Once again, Enbridge prevailed in yet another court decision ruling in favor of the Line 3 pipeline project (“ Minnesota appeals court upholds approval of Line 3 permits ,” June 24).
Time and again pipeline opponents have conspired to stop this project with false claims and baseless accusations. It is clear that Enbridge and, more importantly, the regulators and courts have done their due diligence to make sure this project meets all legal requirements to move forward. The court was correct when ruling in favor of allowing the construction on the pipeline to move ahead.
One line of the court’s ruling stood out to me. It said regulators “reasonably selected a route for the replacement pipeline based upon respect for tribal sovereignty, while minimizing environmental impacts.” Any project of this size is going to have impacts on its surroundings, but it has been determined that there is no doubt Line 3 is a project of need, not just of want.
We need to replace Line 3 because it’s rapidly aging after 60 years of wear and tear, which poses a great risk to our environment and communities if left untouched.
And we need to replace Line 3 because it’s operating at decreased capacity. Replacing it means capacity can be increased to better serve the demands of Minnesota families, the Minneapolis-St. Paul airport, and the upper Midwest.
ADVERTISEMENT
Once the replacement is complete, Line 3 will be safer for the environment and communities along its route. Northern Minnesota’s local economies are reaping the benefits from pipeline workers and Enbridge’s investments. The new line will more safely and more efficiently deliver, and it will provide increased property tax payments to our state for years to come.
We’re good stewards of our environment. We believe in safety first. We support the Line 3 Replacement Project and are grateful for the recent court ruling.
