My Letter on Line 3

**This is addressing the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission**

I was present for the public hearing held in Saint Paul on Thursday, 9/28/2017.  My comments on this are in direct response to the first hour of recorded public comment from Minnesota’s constituency.  I’m not sure if you had a stenographer, or an audio recording, but if you read or listen, you’ll witness the sentiments of those I am quoting.  One of the earliest comments was from a man who drew a map showing us some geographical markers: existing and proposed Line 3, and an alternate route heading in the same direction approximately 100 miles or so south, which would terminate in Illinois.  Along with those were overlays of our state’s lakes and waterways, which clearly showed Line 3 occupying our largest aquifers and wetlands.

Accompanying my response, I’d wish to add another map to his overlay on the existing and alternate line proposals which I'll describe to you.  A usage map:  Urbanites often travel by bus which have already begun successfully switching to electric.  They also walk more, and bike more, and live closer to their professions and food markets.  The native people also do a lot of walking, and using of canoes to get to the hardest to reach wild rice, and they live simply and also are close to their professions.  In suburbia, not only do the residents often have the longest automobile commutes, along with the widest roads, and on the most asphalt, but frequently, even their recreational vehicles require this crude.  Jetskis, high octane speedboats, a third or fourth vehicle, snowmobiles, motorbikes, four wheelers, and let’s not forget golf carts, and riding lawn mowers.  Not only are the commutes, and toys, more greatly motorized, but also their homes have twice the square footage, and quadruple, if not more, the acreage.  Rural whites and suburban whites, require the highest volume of crude over any other people in the state.  It comes as no surprise that they desire it more.

The 'alternate' line proposal, which I am not sure whether or not anyone is taking seriously, goes through white populated areas, and it avoids what little native reservations we have left in Minnesota.  It also veers clear of the bulk of our water table and most of our lakes and rivers, an important piece of our critical habitat.  What's interesting to me about this is that natives, along with naturalist and empathetic whites, as well as every other people of color or ethnic background, all do not want the current line 3.  This is referencing the demographics witnessed by me from the attended hearing.  Some residents around old line 3 were even quoted, claiming that it has been causing cancer in their communities at a rate of 1:4.  Something Enbridge had stated, when asked at the hearing, they were unaware, as did commerce dept.  I believe there is intended follow up on this, but regardless of any findings, it is a real and expressed concern for the native people, which needs to be recorded as a legitimate complaint as it relates to the 'material facts' and ‘enjoyment of use’ in real estate laws of our state.  Meanwhile, every defender or proponent of approving the expanded new line was a white person, and only white people, from currently unaffected suburban areas. Unaffected, other than the benefits, of course.  Again, this is my own  eyewitness testimony having been at the hearing at the aforementioned date.  The white suburbanites have the highest use rate of crude, one fellow mentioned seeing such use outside “his” window. My window tells a different story, so just his mind you.  They would occupy the most jobs from crude pipelines.  It is their communities and culture which thrives the most from expanding this project.  They also said things like "proven safety record" and "better to have it in our own back yard" which suggests to me that they don’t have the same fears of cancer, or spills that would affect the water in or around their properties. And they have backyards, big ones, plenty of yard space to share. Another person, who I can't quote directly talked about her farm land; Avery, I believe was her name, which she uses to run an entrepreneurial business supplying line workers with jobs. She's got acreage, unused for a food growing operation, that would be perfect for a pipeline. I hope you see where I am going with this.

I was born in Minnesota in 1976 and I’ve traveled extensively in those northern waterways, obeying National Park Regulations on “Leave No Trace”.   I learned these techniques, not from the NPS, but from YMCA sponsored, Camp Widjiwagan.  The bottom of our canvas covered canoes were to touch nothing but water, air, and bannock (trail bread making).  These teachings were, and still are, inspired by the native people who don't want crude in or near our lakes and streams. The French Canadian fur traders were taught the ancient art of canoe making, the traders nearly copied, with few improvements, and followed their example and passed it down, where it still is being taught today in places like Widji, and Menogyn. People come from all over the world to attend and learn from these camps, and our waterways are exactly what makes Minnesota (native meaning water, and water tinted skies), or the land of 10,000 lakes, unique from any other state.  Our water is an integral element of our economy, arguably more prominent than energy jobs from a new pipeline.  Nay, it is our identity. So I must request a flat out denial be considered first and foremost. The future of energy isn't even in oil. The younger generations are demanding clean renewables, and that is the direction energy is already starting to move.  

If a denial is out of the question because of commerce demands beyond my knowledge, before approval of Line 3 is considered, I urge you to secondly consider the "alternate" route first, which would put the safer and bigger pipeline in the whites' backyard and away from the wet north. I say do that, as it is what everyone seems to want.  If determined that we truly need this volume of crude, run that sucker right through SW suburbia, then.  Minnesota can be the first state that honors ancient treaties with natives, protects its natural water resources, gives the conservative white folks the jobs and energy powered economy that they crave, all with one ruling. And further, Minnesota can be the first state that tests, in the real world, the claims of safety on the very people who believe in it so much, making us the shining American example that proves that capitalism can be moral while increasing its riches.  Everyone wins. ... or are the white people in their green neon jerseys falsely informed or lying whenever they say they know its safe, and that they want it nearby?  Minnesota can let time tell that story. One of two things would result from this bold statement from our great state.  By piping the crude oil through white suburbia, everyone would be thankful that they got what they wanted and live happily ever after in harmony.  Either that, or, in the case of tragedy, predicted and warned from the oldest residents of these lands, the one community that desires this product can learn first hand from its own doings, and change from the error of their own ways, without inflicting those errors and the consequent damages on others, whose very warnings they fail to heed, as we have been for so many centuries already. We have monuments of sorrow dedicated to displaced native people all over our state already. Thoughtlessly pushing capital gains through at the expense of non-white people is America's oldest sin. We have an opportunity to correct a bad habit here. Please, for the environment, for the people of Minnesota, for its identity, and for all Americans, consider doing what is the right thing to do.

Thank you