Lake Superior Chippewa, Rob Lee, Midwest Environmental Advocates Staff Attorney, Evan Fineour, Clean Wisconsin Staff Attorney, Elizabeth Ward, Executive Director of the Sierra Club Wisconsin Chapter, Deborah Cronmiller, Executive Director of the League of Women Voters of Wisconsin, and Emily Park, Co-Executive Director of 350 Wisconsin. We are here today to announce a number of separate legal actions, challenging permits, and other regulatory approvals for Enbridge Energy's controversial plan to build a new 41-mile segment of its Line 5 oil pipeline near the Bad River Reservation in Northern Wisconsin. Today, the Bad River Band of Lake Superior Chippewa filed two legal challenges, the first as a lawsuit against Wisconsin DNR for failing to conduct a thorough environmental analysis of the project, the second as an appeal, contesting the permit, and its conditions. I will note here that the band is represented by Earth Justice, and we'll hear more about their legal challenge in a few minutes. A separate legal action was filed today by Clean Wisconsin and Midwestern environmental advocates. MEA represents Sierra Club, the League of Women Voters of Wisconsin, and 350 Wisconsin in that action. All of the groups represented here today are united in opposition to the proposed construction of a new segment of Enbridge Line 5 and the harm the project would cause. Before I turn the mic over to our first speaker today, I should note that there will be a question and answer period at the end of the press conference, so I invite members of the media to submit comments through the question and answer feature or through the chat. With that, I will invite our first speaker, Chairman Robert Blanchard of the Bad River Band of Lake Superior Chippewa to go ahead and unmute yourself and go ahead and speak. Thank you. Good afternoon, and thank you for having me this afternoon. My name is Robert Blanchard. I'm Chairman of Bad River Band of Lake Superior Chippewa unions. We are located in Northern Wisconsin along Lake Superior, and I'm here today to hopefully answer any questions that you may have, and also if they are referencing any legal questions, I will refer that to the attorney, Stephanie, and try to get you the information that we can best provide. But as you know, Enbridge was granted the permits from the state BNR to reroute their pipeline from the lands that it goes through Bad River right now, and to go along the reservation southward and then across again, which puts it in a lot of the watershed that feeds our streams in our rivers and our lake, and if something was to happen during that time or when that pipeline's in place, you know, it's really going to affect a lot of the things that we do here, and the way we do things here on the reservation as far as our way of life. We do have annual harvest of our wild rice, which grows along the rivers here in Bad River and Lake Superior, and we hunt, we fish, and we gather a lot of our medicines that we use to heal ourselves here, and if they are, something happens to them, you know, our people are going to feel that, we have a lot at stake here. Thank you, Chairman Blantern. Our next speaker is attorney Rob Lee with Midwest Environmental Advocates. Thank you, Peg, and thank you, Chairman Blanchard. Good afternoon, everyone. My name is Rob Lee, and I am the staff attorney at Midwest Environmental Advocates. MEA is a Wisconsin-based nonprofit environmental law center that provides legal services and support to communities working to protect their rights to a clean and healthy environment. Earlier this morning, MEA joined Clean Wisconsin as mentioned in filing a petition for a contested case hearing, challenging regulatory approvals issued by Wisconsin DNR for Enbridge Energy's plan to build a new 41-mile segment of its line 5 oil pipeline near the Bad River reservation in northern Wisconsin. Today, we stand in solidarity with Bad River Band of Lake Superior Chippewa to support them and their efforts to stop this dangerous and destructive pipeline construction project. I do want to emphasize that the legal action, the MEA and Clean Wisconsin filed is separate from the legal actions filed by Earth Justice on behalf of Bad River Band. Our petition, at least for MEA's part, was filed on behalf of Sierra Club League of Women Voters of Wisconsin and 350 Wisconsin and submitted jointly with the Wisconsin with whom we've been working closely. Together, we're challenging DNR's decision to issue a wetland fill and waterway crossing permit for this reroute and DNR's decision to convey coverage under the department's general permit for construction site storm water runoff. In addition, we're also challenging a determination that this project will meet the state of Wisconsin's water quality standards. The first point I want to make is, in our view, Enbridge isn't even eligible for all the permits it is applied for, and particularly the authorization to place permanent and temporary structures on the beds of waterways. Enbridge must own the properties on either side of those waterway crossings and the easements they've obtained are simply not good enough under Wisconsin law. As far as the actual impacts from the reroute, the construction project that's been proposed, our petition alleges that Enbridge did not provide and that DNR did not have enough information in the permit application to lawfully issue permits for this project. One good example of that is Enbridge has not identified exactly