DNR M.O.: Ignore, Oppress, Gaslight

Tags

DNR, Enbridge, Line 3, MDNR, Minnesota, Minnesota DNR, Pipeline

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.

My good friend Jaci posted about this situation on Friday:

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.”

My response to 1/21/22 FB Post

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 words are 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 to instead 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 resulting resulted in a flurry of environmental damages throughout the new corridor that still await re-meditation. They’ve While Enbridge has been pumping oil since October, we see just this morning to a 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 they the DNR failed to manage the monitoring the 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 permanent Permitting 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 were Enbridge 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 is Is the agency to fill us toothless 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 tech Check-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. If So 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 and in deploying them along the project route with unannounced monitoring visits to determine what exactly was happening and in 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 this a decrease in imports for the Enbridge’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’t IS engaged in promoting recreation by building more and more trails in on 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 and on all the natural resources… and so forth. I was I’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.”

MinnPost 1/21/22: Environmental inequality: the other Minnesota paradox by Peter Calow

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. 

MinnPost 1/21/22: Environmental inequality: the other Minnesota paradox by Peter Calow

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.

Last Real Indians posted this Friday:

US Attorney Drops Charges Against Indigenous Water Protectors and Allies Who Occupied Bureau of Indian Affairs Demanding Indigenous Rights Be Upheld

US Attorney Drops Charges Against Indigenous Water Protectors and Allies Who Occupied Bureau of Indian Affairs – 1/21/22

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!?!? 🧐

This is a little clip of their operator… blocking the entrance to the work site… as we all watched… and filmed. He’s got a whole new technique!! 😜

Fix Clearbrook Aquifer

Tags

Aquifer, Aquifer Breach, Breach, Clearbrook MN, DNR, Enbridge, Line 3

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.

U.S. says more than half of states will seek oil well cleanup funds

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”.)

Remediation Order

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.

DNR Mission Statement

[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.

Let’s ask the DNR to fix Clearbrook Aquifer.

An Update on the Turkeys in Clearbrook

Tags

Aquifer, Aquifer Breach, Breach, Clearbrook, DNR, Enbridge, Line 3, Line 93, MDNR, Minnesota

Since we don’t really celebrate many typical holidays here at the HARN, last Thursday we decided to head up to the Enbridge Terminal Aquifer Breach in Clearbrook. Here’s what we found:

The Beginning of the Existential End?

Tags

Aquifer, Beau of the fifth column, DNR, Enbridge, IEN, Line 3, Line 93, MN DNR, MPCA, PHMSA, Ron Turney, Watch the Line MN

As we continue with the ongoing and increasingly horrific climate catastrophes, just thought I’d give a bit of insights for your consideration.

As you regular readers know, this blog has written much about Line 3 – now Line 93 as Enbridge says they are already pushing tar sands through it… regardless of the fact that there are many water issues remaining to be resolved, perhaps most significantly, the aquifer breach adjacent to the Enbridge Clearbrook Terminal, which has been leaking since January… and there appears to be no immediate remedy in sight.

Ron Turney of Indigenous Environmental Network has put together some amazing drone footage covering the problems, for which the Minnesota DNR and Pollution Control Agency (those agencies charged with managing our natural resources to assure clean land, air, and water for all) seem to have no care or time.

Aquifer Breach at Enbridge’s Clearbrook Terminal – leaking since January 21, 2021 with no remediation progress in sight. Photo Credit: Ron Turney

Watch the Line MN has a great “Guest Blog: Former pipeline inspector raises serious questions about the effectiveness of the current regulatory system” this week:

It’s unfortunate that humans can never anticipate all the myriad ways that an accident can occur. But once an accident does occur, PHMSA wants to ensure that the same scenario never happens again. So the agency requires regular inspections on every aspect of the pipeline, from its corrosion control measures to the calculation of maximum allowable pressure within the pipe. And this means a regular and frequent presence of state and federal inspectors traveling the pipeline, poking around pump stations, taking pictures of workers welding, looking through manuals, and sitting in on table-top disaster response drills.

However, the inspection agencies are funded by the pipeline companies, including inspectors’ salaries, office equipment, personal protective equipment, and vehicles for conducting inspections.

If the agencies conducting the inspections are funded by those being inspected, who are the inspectors really working for?

In addition to a flow of oil and funding, there is a flow of personnel. An enormous amount of job-shifting occurs between the inspection agencies and the pipeline companies, similar to the famous revolving door between legislators and lobbyists. That means that pipeline companies get personnel who are fully trained in the regulations—and who also understand how to keep certain issues, even violations, from the eyes of the inspectors. In turn, the inspection agencies sometimes get personnel who might give a pass to certain possibly unsafe practices. …

When an inspector does find a problem, from anything as minor as the company failing to do a timely inspection on an element of the pipeline to something as consequential as causing a death, the inspector may impose a fine. While the regulatory codes are extensive, penalties for violations are small. … They remain comically low compared to the profits that the company rakes in.

