MINNEAPOLIS, MN. – Conservation and tribal groups filed a lawsuit today against the U.S. State Department’s secretive approval of a plan to allow Canadian oil giant Enbridge to nearly double the amount of tar sands oil in the Alberta Clipper pipeline. The approval this summer happened without public notice and without a legally required review that’s meant to protect air, water, wildlife, and public health, in spite of a previous State Department decision that any expansion of Alberta Clipper would require a federal permit.

The pipeline transports tar sands oil from Alberta through Minnesota, with a terminus in Superior, Wisconsin. From the Canadian border, the pipeline runs 327 miles through North Dakota and Minnesota to Wisconsin, passing through three Native American reservations, as well as the Northern Divide, the Mississippi river, the Chippewa National Forest, and Leech Lake.

The scheme to nearly double Alberta Clipper’s capacity would put the pipeline on par with the controversial Keystone XL pipeline and significantly increase the amount of toxic, highly polluting tar sands crude being moved into the U.S. without any public oversight or accountability. It also represents a violation of U.S. environmental laws designed to protect the public from pollution of our air and water.

“This lawsuit challenges the State Department’s illegal approval of Enbridge’s tar sands expansion plans,” Sierra Club Staff Attorney Doug Hayes told reporters on a press call this afternoon. “Rather than stick to its ongoing review process that the National Environmental Policy Act requires, the State Department green-lighted the expansion before the process is complete.”

Today’s suit was filed in federal court in Minneapolis by a diverse coalition of groups including the White Earth Nation, Sierra Club, Center for Biological Diversity, Honor the Earth, the National Wildlife Federation, the Minnesota Conservation Federation, the Indigenous Environmental Network, and MN350, being represented by the Vermont Law School Environmental and Natural Resources Law Clinic. The suit aims to force Secretary of State John Kerry and the State Department to reverse its approval and ensure that a full environmental review takes place before any expansion of Alberta Clipper occurs.

“To establish the U.S. as a real international leader in tackling the climate crisis, the State Department must stop turning a blind eye to Big Oil schemes to bypass U.S. laws and nearly double the amount of corrosive, carbon-intensive tar sands crude it brings into our country,” said Sierra Club Deputy National Program Director Michael Bosse. “Enbridge has been allowed to play by their own rules for too long at the expense of our water, air, and climate, and the Sierra Club is taking legal action to stop this abuse.”

“The only thing worse than dirty oil is dirty oil backed by dirty tricks. This is the fossil fuel equivalent of money laundering,” said Kieran Suckling, executive director of the Center for Biological Diversity. “The Obama administration should be ashamed of itself for letting Enbridge illegally pump more dirty tar sands oil into the United States.”

“Honor the Earth represents Anishinaabeg people and the earth. We believe that nations should abide by their agreements, treaties, and laws. The Anishinaabeg continue to harvest and live the life the Creator gave us, within the north country, and within the treaty areas, protected and recognized under federal law, including the 1837, 1854, 1855 and 1867 treaties,” said Winona LaDuke, Program Director for Honor the Earth and a member of the White Earth Nation. “We know that new oil pipelines will not bode well for the fish, the wild rice, and the medicines of this Akiing, this land.   We also know that the US, through the State Department, should uphold its own laws and regulations, and not issue permits under the pressure of oil interests, over the interests of our country, people, and land.  Federal law requires environmental impact assessments, and the US must uphold its own laws.  New pipelines by the Enbridge Company and this illegal switching of lines do not serve our state or our country. We ask the US State Department to uphold the law.”

