Document Type
Article
Abstract
For the aquifers of Minnesota, the environmental impact statement (EIS) was a promise of protection that never left the page. An environmental impact statement is meant to be an aid in the decision making process in order to ensure that projects consider potential environmental harms that may occur. However, they are often used instead as another regulatory box to check, rather than as active considerations when planning. As such, a project plan can be flawed from the start—if project developers only consider environmental impacts after they have already put considerable time, effort, and funding into their project as-is, they may be reluctant to alter plans based on their findings. There is great concern around the notion that the environmental impact statement is only used at face value to comply with regulations, and then is wholly disregarded during the project itself. “[NEPA's] impact statement mechanism has indeed become something of a catechism, an institutionalized ritual in which [NEPA's] original words have lost their meaning” (Houck, 2000). By only engaging in the “ritual” of environmental review, planners and developers design projects around ideal models instead of imperfect reality, and unfortunately the environmental reality is often harmed as a result. One such example of this situation is the Enbridge Line 3 Pipeline Replacement project: after completing their environmental impact statement, Enbridge ruptured multiple aquifers in Minnesota during construction of their pipeline in 2021, leading to groundwater loss, an altered water table, and irreversible damage to unique and rare ecosystems. Despite complying with the environmental review process, and despite the multitude of public comments warning about the risks to Minnesota’s hydrogeology, Enbridge failed to protect Minnesota’s environment from their actions. Ultimately, the aquifer breaches and subsequent remediation failures show that Enbridge’s environmental impact statement was fundamentally inadequate in its assessment of risk to Minnesota’s hydrogeology. To understand how Enbridge failed with its environmental impact statement, it is important to understand the environmental review process, the timeline of Enbridge’s actions and inactions, and the many places where regulations failed to reduce the environmental risks.
Publication Date
2026
Recommended Citation
Gutzmann, Carly, "When Words Flow Like Water: How the Enbridge Line 3 Pipeline Environmental Impact Statement Failed to Prevent Hydrogeologic Harm In Minnesota" (2026). Journal of Earth and Life Science. 92.
https://pines.bemidjistate.edu/j-earth-life-sci/92
Included in
Criminal Law Commons, Criminology and Criminal Justice Commons, Energy and Utilities Law Commons, Environmental Engineering Commons, Environmental Health Commons, Environmental Health and Protection Commons, Environmental Indicators and Impact Assessment Commons, Environmental Law Commons, Environmental Monitoring Commons, Environmental Policy Commons, Environmental Studies Commons, Hydraulic Engineering Commons, Indigenous, Indian, and Aboriginal Law Commons, Infrastructure Commons, Natural Resource Economics Commons, Natural Resources and Conservation Commons, Natural Resources Law Commons, Natural Resources Management and Policy Commons, Oil, Gas, and Energy Commons, Oil, Gas, and Mineral Law Commons, Other Legal Studies Commons, Place and Environment Commons, Public Affairs Commons, Public Interest Commons, Science and Technology Policy Commons, Science and Technology Studies Commons, Water Resource Management Commons, Water Resources Engineering Commons
Comments
Faculty sponsor: Dr. Paul Kivi, Department of Environmental Studies