which waterway crossings would require blasting through that waterways bedrock. Nor did they provide basic site specific information about topography, hydrology, and geology of those potential blasting sites. And we also allege that Enbridge's construction plan and plan to restore the impacts from construction consistently understate not only the environmental damage from the project itself, but also overstates Enbridge's ability to repair that damage. So one example we point to in our petition is the way that the harmful impacts associating with clearing forested wetlands have been mischaracterized by Enbridge. It's temporary when in fact it's likely going to take multiple decades to restore pre-construction conditions in those wetlands. Moreover, those impacts will not be to wetlands will not be confined to the construction right of way, but will reach far beyond that given the extent of the construction activities and the interconnected nature of the wetland complexes that we route would cross. I could go on and provide additional examples from our filing, but there's certainly too numerous to mention here, and I would just refer you to that filing. It does speak for itself. So in some, given the risks associated with the project of this scale and the potential of significant environmental harm, we believe Enbridge should not be allowed to move forward with the reroute as permitted. I'll now turn it over to my colleague, Clean Wisconsin Attorneys Evan Fine Hour. Yeah, thanks. Good afternoon, everyone. So I'm Evan Fine Hour, staff attorney with Clean Wisconsin. Clean Wisconsin is a statewide membership organization that's spent around for 50 years. Big part of what we do on behalf of our members is fight to protect water resources across the state. And particularly relevant today's topic is wetlands. And I just robbed it a really good job of talking about the overarching themes in the case, but I want to emphasize the sort of important nature of wetlands in this for a couple of reasons. One is these are really special places. And you know, when we get older, we kind of lose the ability sometimes to be amazed by things. And the more I learn about wetlands, the more amazed I am and the more I realize I don't know about them. And when I talk to experts, I get so enlightened and I learn so much about how complicated nature is and how amazing what it creates is. And then you juxtapose that with sometimes the hubris that people have that they think we can come and stomp through these places and try to put them back together again. You combine that with how valuable wetlands are for everything that we do, water quality, addressing flooding, Friday habitat for critical plants animals. I mean, you name it. It's really a recipe for disaster to be going into these places without a good plan. And that's why we have strong state laws that protect these places. But those laws are really just words on paper. If we're not going to implement them to the fullest and consistently, you know, no matter who you are and if you show up and you apply for a permit, you got to meet the standards. And we've taken a really close look. And this doesn't meet the standards. These permits shouldn't have been issued. And, you know, it's just, it's not acceptable to impact these places for all the reasons I just said. And that's why groups like ours exist, like Lewis Johnson's exists, to implement the law and make sure it's enforced correctly. And that's what we see ourselves doing here today. And I also want to make sure, you know, before I pass it on again, just to thank everybody that's been involved. This has been a long process. This has been proposed for a long time. And there's been so many people, so many people around the state individuals and organizations that have done something to help. And I just would be remiss if I didn't emphasize how grateful clean Wisconsin is. And I'm sure everybody is about people standing up for what they think is right. I do see a question about the process for contested case hearing. If it's appropriate, I can go ahead and try to cover that now. Or I could hold it towards the end, whatever we'd prefer. Let's go ahead and hold that until the end. Okay. Great. Thank you, Evan. We'll go now to Elizabeth Ward. Thanks, Peg. And I echo Evans. Thanks to everyone here and around the state who's done so much great work. My name is Elizabeth Ward. I'm the director of the statewide branch of the Sierra Club. Sierra Club is a national grassroots organization committed to amplifying the power of our members and supporters to defend their rights to healthy environment and to ensure a safe livable future for generations to come. We're participating in this legal challenge and are thankful to me for representing us because the line five reroute will endanger Wisconsin's irreplaceable water resources, promote continued reliance on fossil fuels, and entrench fossil fuel infrastructure in northern Wisconsin for generations to come. One of the most irreplaceable resources that would be put at risk by line five construction is the CACAGAN SLUZ, a wetland complex of global significance. Many people refer to the SLUZ as the Everglades of the north. They are the only extensive coastal wild rice bed in the Great Lakes region, and they are critical to maintaining genetic diversity of wild rice and Lake Superior. Like all wetlands, the CACAGAN SLUZ are extremely sensitive to construction and other human impacts. The construction