This week the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) will announce a consequential water quality certification permit decision for the Canadian Line 3 tar sands oil pipeline. The agency appears poised to approve it.
Gov. Tim Walz has said repeatedly that his administration will follow the law and the science. This is good. But if the governor and Commissioner Laura Bishop decide to approve this pipeline project based on claims that they were boxed in by the law, they will have ignored the law and the science.
The reality is that Minnesota has every law and authority needed right now to deny this project a permit. If the administration issues this water quality permit, it is because it has made deliberate choices to find a path to grant this permit to Enbridge. That path would be legally objectionable and scientifically flawed.
The law says this pipeline can be stopped cold because construction alone would cause "unavoidable" degradation to high water quality along its 330-mile cut through Minnesota — even if it never spills a drop of oil. This degradation is according to the MPCA's own analysis. The pipeline path will cross over 200 bodies of water, impact thousands of acres of wetlands and over 40 wild rice beds. MPCA has said that the pipeline's route will cross pristine waters and that the project will degrade those waters. These facts alone are enough to deny the certification.
The law also says that if one is going to make the case that despite this degradation, the pipeline is needed for social or economic benefits, there are considerations that must be applied by the MPCA commissioner. These considerations include "other relevant environmental, social and economic impacts of the proposed activity."
To justify giving Enbridge this permit to degrade our high-quality waters, the MPCA has cherry-picked factors to make the case that the pipeline is a necessary benefit to our communities. But here are some considerations the MPCA chose to leave out of its analysis:
1. Climate impacts: The extra annual greenhouse gas emissions from this expanded pipeline is equal to building 50 new coal plants in Minnesota and running them continuously. This is annually greater than the emissions from the entire state of Minnesota in 2016 from all sectors combined.
Despite our own state agency's economic analysis that put the climate harms of this project at $287 billion, the MPCA has adopted a position that exact emissions levels are unknowable and therefore should not be considered.