Reader Opinion: Line 3 not in our best interest
Gov. Tim Walz ruled in favor of the Enbridge Line 3 appeal after months of speculation. I believe this was the proper reaction to a decision that was not in the best long range interest to the citizens of Minnesota. This project was bought and pa...
Gov. Tim Walz ruled in favor of the Enbridge Line 3 appeal after months of speculation. I believe this was the proper reaction to a decision that was not in the best long range interest to the citizens of Minnesota. This project was bought and paid for by a Canadian pipeline company and has very little to do with our economy besides some temporary construction jobs. If Enbridge really wanted to be a good neighbor and investor, they would remove the existing (failing) line. If it was then determined that a new line was needed, they could negotiate to replace the line in its original location. Whether or not those negotiations are difficult are Enbridge's problem and not Minnesota's.
Both my representatives, Rep. Josh Heintzeman and Sen. Carrie Ruud, are opposed to the appeal. It has been reported by the CBC that Enbridge spent $5 million lobbying Minnesota to allow the pipeline to be constructed along a new route that passes just north of the Brainerd lakes area. The old line would be sealed and left in the ground. Not only would we be allowing Enbridge to leave their old mess in the ground, but we would be subjecting our lakes to possible oil spills. The question is not will there be spills, but when. I request that Mr. Heintzeman and Mrs. Ruud give a public accounting of any donations received from Enbridge.
I hope we have not gotten to a point where a company like Enbridge can purchase legislation in our great state.