activities proposed by Enbridge, including horizontal directional drilling, blasting dewatering and others, have the potential to significantly compromise the ability of the wetlands to provide critical ecosystem services such as flood protection, water filtration, and fish and wildlife habitat. Similarly, Enbridge's construction plans have the potential to do significant harm to the waterways that would be crossed by the reroute, as well as the underlying groundwater. Drilling beneath waterways, which Enbridge proposes to do, can be dangerous. Aquifers can be breached and drilling fluid can leak into the groundwater. Just look at what happened in Minnesota. While constructing the line three replacement project in 2021, Enbridge punctured three aquifers threatening three counties in Minnesota. The breach caused nearly 300 million gallons of groundwater to flow to the surface level and release harmful drilling fluids. These aquifer breaches were caused by a construction method known as horizontal directional drilling. Frackouts and aquifer breaches are well known and predictable consequences of horizontal directional drilling. Enbridge plans use these same methods in Wisconsin. Why should we expect a different result? The answer is we shouldn't. That's why we're here today. On behalf of our 18,000 members across Wisconsin, the Sierra Club looks forward to working with our partners to ensure that Enbridge is never again allowed to show the kind of disregard for environmental regulations as they did during the line three construction in Minnesota. Thank you. Thank you, Elizabeth. Our next speaker is Deborah Cronmiller. Go ahead and unmute yourself, Deborah. Thank you. Thank you, Peg. And thanks to all our partners and to MEA for representing us in this critically important case. I am Deborah Cronmiller. I am the executive director for the League of Women Voters of Wisconsin. We are a nonpartisan organization that encourages informed and active participation in government. We work to increase understanding of major public policy issues, and we influence public policy through education and advocacy. As an organization, the League has long been at the forefront of efforts to protect our environment. Our priorities include preventing water pollution, dramatically lowering greenhouse gas emissions, and advancing renewable energy. The League also supports tribal sovereignty and treaty rights, and recognizes the traditional and unique relationships the Bad River Band and other tribes have to waters and aquatic beings in Wisconsin, generally, and in northern Wisconsin, specifically. Our organization has strong interest in protecting the unique, remote, and ecologically sensitive terrain of northern Wisconsin, where the line five reroute is proposed. We believe the Wisconsin DNR has issued permits without all the information necessary to ensure that the harmful impacts of this reroute have been fully considered. The line five construction will cause significant harm to the wetlands, streams, and water bodies along the reroute, as well as the flora and fauna that depend on them. The harm caused by the pipeline construction will be exacerbated by extreme weather events like floods that are intensifying and becoming more common. We believe that any proposal for a new pipeline has the burden of demonstrating that it can be done in a way that truly minimizes harm to the sensitive lands and waters in and around the Great Lakes. Enbridge has not met this burden. For years, Enbridge has been illegally trespassing on the sacred land of the Bad River Band. It is time to stand up against this corporate giant and do what is right for our land, our people, and our world. What we do now will impact all our futures. Each of us has a voice in our own destiny. We are here today to stand up to those who are enriched by the very fossil fields that in parallel our world, and we will remain steadfast in our efforts to protect Wisconsin's environment and people. Thank you so much, Deborah. Our final speaker today is Emily Park of 350, Wisconsin. Hi, everybody, and thank you so much for being here today. My name is Emily Park, and I am co-executive director with 350, Wisconsin. 350, Wisconsin is a nonprofit organization that mobilizes grassroots power to change laws and policies to make transformational progress towards environmental justice and solving the climate crisis by 2030. We work with tribes, landowners, environmental advocates, and others to prevent the construction of new oil pipeline infrastructure like the Line 5 reroute because of the devastating environmental and community impacts associated with pipeline construction and operation. In addition to our concerns about how the construction project will endanger our wetlands and waterways, we are deeply concerned that the continued reliance on fossil fuels like those transported through Enbridge's Line 5 prevents a timely and just transition away from fossil fuels and exacerbates environmental degradation driven by climate change. The climate crisis also threats everything that Wisconsinites hold close in our hearts. Rising water temperatures, increased precipitation, droughts, and flash floods, and other well-studied and documented climate change trends threaten communities, water resources, agriculture, and public recreation throughout Wisconsin. The lakes, rivers, and wetlands throughout our state are important to all Wisconsinites, and the effects of climate change imperil our public trust rights to navigation, creation, and critical natural and cultural resources, and our rights and the functional benefits that these ecosystems provide, including carbon sequestration and water food duration. So, as a challenge, the fact that the reroute silicates and continues to be useful fuels, it would contribute to negative impacts associated with fossil fuel production, transport, and consumption. And yet, somehow, the TNR determined that the impacts would not be significant and that the project should move forward regardless of the human and ecological damage it would cause. As we indicate in the petition, we strongly agree with this disagree with this colloquial conclusion, and we will continue to do everything we can to see that the Line 5 reroute does not move forward. Thank you. Thank you, Emily. At this time, we're happy to open it up for questions. So, I invite you to submit a question if you have one through the Q&A feature or through the chat. We've already had a few questions come in. Let's go back to that question that came up earlier around next steps. So, I'm going to put this one to you, Rob. Can you explain more about what a contested case hearing is and what it involves? Yeah, and I'll invite Evan to back feel anything that I miss here, but essentially, a contested case hearing is an administrative hearing, and it's very much like what you is similar to what you may think of a trial, right, where you have to introduce evidence, including expert testimony and develop a record, and then submit that to administrative law judge that will preside over that hearing, and they will decide the issues anew to see whether or not DNR got it right. It is a little bit of an intense process, especially given the timeline. It may be as soon as the spring, but at the end of that process, depending on what the administrative law judge decides, then DNR will have the option to either accept that decision or appeal it itself if it's unfavorable to DNR, and that same right would be afforded to us, depending on that situation. But the very first thing that needs to happen right now is now that DNR has received our petition, it must go through it and decide the issues that it will grant for that hearing. For our part, we have 16 different issues in Earth Justice and the band have led even more. Evan, I invite you to add any more if you'd like to that. No, I think that was pretty good. I think that was the right level of detail and information there. The statute does specify the timeline. That's kind of the target for this to work. So the department's supposed to take, I think, 30 days here to decide what to do. And then after that, we'll know more about what the timeline will look like. So as of right now, that's the next step, and wouldn't want to speculate much beyond that about how long things you're going to take or when exactly things will happen. So that would be the next shoe to drop, so to speak. I'd also say, too, catastrophe hearing does typically include a public testimony component. So there is a public access aspect of this whenever that hearing is ultimately scheduled. The only other pertinent thing to mention, too, is that in pursuing and by filing the petition today, that does effectuate a stay, which is important to emphasize that under the statute. Again, recognizing how important these water resources are when somebody challenges them, we say, hold on. And there's a pause there to let the challenge play out. So I think that kind of summarizes the process. But obviously, Rob and I, whoever can field if there's follow questions on the legal process stuff. That's great. Thank you, Evan. And thank you, Rob. Before we go to our next question, I just want to note that I see a raised hand. Instead of raised hand, if you would go ahead and just put your questions right into either the chat or the Q&A feature, that's the best way we can sort of order those questions and get them answered for you. Okay, so our next question is about observation along the proposed, the route of the proposed construction. So the question is, has there been any, have there been any new observations along the route, such as significant erosion, which could expose the pipeline or pose other risks. Our reporter here notes that the issues, these issues are highlighted during some of the federal court hearings. And so perhaps Chairman Blanchard or others might want to speak to that. I will know, I believe Stephanie Sosie, attorney with Earth Justice, is with us as well and might be able to offer some insight there. Yeah, I'd be happy to. So the question is, have there been any new observations along the along line fives route on the bad river, such as significant erosion, which could expose the pipeline or pose other risks. These issues were highlighted during some of the federal court hearings. So you're talking about the where the pipeline is currently going across the reservation? Yes, I apologize. I misspoke earlier. Yes, we have an area out there which is known to us as, we call the meander, which the river is changing course and it does that, you know, different throughout. It's the way it runs, you know, and it just wants to change the course. And at this one place, the line crosses that and it is starting to go that way. And it's probably 10, 11 feet away from the pipeline now. And if we have high water events, flooding where harsh winter with a lot of ice build up and when all that breaks loose in the spring, and we get