The lawsuit can be found here: http://tinyurl.com/ptoqgzg

In a letter to Gov. Snyder:

“….BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Cities Initiative recommends additional safety measures, notably, all modes of transportation of fossil energies be equipped with double walled containment, including pipelines, ships, barges, tank cars, and tank trucks…”

Read the entire Resolution here — Gov Snyder re. Enbridge

Confirmed: Billions of Gallons of Fracking Waste Contaminate Drought-Ravaged California Aquifers

This is exactly what our LTBB “Fracking Water Injunction” court case is designed to prevent.  https://article32.org/injunctive-order/

The court dismissed our case without even a hearing on its merits, but we are in the process of drafting our appeal.

http://readersupportednews.org/news-section2/312-16/26301-confirmed-billions-of-gallons-of-fracking-waste-contaminate-drought-ravaged-californias-aquifers

This is from the Petoskey News-Review

http://www.petoskeynews.com/gaylord/news/lawsuit-threatens-ban-on-fracking/article_f9131cf2-61e0-58b6-8d77-c17cfa6db213.html

“A team of scientists with the U.S. Geological Survey have found evidence “directly linking” the uptick in Colorado and New Mexico earthquakes since 2001 to wastewater injection, a process widely used in the controversial technique of hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, and conventional drilling.”

The full article can be read here: http://www.nationofchange.org/scientists-find-direct-link-between-earthquakes-and-process-used-oil-and-gas-drilling-1410962922

DEQ —  COMMENTS ON THE PROPOSED FRACKING RULES — ORR 2013-101 EQ

July 15, 2014
Submitted by Phil Bellfy (Article32.org)
5759 S. Ridge Rd., Sault Ste. Marie, MI  49783

Based on the Great Lakes—St. Lawrence River Basin Sustainable Water Resources Agreement (“Agreement”), the State of Michigan is obligated to develop rules that “will avoid or minimize the waste of Water” (Article 203(5)).  The fracking of wells in Michigan requires the use of 5-30 million gallons of water per “frack.”  Every gallon of that groundwater is “wasted,” according to the standards laid out in the Agreement; that is, it cannot be safely returned to the watershed, a practice that is clearly in violation of the Agreement.

Has the DEQ incorporated the required provisions of the Agreement into these proposed “fracking” rules?

Relevant excerpts from the Agreement are copied below (full text available here <http://tinyurl.com/ofkbusa&gt;):

GREAT LAKES—ST. LAWRENCE RIVER BASIN SUSTAINABLE WATER RESOURCES AGREEMENT

“Cumulative Impacts” mean the impact on the Great Lakes—St. Lawrence River Basin Ecosystem that results from incremental effects of all aspects of a Withdrawal, Diversion or Consumptive Use in addition to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future Withdrawals, Diversions and Consumptive Uses regardless of who undertakes the other Withdrawals, Diversions and Consumptive Uses. Cumulative Impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant Withdrawals, Diversions and Consumptive Uses taking place over a period of time.

“Withdrawal” means the taking of water from surface water or groundwater.

CHAPTER 1 — GENERAL PROVISIONS  — ARTICLE 100  — OBJECTIVES

1. The objectives of this Agreement are:
a. To act together to protect, conserve and restore the Waters of the Great Lakes—St. Lawrence River Basin because current lack of scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for postponing measures to protect the Basin Ecosystem; …
c. To promote co-operation among the Parties by providing common and regional mechanisms to evaluate Proposals to Withdraw Water; …
g. To prevent significant adverse impacts of Withdrawals and losses on the Basin Ecosystem and its watersheds; …
2. The Parties shall interpret and apply the provisions of this Agreement to achieve these objectives.

CHAPTER 2 — PROHIBITION OF DIVERSIONS, EXCEPTIONS AND MANAGEMENT AND REGULATION OF WITHDRAWALS

ARTICLE 200 — PROHIBITION OF DIVERSIONS AND
MANAGEMENT AND REGULATION OF WITHDRAWALS

1. The Parties shall adopt and implement Measures to prohibit New or Increased Diversions, except as provided for in this Agreement.
2. The Parties shall adopt and implement Measures to manage and regulate Exceptions in accordance with this Agreement.
3. The Parties shall adopt and implement Measures to manage and regulate Withdrawals and Consumptive Uses in accordance with this Agreement.