Even then, companies argue and litigate over those small fines and penalties. Penalties are often reduced or eliminated altogether.

How effective can an inspection be if the companies don’t face repercussions for bad behavior?

What is the message sent to pipeline companies if the already miniscule slap on the wrist for violations is further reduced?

Enter Enbridge Line 3. Given the amount of scrutiny over pipeline construction, why didn’t Minnesota’s state pipeline inspection agency send increased numbers of inspectors to the construction sites, if only to give the appearance of understanding the public’s concern about the pipeline? Instead of paying for the enhanced “security” during construction, why didn’t Enbridge instead pay for enhanced presence of inspectors, people who are supposed to ensure the safety of the public?

It is clear that Enbridge is beholden to its profits and not to protecting the public. 

Watch the Line MN Guest Blog by a former pipeline inspector

If the Minnesota PUC, MPCA, or DNR HAD required Enbridge to fund added INSPECTION instead of added security, we’d have likely not had an aquifer breach, that happened in January and remains unresolved to this day… and we’d likely not have had so many grandmas and children in hand cuffs by overly aggressive (and financially incentivized) local law enforcement care of Enbridge. [***Thanks to IEN for the footage of the aquifer breach as I continue to not have found the ability to finalize my own footage yet Nice coverage, Simone, Dawn, and Ron.***]

So, while Enbridge fails to clean up their current mess, they are claiming their pipeline is pushing tar sands by 10/3… or was it 10/1? As they appeared to be hydrostatic testing the pipeline in my neighborhood on September 30th this past week… I kinda think that this is really a “Hey, we hit the On-Time Deadline! Bonuses can be paid! (But slow roll those sands as we’re really still building here! Shhh… ‘Substantially’ is where we’re at… not complete. Shhh!) Shareholders, rejoice as we’ll be making money instead of bleeding it!! Hoorah for Enbridge! (Well, we’re still bleeding money on the build with that darn aquifer breach… toughie, that one, eh, but we’re sure we can afford enough grout to seal it closed once we… uh… flow oil? {gulp})…”

Afternoon of 9/30/21… RA-05 portion of the NEW Line 93: 250th Crossing in Clearwater County (Spread 2 of the LR3 project)

---

Meanwhile, the world is falling apart in so many ways. This week, I’ll give a shout out to Beau of the Fifth Column, who puts it this way when it comes to water shortages in the Southwest. The impacts are staggering… and with the historic droughts… the most severe in paleoclimate and historic records… it MIGHT (maybe?) be a good idea to consider water as a most critical resource. Uh, you know, water? The source of all life?

We are running out of time.”

Beau… in the video noted above.

Trust DNR on Climate Change? I think not.

Tags

DNR, Enbridge, Line 3, MDNR, Minnesota DNR, Sarah Strommen

When we moved to northern Minnesota back in 2016 we were pretty surprised to see so much animosity towards the Minnesota DNR. We’d moved to Minnesota for the abundant water and large trees we found in Clearwater County. We figured the hunting and fishing crowd would be real excited about what the DNR typically does – making trails into forests for ATVs, managing woodlands and wetlands (so we thought) for the citizenry, and generally assuring their Mission:

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.“

MN DNR Mission Statement

We’re getting it now…

After 7 years of work in trying to protect the clean waters within our landscape, we’ve watched the DNR work more towards destruction than anything. They’ve been helped along by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency but we’re focused on the DNR for today’s Emergency Blog.

Perhaps taking a look at the DNR’s explanation of their mission statement will give some clues…

The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources works to integrate and sustain the interdependent values of a healthy environment, a sustainable economy, and livable communities. DNR’s integrated resource management strategy shares stewardship responsibility with Minnesotans and partners to manage for multiple interests. DNR protects the state’s natural heritage by conserving the diversity of natural lands, waters, and fish and wildlife that provide the foundation for Minnesota’s recreational and natural resource-based economy (M.S. 84, M.S. 97A). DNR manages natural lands such as forests, wetlands, and native prairies; maintains healthy populations of fish and wildlife; and protects rare plant and animal communities throughout the state. DNR manages the state’s water resources, sustaining healthy waterways and ground water resources. DNR provides access to enrich public outdoor recreational opportunities, such as hunting, fishing, wildlife-watching, camping, skiing, hiking, biking, motorized recreation, and conservation education through a state outdoor recreation system that includes parks, trails, wildlife management areas, scientific and natural areas, water trails, and other facilities (M.S. 86A). DNR supports natural resource-based economies, managing state forest lands for multiple forest values (M.S. 89), ensuring the maximum long-term economic return from school trust lands (M.S. 127A), and providing other economic opportunities in a manner consistent with sound natural resource conservation and management principles.”

MN DNR Mission Statement (my emphasis)

So, it looks from here like MDNR is “managing” our natural resources for their “economic” value with their… “partners“. Yeah.