this high water that could take very well, take that pipeline out and cause a spill. So we are monitoring that quite regularly. Our natural resource department here has cameras out there that they use to monitor. The location is quite difficult to get to. It goes down a big steep embankment and crosses the river and so it takes a little bit to get to it. But they do from time to time go on and do some measurements. So yes, we do monitor it. We also had a few years back, we had an exposed pipeline coming down one of the side hills out there, which I think they call it slope 18 or something like that. I can't remember exactly, but there was about quite a ways where the pipe was exposed and just kind of hanging in midair, you know, and which could have been disastrous if it wasn't found in something done about it. So yes, there is areas out there that we are very concerned about. Thank you, Chairman Blanchard. We have one quick clarifying question about next steps. Will the work, excuse me, it says, So no work will begin until the challenge is addressed. Is that correct? Yeah, I can't. If you, or I'm sorry, please go ahead. This is cleaning up or I asked, uh, elaborating on what I said before. So I said there'll be a pause because we filed the challenge that, um, stay of the permits effect effectiveness is in place unless and until the administer of law judge who hears the case decides otherwise. So what that means in practice is at some point, DNR will presumably grant the permit, uh, or the petition. It'll get assigned to an ALJ and the ALJ can be presented with evidence by the other parties if they wish saying, well, a stay is not really necessary here. And the ALJ could live this day. We don't think that would be warranted here because the standard to keep the stay in place till the whole case is done is have you made a demonstration that proceeding with the construction would cause significant environmental harms and we think that's kind of an ill brainer here. And indeed, it's, it's sort of telling that the legislature decided, hey, when so many files, one of these wetland and waterways permits that stops things until the permits done unless the ALJ decides otherwise. So it's a presumption of a stay until it's done, but there would be an opportunity for the ALJ to lift it if they were convinced that there was no prospect of significant harms if the project proceeded. Of course, you can't unfill a wetlands. So that's a hard standard for the other side to meet, but that is legally possible. Yeah, I just want to clarify, as you said, significant environmental harms, I think the first time you may have got it the second time, but part of that standard is that those harms will be irreversible. And that's why wetlands or evidence says you can't unfill a wetland, just like you can't put bedrock together right after you exploded, right? These are things that cannot be undone and that are the product of complex processes over years and decades and even millennia, right? And those can't be quickly or at all undone. They're irreversible. Great. Thanks, Evan and Rob. Our next question has to do with similarities between the bans, petitions, and the petition submitted jointly by MEA and Clean Wisconsin. So I'm hoping maybe Rob and or Evan, you could just review for us at a high level the similar any similarities between the petitions. And in particular, there's a question about whether the respect or the various petitions deal only with environmental review or with the permits themselves. And I understand that there is also some interplay between those. So I don't know which one of you might want to start first with that. All answer I can start. I'll just say that we reviewed this independently. And in fact, didn't see, right, like for example, the tribe's petition until it was filed today, right? And so we independently reviewed that until the extent that you see similarities, I would suggest that that just goes to the impacts here, right? And the fact that we're reaching the same conclusions based on that review. And so I'm sure there are similarities, right? I'm talking about things like the lack of sufficient information. I think Enbridge often just buries agencies and groups like ours in paper and hopes that we won't be able to tell the difference, right, between, you know, applicable information that goes to the permit standards and information that is very general or vague and doesn't go to those immediate impacts. But we can tell the difference. And then the second question there is know the filings today do not only deal with the environmental review process, which is what concluded back in September, but also challenges the permits, right, that that environmental review process under underlies. And so the wetland and waterway, stormwater, water quality certification decisions that DNR must issue for Enbridge to be able to construct the pipeline here in Wisconsin. Thank you, Rob. There are no more questions here in the chat or through the Q&A. And so we'll go ahead and wrap up our press conference. I want to thank you all, all of our speakers for being here today, members of the media for joining us. If you have additional questions, please feel free to reach out to me. My information is in the press advisory that was issued this morning. In addition, we've got contact information there for the communications directors at Clean Wisconsin and at Earth Justice. Thanks again for being here. And take care. Thank you.