If I told you that Minnesota had the opportunity to welcome a multibillion-dollar infrastructure project at no cost to the taxpayers, how would you feel?
Now, imagine that this project would provide over 4,000 jobs during one of the worst economic downturns in the history of our state.
No, I am not talking about another sports stadium or light-rail project, I am talking about the Line 3 pipeline. Yet, while it seems like a no-brainer, Gov. Tim Walz and radical environmental activists are inexplicably stonewalling this economic lifeline.
By way of background, Line 3, which carries oil from Alberta, Canada, to Superior, Wis., has been in operation in northern Minnesota since the 1960s. After nearly six decades of wear and tear it was determined that the best way to ensure continued safety and reliability was to replace the old line with a new, modern pipe.
Applications to replace Line 3 were submitted to governing bodies in all relevant jurisdictions, including the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission (PUC), back in 2015. By the following year, Wisconsin, North Dakota and Canada had approved their segments of the pipeline. But it took the Minnesota PUC until 2018 to approve the pipeline. Legal roadblocks were immediately thrown up, and in June 2019 the Minnesota Court of Appeals found the PUC's Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to be inadequate.
After years of legal wrangling the PUC finally approved a revised Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) in February of this year and provided Enbridge — the operator of the pipeline — with a necessary permit. It seemed like the project would finally move forward.
Instead, Walz has appealed the approval, despite his very own regulators on the PUC reaffirming their support for the project by a 4-1 margin. Three environmental groups and two Ojibwe bands also objected to the decision, requesting a contested hearing with an administrative law judge.
If you are exhausted by the back and forth, welcome to the life of businesses across Minnesota. Even when you do everything right, more obstacles are put in your way. The EIS that opponents said was inadequate had undergone six years of review, more than 70 public meetings and was over 13,000 pages long.