ARTICLE 201 — EXCEPTIONS TO THE PROHIBITION OF DIVERSIONS

Exception Standard
4. The following criteria constitute the Exception Standard:
a. The need for all or part of the Exception cannot be reasonably avoided through the efficient use and conservation of existing water supplies;
b. The Exception shall be limited to quantities that are considered reasonable for the purposes for which it is proposed;
c. All Water Withdrawn shall be returned, either naturally or after use, to the Source Watershed less an allowance for Consumptive Use …
e. The Exception shall be implemented so as to incorporate Environmentally Sound and Economically Feasible Water Conservation Measures to minimize Water Withdrawals or Consumptive Use;

ARTICLE 202 — IMPLEMENTATION OF THE STANDARD AND THE EXCEPTION STANDARD

1. The Parties shall seek to adopt and implement Measures establishing the Exception Standard under Article 201 and the Decision-Making Standard for management and regulation of Withdrawals and Consumptive Uses under Article 203. The Standards are one of the means by which the Parties shall together protect, conserve, restore, improve and manage the Waters of the Basin.
2. The Standard and the Exception Standards are minimum standards. The Parties may implement Measures that are more restrictive than the requirements of this Agreement. Although a Proposal may meet the Standard or the Exception Standard, it may not be approved under the laws of the Originating Party if that Party has implemented more restrictive Measures.
3. When fully implemented, this Agreement shall lead to Water Withdrawal management systems that are consistent in their fundamentals within the Basin.

ARTICLE 203 –THE DECISION-MAKING STANDARD FOR — MANAGEMENT OF WITHDRAWALS AND CONSUMPTIVE USES

The following criteria constitute the Decision-Making Standard for management of new or increased Withdrawals and Consumptive Uses:
1. All Water Withdrawn shall be returned, either naturally or after use, to the Source Watershed less an allowance for Consumptive Use;
5. The proposed use is reasonable, based upon a consideration of the following factors:
a. Whether the proposed Withdrawal or Consumptive Use is planned in a fashion that provides for efficient use of the Water, and will avoid or minimize the waste of Water;

Was in Traverse City yesterday for a meeting of the “Anti-Line-5” group. I signed on to this letter wearing my “Article32.org” hat. This is a picture of me at the meeting.

http://flowforwater.org/flow-takes-lead-authoring-line-5-letter-to-governor-elevating-the-public-trust-duty-to-protect-the-great-lakes/

The most recent report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change –“Climate Change 2013 – The Physical Science Basis – Working Group I Contribution to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change”– can be found here: http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/

Here’s one of the “summary” side-bars: “The atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide have increased to levels unprecedented in at least the last 800,000 years. Carbon dioxide concentrations have increased by 40% since pre-industrial times, primarily from fossil fuel emissions and secondarily from net land use change emissions. The ocean has absorbed about 30% of the emitted anthropogenic carbon dioxide, causing ocean acidification.”

CAUTION: except for these “summary sidebars,” this report is highly technical.  But the conclusions are irrefutable.  In their words:

“Human influence on the climate system is clear. This is evident from the increasing greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere, positive radiative forcing, observed warming,
and understanding of the climate system.”

“First Peoples Worldwide’s Indigenous Rights Risk Report addresses one main question – why should investors and shareholders care about Indigenous Peoples? For years, Indigenous Peoples and their supporters have made the moral argument for their rights outlined in International Labor Organization Convention 169 (ILO 169), the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), and the other international and national laws that followed…. Events over the last decade have proven that companies that fail to respect Indigenous Peoples’ rights and do not forge positive, trust-based relationships with Indigenous communities increase their risk of protests, negative press, work stoppages, shut-downs, and law suits – all of which have a negative and material impact on profits and share price…. The impact of these risks on a companies’ [sic] bottom line are real and increasing.”

Read the full report here:  http://www.firstpeoples.org/images/uploads/R1KReport2.pdf

“The Canadian government is increasingly worried that the growing clout of aboriginal peoples’ rights could obstruct its aggressive resource development plans.”  

Read the full article from The Guardian here:  
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/true-north/2014/mar/04/aboriginal-rights-canada-resource-agenda