A statement from Friends of the Headwaters - October 2019
The litigation over the line 3 project is far from over. Now that the Minnesota Supreme Court has declined the invitation of the tribes and Honor the Earth to review a range of additional environmental review issues at this preliminary stage, the case goes back to the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission (PUC). Right now, here is the situation:
The PUC will now need to ask the department of commerce to supplement the previous EIS both to address the court’s concerns and to address changed circumstances since the original EIS came out nearly two years ago. Then, the PUC will have to decide formally whether they believe the new EIS is adequate. That decision will again be reviewable by the courts. If, at some point, the PUC finds the new EIS adequate, they then have to decide again whether a certificate of need is appropriate and, if so, what route the pipeline would have to follow. The other state agencies and the federal agencies will then also have to decide whether and under what circumstances to grant the necessary permits and certification for the project. All of these decisions are reviewable by the courts as well. So, to paraphrase Mark Twain, the reports that line 3 has or will soon have all the approvals it needs are “greatly exaggerated.” |
Published Letters by Citizens LETTER: What can be lost Written By: Mary Adams, Nevis | Mar 11th, 2020 There are safer places to build a pipeline By Deanna Johnson 12/6/2019 The safest pipeline is the one not built Written By: Jeff Mosner, Park Rapids, Minn. | Oct 21st 2019 Enbridge Line 3: The threat of spillage is as real as its precedent By Rocky Wagner 01/16/2019 Reader's View: Political will can curb climate change By Jeff Mosner on Nov 7, 2018 Commentary: Enbridge is pretending fix is in By Richard Smith, Friends of Headwaters on Apr 5, 2018 Guest Opinion: Crude oil pipelines or quality water? By Tom Watson on Oct 22, 2017 Line 3 pipeline jobs versus environment a false choice By Jeff Mosner, Park Rapids on Sep 30, 2017 Reader's View: Line 3 could worsen climate change By Jeff Mosner on Sep 13, 2017 Letter to the editor: The dark side of tar sand oil By Jeff Mosner, Park Rapids on Aug 28, 2017 Jobs versus the environment is a false choice By Jeff Mosner on Aug 23, 2017 Editorial about Line 3 is misleading By Lowell Schellack, Park Rapids on Jul 19, 2017 The Enbridge numbers game By Richard Smith, Friends of the Headwaters on Jun 28, 2017 The 'other' invasive By Jeff Mosner, Park Rapids on May 13, 2017 Proposed Line 3 Costs not Worth the Risk By Maurice Spangler April 8th, 2017 Counterpoint: Not red tape; Enbridge troubles with Sandpiper are self-inflictedby Willis Mattison August 28th, 2016 Red Tape Commentary in Strib By Janet Hill August 24th. 2016 Protecting the waters of Northern MinnesotaFriends of the Headwaters believes Enbridge Sandpiper and Line 3 projects should be rerouted away from lakes and rivers Posted: Saturday, July 9, 2016 In response: Oil pipelines put state waters at risk By Jeff Mosner on May 3, 2016 Don’t let Enbridge rush pipeline decision By Janet Hill Feb 12, 2016 Letter: Enbridge did not get what it wants By Maurice Spangler on Nov 8, 2015 Letter: Enbridge's actions speak louder than words By Michael Hadfield on Sep 23, 2015 Letter: Plan to attend PUC hearing in Park Rapids By Janet Hill on Aug 16, 2015 Commentary: Friends of the Headwaters has issues with Line3 By Richard Smith on Aug 16, 2015 Melodee Monicken: Minnesota, slow down on Sandpiper Pipeline By Melodee Monicken on Aug 14, 2015 Letter: Protect Minnesota's pristine waters By Richard Smith on Jul 27, 2015 Letter: Sandpiper - It's not over, folks By Jeff