Last month, the U.S Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) delivered a devastating blow to the lives of Anishinaabe people and our surrounding tribal nations with their decision to stand by Trump-era water permits for the Enbridge Line 3 pipeline in Minnesota. Further, earlier this year the USACE made the disappointing decision to not take action to stop the illegal Dakota Access Pipeline.
Despite the fact that these permits were granted under an administration that believed climate change was a hoax, and without a proper Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) that considered tribal consultation and the potential climate and environmental impacts of a new Line 3 pipeline, President Trump’s Army Corps of Engineers chose to barrel ahead with these toxic permits.
What’s worse, is that this is not the only Trump-approved pipeline the Army Corps of Engineers has approved, to the detriment of our climate, clean water and Indigenous rights. There are numerous pipelines across the country, including the Dakota Access Pipeline (DAPL) and Mountain Valley Pipeline (MVP), that have been approved without proper environmental consideration or tribal and community consultation.
As our communities experience one of the worst droughts in history, as we face historic wildfires and as our entire world braces for the impact of climate chaos due to fossil fuels emissions, we ask the Army Corps: Why rush? Why not take the time to comprehensively review these projects, and carefully consider the permanent and potentially devastating impacts of even more fossil fuel pipelines? Why continue the path of ignoring the demands of Indigenous peoples and tribal nations?
President Biden took decisive action on day one in office to cancel the Keystone XL Pipeline protecting cultural resources, land and water of tribal nations along the route. Now, President Biden, Jaime Pinkham and the USACE have the full authority to hit pause on these pipelines until a proper assessment of the dangers they pose is completed. For example, in Michigan, with guidance from Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, the Army Corps of Engineers ordered an environmental review of the proposed Line 5 pipeline project. In this decision, the USACE clearly understood the need for an “open, transparent and public process,” that ensures “meaningful and robust consultation with tribal nations occurs.” This significant action, supported by our sister tribal nations of that region, is an advancement toward climate action and environmental justice, but it only heightens the inconsistencies within the Corps of Engineers’ decision making. The standard that was used to order an environmental review of Line 5 must be consistently applied to all pipelines, including pipelines like Line 3 and DAPL, where Indigenous communities have put continued pressure on the Biden administration to revoke permits issued by the Trump administration.
You do not have to be an expert to know that the consequences of these pipelines are obvious and severe. Tar sands are one of the dirtiest fossil fuels on the planet, and the proposed Line 3 pipeline would carry more than 760,000 barrels a day through the untouched wetlands and the treaty-protected tribal territory of northern Minnesota. The pipeline will cross hundreds of culturally significant areas and will terminate on the banks of a river less than three miles from Lake Superior, which our people hold sacred, and yet, still, no federal or state agency has analyzed its threat to the lake.
In North Dakota, South Dakota and Iowa, construction for increased capacity for Dakota Access Pipeline (DAPL) is underway, despite the fact that a court-ordered environmental impact is still ongoing. This pipeline would transport half-a million barrels of crude oil a day underneath one of the primary water sources for the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, and the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe, putting not only the environment, but the health of our tribes at risk. This pipeline should have never been built in the first place, and its continued operation is an affront to tribal sovereignty. The Trump administration ignored the law and ignored the demands of our nations. We have never given free, prior, informed consent on this pipeline. The Army Corps of Engineers has an opportunity — and an obligation — to pause construction of this capacity upgrade of DAPL until a full environmental impact statement is conducted.
We have held our ground for years, making it clear that the Trump-approved pipelines cannot continue. There is no doubt that Line 3, DAPL and others will open regions of lakes, rivers and wild rice beds to degradation from oil spills, exacerbate climate change and forever harm the sacred land of Native peoples.
If the Army Corps of Engineers are serious about “conserving cultural and natural resources” and “reducing risk and protecting human health and the environment” then they must reexamine the permits for pipelines granted under the Trump administration. It’s time for the Biden administration to follow through on commitments to respect science, Indigenous communities, property rights and the climate crisis, and follow standards to make sure that new fossil fuel infrastructure has to pass a climate test. The time to act is now, and Indigenous communities, our nations, are paying for the Biden administration’s inaction every day. And that inaction is threatening the future for all of us.
[image_caption]Samuel Strong, Whitney Gravelle, Kevin Killer and Robert Larsen[/image_caption]
WANT TO ADD YOUR VOICE?
If you’re interested in joining the discussion, add your voice to the Comment section below — or consider writing a letter or a longer-form Community Voices commentary. (For more information about Community Voices, see our Submission Guidelines.)
This is pretty embarrassing. We chide Republicans for ignoring facts, and than this stuff comes up.
No one is going to halt a project that is nearly done.
Part of the damage is building the pipeline, and part of it is running it to delivery the dirtiest oil of all, tar sands oil — more than the current pipeline delivers. Arguing that the pipeline is almost done, so we might as well use it for *the next few decades or so* is not logic. It’s a sunk-cost fallacy. Opening the pipeline makes the tar sands areas economically viable, furthering climate change, as well as exposing new areas of Minnesota to oil spills.
So your argument seems to be:
“Let’s put our Minnesota environment at risk by insisting we use a 60 year old pipeline because it is so decrypt that it can only be run at 50% capacity otherwise it blows up with leaks here, there and everywhere.”
I agree let’s put an end to tar sands use. It is enabled by subsidies from the Canadian government. Move the protests to Ottawa, Calgary and Fort McMurray where the decisions are made. Keep the pressure on to maintain and expand alternative energy solutions that reduce oil dependence. As oil dependence is reduced, the first source to go will be the dirtiest and MOST expensive one: Alberta tar sands.
Again, this is way more about the glory of the protest than protecting the environment.
I have heard that ad nauseam, and it still isn’t a coherent argument.
Reread paragraphs 2 & 3 Pat, and then ask Klobuchar, Smith, and Walz where they were when they could have made a difference. That Pat, is the essence of the continued pressure for stopping the putrid line 3 tar muck.
So you are saying there is no basis whatsoever for this? You are agreeing this is totally frivolous?
And Line 3 only crosses the actual lands of one band, the Fond Du Lac, and they gave permission and supported the now 95% complete project.
I’m sure you know, but other bands would not consent to the replacement even though the original Line 3 is on their lands. Thus, they had to re-route it.
And I’m sure you know that the current Line 3 runs right between Leech Lake and Lake Winnibigoshish, on native land:
What a win/win proposition: the new Line 3 avoids this narrow strip of land between two of the top ten lakes in our state and replaces a 60 year old failing pipeline with a new safer one only crossing tribal lands where the band gave permission.
And so they did. And its not on their land.
Either you are for moving oil/gas by rail/road or by pipeline. It will be moved either way, which is safer for environment? This is coming down to NIMBY movement where folks against pipeline will invoke global warming, forest fires and drought to have oil/gas moved by rail/road. If you truly are concerned about the environment for everyone, you would use pipelines, they are safer. If you are concerned about your territory only you say move it by rail/road. The pipeline is going thru and even Biden Administration admits it is the safest way to move oil.
Think about that Joe, all gas, diesel, kerosene, and their derivatives are TRUCKED to Minnesota stations.
Dennis,
Yup, and that is the study (all of the issues trucking to stations) Biden Administration used to prove rail/road has more spills, accidents and pollutes more than pipeline. They saw how many spills happen trucking or training oil/gas and made the decision pipelines were safer. This is just a classic NIMBY issue dressed as concern for the environment.
It will not be moved either way. Rail is much more expensive and makes the already economically marginal tar sands less economically viable.