I once sat at lunch with Commissioner Strommen and asked her why it seemed the statutes for MDNR seemed mainly about overseeing the sales of natural resources and documenting to whom they sold them. She asked if I’d read the whole statute… but couldn’t tell me more about why they aren’t just about that. So I asked for her proudest achievement as Commissioner of the DNR. Now… granted, this was December 3, 2019… so maybe she hadn’t been in the job long enough to find a better one… still, her answer was pretty disappointing. She mentioned being super excited for a DNR public town hall that was REALLY well attended! I was nonplussed.

Today, we found another opportunity for a public gathering with the MN DNR and I’m betting she wasn’t NEARLY as excited about it. Let’s find out what happened!

---

The meeting was scheduled for 2 PM – ironically, at the same time many Environmental Groups opposed to Line 3 were ALSO meeting. Hmmm… No coincidence there? Divide and Conquer – that is the way of Empire.

I noted this comment pretty much summed up my opinion:

Gail Nosek, Communications Director for the MN DNR encouraged attendance with her re-tweet of the event:

So… I had to ask – afterwards:

Turns out, THIS was more the result of their “Office Hours” meeting:

What questions DID they hear? It seems the DNR was excited to tweet about that too! Though, as noted by the Minnesota Department of Snark, those didn’t include mine…

So, what was my question? I’m glad you asked!!! …though the MN DNR didn’t quite answer it.

My question is in regards understanding how the Minnesota DNR as land manager will adequately address climate change in Minnesota, especially as Commissioner Strommen mentioned the power of trees, and others spoke of water mgmt, both of which factor into my question.

In addition to other concerns in my past experience with MDNR, my recent reading of the Restoration and Replacement Order issued to Enbridge on their Line 3 project, troubled me as the DNR, following not just one or two but at LEAST SEVEN reports from the Independent Environmental Monitors, did nothing to intervene with expertise.

The February 2, 2021 report noted: “Due to excessive groundwater infiltration the site was backfilled and sheet piling was initiated. Despite backfill, groundwater has flowed to the surface.”

I’d ask WHY at that time NO ONE with MORE EXPERIENCE from the DNR came to review the situation. What did the Monitors think of this unrelenting groundwater flow? Why was this not seen as a situation that might require more expertise than theirs?

On February 20^th, a Saturday, even the Environmental Resources Management group’s Technical Director “agreed that the turbidity was unusual for a well point dewatering”… 

Mid-March (on the 13^th, 15^th, & 16^th) provided several reports in close succession regarding fine clay sediments and included in the final report a notice that “Enbridge issued [itself] an unacceptable report for improper dewatering structure” yet there was STILL NO MENTION from Enbridge OF A DIVERSION FROM THEIR CONSTRUCTION PERMIT, which might have assisted in far earlier resolution than a full three months later, when on June 15^th, the IEMs happened to be asked by DNR staff about the “uncontrolled flow at the Clearbrook Terminal” of which (reportedly) “DNR staff were not previously aware”.

How were the DNR staff unaware when there were at least 7 reports regarding this situation in Q1? This mid-June report also notes: “Though the condition generated an Enbridge-issued “unacceptable” report in March, Enbridge did not bring the issue to DNR’s attention at that point either.” Does Enbridge have to ASK THE DNR to READ THEIR REPORTS? Is ANYONE AT DNR Reading the reports? Or are you all just trusting Enbridge to do what is right and “let you know” when you might need to hold them accountable?

Mr. Doneen took action the next day demanding more information, and, the following day, informed Enbridge to stop construction at this location. Why not STOP CONSTRUCTION for ALL ENBRIDGE WORK finding such an egregious error that had gone WITHOUT RESOLUTION by ENBRIDGE for almost 6 months!?!?

A full month later, flow continued and, though a 7/7/21 email from Merjent, Enbridge’s consultant, noted Enbridge was not monitoring flow or volume since March 18^th, AND the bore pit was found in excess of that allowed in DNR’s constructon permit, AND on July 8^th it was reported that a SECOND emergence of UNCONTROLLED FLOW “likely a direct result of the initial breach of the aquifer confining layer”, NO FULL STOPPAGE OF PIPELINE CONSTRUCTION OCCURRED! HOW can the citizens of Minnesota TRUST that the DNR will do ANYTHING PROACTIVE to assist in Climate Change when this is how poorly they oversee a project which is known to bring an incredible amount of exacerbation to the climate chaos we are already experiencing?

Jami Gaither question during the DNR’s 9/23/21 Office Hour

You decide for yourselves. But they also didn’t answer these other questions, also in the chat…

• I am not feeling you have understood my concern… that DNR is not ON SITE in a major way during construction of such a large project that impacts climate implies a “let corporations do as they will” mentality. How can we trust your stance is NOT for major corporations as the Legislature may not allow you to be more proactive?
• Will Enbridge be allowed to have tar sands flow through their new pipeline BEFORE the aquifer situation is remedied?
• At what point WOULD DNR pull a permit? If the company WILLFULLY VIOLATED their Construction Permit – and it remains able to build their project, that seems to indicate the Permit you issued has NO VALUE.

I wrapped up by noting these things: