The final environmental impact statement for Enbridge's Line 3 oil pipeline replacement project says it is not possible to determine whether the Canadian company's proposed route would be the best option for American Indians in northern Minnesota.
That's because Enbridge's route and four alternative paths would all have disproportionately negative effects on the bands, according to the report compiled by the state Department of Commerce. The report, released Thursday, also repeats some environmental concerns raised in a draft EIS released in the spring.
But it does not make a recommendation on which route is best for the $2.9 billion project, just comparisons for regulators to weigh. Still, it is a significant development in Enbridge's nearly three-year quest to replace its 1960s vintage pipeline that runs from northwestern Minnesota to Superior, Wis.
After the draft EIS was released in May, at least four of Minnesota's Ojibwe bands submitted comments to the commerce department opposing the proposed Line 3 replacement options. The bands are against any new Line 3 pipeline.
"There are no good routes," said Rep. Peggy Flanagan of St. Louis Park, who's a member of the White Earth band. She was one of 32 DFL representatives and four DFL senators who jointly filed comments critical of the commerce department's draft EIS.
"This sort of tale is as old as time, that native people are disproportionately affected by companies who want to access natural resources," she said. "What happened at Standing Rock — with people standing up for their rights and camping and protesting — that is a very real possibility here in Minnesota. There are already groups of folks camping along the [proposed Line 3] route."
Opposition to the multistate Dakota Access pipeline ignited large protests in North Dakota last year, led by members of the Standing Rock Sioux tribe who were concerned about damage to their drinking water from oil leaks.
The EIS report concludes that Enbridge's proposed route for replacing its pipeline would expose fewer sensitive environmental and cultural areas to oil spill risks than other proposed routes that track the current Line 3.