Public Utilities Commission Filings, Orders, Notices, and Proceedings...

1855_Treaty_map_w_Sandpiper_route_pic.jpgPUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION Filings, Orders, Notices and Proceedings for 13-474

On April 3, 2014, Honor the Earth a Motion to Extend the Time for deadline for filing Alternative Routes and to provide for additional public information hearings.  Honor the Earth supplemented this Motion with a copy of Winona LaDuke’s letter to Minnesota Governor Dayton dated March 31, 2014, and 2) Winona’s letter to Department of Commerce Commissioner Rothman dated April 2, 2014

The Letter to the Governor also included two significant exhibits; 1) an inter-agency EPA Treaty Rights Memorandum, dated January 8, 2013, RE: Western Washington Tribal Treaty Rights, by Deputy Administrator Bob Perciasepe, and 2) Enbridge’s official Aboriginal and Native American Policy which suggests that they recognize the legal and constitutional rights possessed by Native American  people, with respective jurisdictions in which they reside, including heritage sites, and that they plan to “do sincere consultation with Native Americans which may have an impact on their legally and constitutionally protected rights.” That's what their words say on paper, but it’s not what Enbridge is doing with the Sandpiper pipeline project. 

NEWS UPDATE: Enbridge Attempts to Block the Motion to Extend Time

On April 4, 2014, Honor the Earth filed a Motion for Alternative Route, suggesting the more environmentally conscious I-29 and I-94 Alternative Sandpiper Route, which mostly skirts the western and southern Chippewa ceded territories in Minnesota and keeps potential oil spills away from 1) the Red River to Hudson Bay, 2) the Mississippi River to the Gulf of Mexico and 3) the St Louis River and other tributaries to Lake Superior to the Atlantic Ocean. This is HUGE safety for the aquifers, tributaries and Headwaters of the Mississippi.

On April 7, 2014, Honor the Earth filed its Memorandum of Law in Support of Lack of Jurisdiction for Usufructuary Property Rights Protected by Federal Treaties, with the PUC.  The Memorandum was supported by 3 exhibits:

Exhibit A contains the understanding of the United States about our 1855 treaty rights in the United States v. State of Minnesota, Answers to Defendant’s, State of Minnesota, Interrogatories, U.S. District Court of Minnesota, January 20, 1971, submitted by U.S. Attorney Robert G. Renner (No. 3-70 Civil 228). 

Exhibit B is an environmental Law Review about Treaty-Guaranteed Usufructuary Rights: Minnesota v. Mille Lacs Band of Chippewa Indians Ten Years On by Peter Erlinder, 41 ELR 10922, 10-2011. 

Exhibit C is an updated Law Review focusing on Minnesota v. the Mille Lacs Band of Chippewa Indians: 19th Century Treaty-Created Usufructuary Property Interests, the Foundation for 21st Century Indigenous Sovereignty, by Peter Erlinder, Professor, William Mitchell College of Law and Director, International Humanitarian Law Institute, article currently invited for Law Review publication spring 2014. 

Volunteer Donate