Mosner on Apr 29, 2015 Editorial leaves a lot to be desired By Jerry Maertens on Apr 25, 2015 Guest Opinion: Minnesota should not approve proposed Sandpiper route By Gregory L. Johnson on Apr 13, 2015 Letter: Influence of the oil lobbyists By Melodee Monicken from Park Rapids on Apr 1, 2015 Letter: Protect state’s outdoors By Bruce Brummitt from Osage on Apr 1, 2015 Letter: Facts clouded, not clarified By Willis Mattison from Osage on Feb 18, 2015 Letter: Oil spills are a concern By John Weber from Nevis on Jan 31, 2015 Letter: Opposition to Sandpiper pipeline By Bert and Janet Ahern from Menahga on Jan 28, 2015 Letter: We can read between the lines By Jacci Hadfield from Park Rapids on Jan 10, 2015 Concerned about pipeline route By Leroy Chief from Park Rapids on Jan 8, 2015 Letter: Enbridge actions don’t match rhetoric By Richard Smith from Park Rapids on Jan 4, 2015 Letter: Why take a chance on precious resources? By Maurice Spangler from Park Rapids on Dec 31, 2014 Letter: Trust others by actions, not words By Deanna Johnson from Park Rapids on Dec 10, 2014 Letter: Sandpiper XXL By Jeff Mosner from Park Rapids on Dec 7, 2014 Counterpoint: Enbridge is focused on profits first
Letter: Park Rapids has a fragile aquifer By Deanna Johnson from P on Nov 22, 2014 Letter: Rail transport of oil vs. grain By Jeff Mosner from Park Rapids on Oct 22, 2014 Letter: Enbridge didn’t identify all information in filings By Jeffrey Insko from Michigan on Oct 15, 2014 Commentary: Friends of the Headwaters explains pipeline capacity By Friends of Headwaters from Park Rapids on Oct 15, 2014 Letter: Enbridge pipeline not a done deal Posted on Sep 17, 2014 By Chuck Diessner Letter: Sandpiper facts, responsibility and leadership Posted on Sep 15, 2014 By Chuck Diessner Stand up against risky, unwanted pipelines
Enbridge not good at math Monday, September 08 2014 Written by Winona LaDuke, Letter: Pipeline concern not NIMBY issue By Melodee Monicken from Park Rapids, Minn. on Aug 13, 2014 Department of Commerce role in pipeline route questioned By Richard Smith on Jul 26, 2014 Letter: Enbridge should seek to do no harm By Maurice Spangler from Park Rapids on Jul 12, 2014 COMMENTARY: Friends of the Headwaters responds Posted on Jul 12, 2014 Letter: Enbridge comments are arrogant By Jacci Hadfield from Park Rapids on Jul 9, 2014 Letter: Enbridge used to doing what they want By Noel AllArd from Straight River Township on Jul 9, 2014 Dangerous pipeline proposal (The Ed Show - Interview w/Richard Smith July 9th, 2014) A newly proposed oil pipeline could threaten the water supply for thousands, going across the Mississippi River and passing through dangerous territory. Michael Eric Dyson and Richard Smith discuss. Letter: Listen to citizens regarding pipeline By Jeanne Gaston from Akeley on Jun 28, 2014 Letter: Care about land, not big oil companies By Marlene Weber from Nevis on Jun 21, 2014 Letter: Enbridge’s pipeline plan not feasible By Noel Allard on Jun 7, 2014 Letter: Tankers or pipelines: Pick your poison By Jeff Mosner from Park Rapids on May 28, 2014 Letter: Pipeline spills do happen By Lowell Schellack from Park Rapids on May 21, 2014 Why water and oil do not mix By Jeff Mosner from Park Rapids on May 10,2014 Up here, a barrel of water is worth more than a barrel of oil Richard Smith, Bemidji Pioneer on May 4, 2014 Letter: Observers question need for pipeline Published: April 25, 2014 10:51:49 PM CDT Jeff Mosner, Park Rapids, Minn., Fargo INFORUM Viewpoint: A conversation about oil and the North Woods Willis Mattison Interview Article by: DAVID SHAFFER , Star Tribune Updated: April 26, 2014 - 2:00 PM Letter: Consider the potential impacts of an oil spill Bemidji Pioneer By Jeff Mosner