A lawsuit filed against the United States Army Corps of Engineers last Thursday alleged that a permit it issued for a pipeline replacement project in Minnesota would cause negative effects on the environment and the plaintiffs. The complaint, filed in the District Court for the District of Columbia, asked the court to vacate the permit and issue injunctions to stop construction of the pipeline.
The plaintiffs include two bands of Native Americans, the Red Lake Band of Chippewa Indians and the White Earth Band of Ojibwe, and two environmental organizations, Honor the Earth and the Sierra Club. They purported that the Corps violated the National Environmental Policy Act, the Clean Water Act, the Administrative Procedure Act, the Rivers and Harbors Act, and its own policies.
The company completing the pipeline project, which the complaint called a “so-called pipeline ‘replacement,’” was proposed by Enbridge Energy, which currently operates a pipeline in the same location with the capacity to transport 332 barrels per minute. The current pipeline is used to carry lighter grades of oil from Canada, through North Dakota, to Minnesota. The proposed pipeline would reportedly transport heavier oil, specifically “sour ‘dilbit’ from the tar sands region in Alberta, Canada,” to the same location.
According to the complaint, the United States Army Corps of Engineers granted the request for a permit to build the new line. The plaintiffs purported that spills of the tar sands oil could “devastate entire ecosystems” and would additionally be harmful to human health. Reportedly when issuing the permit, the Corps said that it would not have a significant environmental impact, but the plaintiffs said the construction and operation of the project would each have a significant harmful impact on the environment.
Thursday’s complaint claimed that the Corps ignored impacts to water quality, hunting, fishing, gathering, and air quality, as well as the risks of a spill and the significant amount of energy needed to power the plant, leading it to not prepare an Environmental Impact Statement, as should have been necessary if it had adequately considered the broader impacts of the project.
The plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary injunction to accompany the complaint, asking the court to enjoin the defendants and require them to withdraw the permit they issued. They also asked for an expedited hearing in the matter. The plaintiffs are represented by attorneys with EarthJustice.
