… when all our forests and wetlands were intact across Northern Minnesota.
FERC Reported Data Q3-2021
So while I hadn’t planned to give comment, as I watched the time remaining in the hearing and knew we must give as much reason for our requests to STOP this rule change, ensure the voice of the Tribes and citizens was heard, and that the urgent factors of our rapidly changing world incorporated, I simply couldn’t NOT give testimony. This is what I shared:
Thank you for providing this venue for participation of the public voice in our state process. I recognize many of the voices speaking today as fellows who have struggled to get State Agencies to hear us, most especially the PUC, which for me has been over the last six years. The concern with the PUC’s seeming unwillingness historically to allow the public to participate in its decision-making was evident throughout the Line 3 hearings and the resulting OLA audit of their public engagement process as mentioned by others.
We all know that Applicants are going to present their projects in the best light and only provide as much information as demanded from them. In the case of the PUC on Line 3, we watched as Enbridge provided a SUPPLY forecast and the PUC inaccurately allowed that to meet their requirement to give Minnesota a DEMAND forecast for their product. As such, we now see a completed tar sands pipeline while we see no real increase in their use of the mainline system for more throughput than was already possible with the current system. So how many trees did Minnesota lose, how many more wetlands were degraded by the PUC’s illegal allowance of this project?
What we see now on the project corridor is a birthing of all the many concerns noted by the Tribes, Environmental Scientists, and Citizen Advocates like me. We now see Enbridge reducing the lifetime for their mainline system to a 2040 end date, notwithstanding their newest line – the Relocated and Expanded Line 3, which they note will have a 30-year lifetime.
So there might be consideration in the rule changes that eventually arise from this process to include some actions to hold Applicants accountable for their inaccurately or incompletely presented project details. This could give Minnesota more control over Applicants who are found to not have studied the environment in which they are looking to build… to a degree that would protect Minnesotans. In addition, it could include mitigation/amendments that might be considered as we face faster and faster changes to our climate with more and more extreme weather.
The comment by Kevin Pranis of LIUNA noted issues with “getting steel in the ground”. Yet, this is exactly the problem we had on the Line 3 project – where steel was pounded into the ground in violation of their construction permit, breaching an aquifer that continues to spill water into the environment threatening the biodiversity and the fen in Clearbrook.
Favoring the Applicant and their narrative IS NOT PROTECTING OUR ENVIRONMENT. We know from the experience with Enbridge and the PUC that the Applicant was consistently, and to the detriment of the state, given priority consideration with few challenges made to the Applicant regarding the very real concerns put forward by both the Tribes and Environmental Justice Advocates.
We now see in our environment with both the frac-outs into the Mississippi River at BOTH crossings as well as the aquifer breach in Clearbrook. It is clear that the Tribal Representatives, Scientists and Environmental Advocates were right about the risks to our land, air and water, yet we were not heeded by the PUC, as documented in the OLA report of their org and public engagement.
I’d ask for a TRUE assessment of the climate impacts and with a full and early inclusion of the Native Peoples of this land as their voices are critical to protecting our land, air and water. Thank you for your consideration.
After I spoke and comments were getting close to closing, my friend from Fond du Lac was working to be heard. We were grateful that the PUC allowed her comment. However, as she was known to be the last comment, and we’d heard throughout the hearing of the Native voice going unheeded being against the rule of law (Article VI of the Constitution) and Treaty obligations, and we had TWO HOURS REMAINING for the Hearing… still we listened to her be rushed from the stage so the hearing could end early.
Again I ask, does our shame know no bounds?
The new Netlfix movie, Don’t Look Up speaks to the inability of humanity to heed the voice of truth… our inability to face our own demise. Perhaps the PUC is simply a microcosm of what we’re seeing in the larger world. It would be nice to see a turning point here in Minnesota, as we stop the madness inflicted upon us by the corporate and monied interests and instead listen to the planet on which we depend… for all. We’re just about to run out of hopium that the powers that be will make decisions that favor humankind over dollars, the safety of our home over a few pieces of gold.
Please prove me wrong.
Please give hope that we will see a re-do of these rules, incorporating the voices that spoke out during the ALJ Hearing.
Please give reason for us to maintain expectation that our Commissions and Agencies are beginning to comprehend the need to LISTEN to the PEOPLE, incorporate the voices and minds of Minnesotans who care, and find a way forward that works for all, not just Applicants and those hoping to profit financially.
Thank you for your consideration.
Jami Gaither
1/3/22 Update:
I had written to Kate Kahlert hoping to see where we could view all the public comments, and mostly to assure my comments were visible as a friend recently had her comments kept hidden from the public by an agency… Here’s Kate’s response.
Hi Jami, thank you for you reaching out. The Commission to decided to withdraw the proposed rule and to not go forward with the proposed rule changes. As a result, there are no open comment periods. If you want to see comments in the record, you can view them in the Commission’s electronic filing system using this link: https://www.edockets.state.mn.us/EFiling/edockets/searchDocuments.do?method=showeDocketsSearch&showEdocket=true I hope this is helpful, but please let me know if you need anything else. Thank you, Kate
1/3/22 Response on seeking to view public comments on this Rule Change Proposal (Link modified)
So, did we win? The PUC doesn’t say WHY they withdrew their proposal… though I’m guessing it’s because…
WE WERE WATCHING AND WE SPOKE UP!!
Miigwech.
Doesn’t say why… but they did pull them. Apparently before I sent my comments, though I got no notice?
1/4/22 Update: This from a friend:
In a 5-0 decision they voted to withdraw the rule completely and indicated that they do not intend to call for a rulemaking to fix the identified issues that the rulemaking was meant to correct (including the fact that the rules have been inconsistent with state statute since at least 2005) nor address any of the issues the commenters raised. This was in line with what PUC staff recommended in their briefing papers.
Retired at 45 