from Park Rapids on Apr 16, 2014 at 11:36 p.m. Lakes, loons and lunacy By Jeff Mosner from Park Rapids on Apr 12, 2014 Letter: Opposed to the Enbridge pipeline By Lowell Schellack from Park Rapids on Apr 2, 2014 Letter: Sandpiper Pipeline: A risk analysis By Sharon Natzel from Park Rapids on Mar 29, 2014 Letter: Pipeline not worth the chance By Maurice Spangler from Park Rapids Letter: Protecting and preserving wildlife By Carol Schellack from Park Rapids Letter: We’ve known who Enbridge is for a while By Melodee Monicken from Park Rapids on Mar 12, 2014 Letter: ‘Funny things’ about Enbridge By Richard Smith from Park Rapids on Mar 8, 2014 Letter: What is 99.993 percent? By Lowell Shellack from Park Rapids Letter: PUC process is much friendlier to industry, not public By Willis Mattison from Osage on Feb 12, 2014 Letter: Sandpiper: ‘Not if we can help it’ By Jeff Mosner from Park Rapids on Feb 5, 2014 Letter: Benefits of pipeline a complicated issue By Deanna Johnson from Park Rapids on Jan 29, 2014 Letter: The truth about energy today By Barry Babcock from Laporte on Jan 29, 2014 There is no need for Enbridge pipeline By Winona LaDuke from Honor the Earth on Jan 23, 2014 Letter: Not in favor of new pipeline proposal By Frank Mitchell from Park Rapids on Nov 23, 2013 Letter: Proposed pipeline is ill-conceived By Steve Klabo from Bismarck on Nov 16, 2013 Letter: Pipelines have potential for harm By Lorelei Kraft from Park Rapids on Nov 9, 2013 Letter: Make voices heard about pipeline By Marlene Weber from Nevis on Sep 11, 2013 Letter: More details needed about pipeline By Lorelei Kraft from Park Rapids on Aug 28, 2013 |
The following are taken from comments left by some our passionate supporters
Of the people, by the people, for the people. Please let the people speak!
"Some day the earth will weep.
She will beg for her life, she will cry tears of blood.
You will make a choice, if you will help her or let her die. And we will die with her."
(Quoted from Black Elk)
We live in a typical tourist/retirement community where many of our residents leave for a portion of
the winter. Many of us feel strongly that our entire community should have an opportunity to
participate in this process and that this unique quality of our community should be taken into
consideration.
Minnesota residents are not being well enough informed on these big corporate projects being
proposed to our state when we should be the first to know. We don't need to jeopardize our lakes and
forests for oil tycoons to make another dollar. Also this isn't renewable energy so supporting it doesn't
help our country be less reliant on crude oil.
We spend part of our summer in Hubbard County, presently being half way across the country and
have no voice in commenting on this Canadian invasion.
Endangering the headwaters of the Mississippi and the lakes of northern Minnesota can't be an
option. This project requires much more careful consideration.
The Earth is grievously wounded by the burning of fossil fuels. All the tipping points have been
passed. Our air, water, ecosystems and all the life forms they support are being devastated by
pipelines, oil spills, and all forms of fossil fuel extraction, movement, and production. The cumulative
effects of future pipeline construction will further devastate the habitats they encroach upon. I call
upon Larry Hartman, as environmental review manager for PUC, to extend the public comment period
on the Sandpiper pipeline, so that all voices can he heard, and viable and prudent alternatives can be
explored. With hope for life on Earth and the Earth who sustains us all,
I am outraged at a company that would even think of putting a pipeline through our beautiful lakes
region.
I am appalled that you would allow the Sandpiper pipeline to go across our wetlands. The wild rice is
a organic resource that will be endangered by allowing the pipeline to run through our land. Then to
allow this pipeline to cross the Mississippi river twice first at the headwaters,and then across Hubbard
County this river is a national monument. I don't see how you can preserve our waters and lands by
allowing this to take place. Please reconsider and and look into the impact that this will have on our
cultural resources,wetlands and natural resources.
This is an opportunity to set a trend. Please think 3 generations ahead of our own. Can you put a
price on the land of Minnesota?
The integrity of Minnesota waters -- our most precious resource -- is under threat by several projects
proposed by extraction industries. Especially when these companies are not based in the U.S., more
time must be allowed Minnesota residents and American citizens to fully respond to public processes
of review.
Our family cabin is south of Park Rapids in Straight River Township, along where this proposed
pipeline is going. I am extremely concerned that adequate notice has not been given to landowners
who will be effected by this oil pipeline highway. We have spent nearly 40 years taking care of this
pristine piece of land, and our log cabin on one of the 400 lakes in the region. The small lake was
designated an "environmental" lake where the loons return year after year. A place for family to gather
and appreciate its natural beauty. The Straight River is one of the few trout streams left in Minnesota.
There needs to be more time for the community to learn about how this project will effect their land
and surroundings and the diminished value of the land we have invested in. Please consider our
request to extend the public comment timeline.
In view of Enbridge's dismal failure to manage previous pipeline spills such as the Talmadge River
spill in Michigan, it is too dangerous to route another pipeline through our area. As a physician, I
believe prevention of disease is preferable to treatment if possible. The same goes for pipeline spills.
Our lakes are too valuable a resource to squander for minimal financial gains.
As a college professor teaching Environmental Injustice, I am deeply concerned with the threat of the
Sandpiper pipeline on the environment and communities. Please do NOT sacrifice water, land, crops,
wildlife and human communities.
These pipelines should not be rushed. Obviously, as the oil from our state is being shipped away as
fast as it can be pumped, supplying our nation's oil needs was merely the initially-stated and
obscuring purpose. It's merely for the profit of the oil companies and they must be forced to be
environmentally conscious. This should be given as much time as needed.
It seems unethical to move things in such a way that summer residents do not have a chance to fully
participate in something that so greatly affects them. Shameful really.
If this is a Canadian Oil company going to transport Canadian oil, why can't the pipeline go across
Canadian soil to get to a port in the Great Lakes (if that's where they are headed.) This is the same
ruse that is used for Keystone Pipeline. The claim for a "safe pipeline" is just not true. It's not "if" a
leak happens, it is "when". WHEN it does happen, US waters and soil are damaged FOREVER.
Consider all the oil-contaminated areas already in the United States that have not been cleaned up
years after the spill. Oil companies have no idea how to clean them up. The remedies they are using
is technology from the 1960's or before and have not been effective. It all boils down to Big Oil
MONEY, no matter who gets hurt. These decisions must not be made without input from those
residents who will be most affected.
When you have destroyed the waters and then lands, and there is nothing left, what will you do
THEN????
"Some day the earth will weep.
She will beg for her life, she will cry tears of blood.
You will make a choice, if you will help her or let her die. And we will die with her."
(Quoted from Black Elk)
We live in a typical tourist/retirement community where many of our residents leave for a portion of
the winter. Many of us feel strongly that our entire community should have an opportunity to
participate in this process and that this unique quality of our community should be taken into
consideration.
Minnesota residents are not being well enough informed on these big corporate projects being
proposed to our state when we should be the first to know. We don't need to jeopardize our lakes and
forests for oil tycoons to make another dollar. Also this isn't renewable energy so supporting it doesn't
help our country be less reliant on crude oil.
We spend part of our summer in Hubbard County, presently being half way across the country and
have no voice in commenting on this Canadian invasion.
Endangering the headwaters of the Mississippi and the lakes of northern Minnesota can't be an
option. This project requires much more careful consideration.
The Earth is grievously wounded by the burning of fossil fuels. All the tipping points have been
passed. Our air, water, ecosystems and all the life forms they support are being devastated by
pipelines, oil spills, and all forms of fossil fuel extraction, movement, and production. The cumulative
effects of future pipeline construction will further devastate the habitats they encroach upon. I call
upon Larry Hartman, as environmental review manager for PUC, to extend the public comment period
on the Sandpiper pipeline, so that all voices can he heard, and viable and prudent alternatives can be
explored. With hope for life on Earth and the Earth who sustains us all,
I am outraged at a company that would even think of putting a pipeline through our beautiful lakes
region.
I am appalled that you would allow the Sandpiper pipeline to go across our wetlands. The wild rice is
a organic resource that will be endangered by allowing the pipeline to run through our land. Then to
allow this pipeline to cross the Mississippi river twice first at the headwaters,and then across Hubbard
County this river is a national monument. I don't see how you can preserve our waters and lands by
allowing this to take place. Please reconsider and and look into the impact that this will have on our
cultural resources,wetlands and natural resources.
This is an opportunity to set a trend. Please think 3 generations ahead of our own. Can you put a
price on the land of Minnesota?
The integrity of Minnesota waters -- our most precious resource -- is under threat by several projects
proposed by extraction industries. Especially when these companies are not based in the U.S., more
time must be allowed Minnesota residents and American citizens to fully respond to public processes
of review.
Our family cabin is south of Park Rapids in Straight River Township, along where this proposed
pipeline is going. I am extremely concerned that adequate notice has not been given to landowners
who will be effected by this oil pipeline highway. We have spent nearly 40 years taking care of this
pristine piece of land, and our log cabin on one of the 400 lakes in the region. The small lake was
designated an "environmental" lake where the loons return year after year. A place for family to gather
and appreciate its natural beauty. The Straight River is one of the few trout streams left in Minnesota.
There needs to be more time for the community to learn about how this project will effect their land
and surroundings and the diminished value of the land we have invested in. Please consider our
request to extend the public comment timeline.
In view of Enbridge's dismal failure to manage previous pipeline spills such as the Talmadge River
spill in Michigan, it is too dangerous to route another pipeline through our area. As a physician, I
believe prevention of disease is preferable to treatment if possible. The same goes for pipeline spills.
Our lakes are too valuable a resource to squander for minimal financial gains.
As a college professor teaching Environmental Injustice, I am deeply concerned with the threat of the
Sandpiper pipeline on the environment and communities. Please do NOT sacrifice water, land, crops,
wildlife and human communities.
These pipelines should not be rushed. Obviously, as the oil from our state is being shipped away as
fast as it can be pumped, supplying our nation's oil needs was merely the initially-stated and
obscuring purpose. It's merely for the profit of the oil companies and they must be forced to be
environmentally conscious. This should be given as much time as needed.
It seems unethical to move things in such a way that summer residents do not have a chance to fully
participate in something that so greatly affects them. Shameful really.
If this is a Canadian Oil company going to transport Canadian oil, why can't the pipeline go across
Canadian soil to get to a port in the Great Lakes (if that's where they are headed.) This is the same
ruse that is used for Keystone Pipeline. The claim for a "safe pipeline" is just not true. It's not "if" a
leak happens, it is "when". WHEN it does happen, US waters and soil are damaged FOREVER.
Consider all the oil-contaminated areas already in the United States that have not been cleaned up
years after the spill. Oil companies have no idea how to clean them up. The remedies they are using
is technology from the 1960's or before and have not been effective. It all boils down to Big Oil
MONEY, no matter who gets hurt. These decisions must not be made without input from those
residents who will be most affected.
When you have destroyed the waters and then lands, and there is nothing left, what will you do
THEN????