Line 3 Opponents Allege ‘Blockade’ of Camp in Property Dispute

Aukes denied that the trail closure was a “blockade,” saying that the property’s occupants could enter or leave by other routes in vehicles or on foot. A photo with about 20 officers on the driveway or trail, he said, was taken out of context. “That happened when a mob of alleged water protectors started to surround officers that were at the scene,” he said. “A convoy of vehicles tried to force their way in past the vehicles — one of them actually struck an officer and bumped them with the vehicle, and that’s when we got other officers in.” 

He agreed that the law enforcement presence was unusual for an easement dispute, but said there was more at play. “If this was just a simple easement dispute, we ... probably would not even have law enforcement officers there,” he said. “We’re dealing with masses causing hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of damage to Enbridge equipment. We’re dealing with anarchy in different areas of the county. These people are coming in and out of this camp.” 

As for the process, Aukes said, his office did it by-the-book. “I served the notice, and because there is no legal access in the property, the Hubbard County land use ordinance does prohibit using it,” he said. “We began enforcing the ordinance after a notice was given, and people continued to drive on it.” 

Attorney Mara Verheyden-Hilliard of the Center for Protest Law and Litigation, who also represents the plaintiffs, said she was concerned about the incentives driving Auke’s decisions. “The sheriff’s departments in northern Minnesota are getting funding from the Enbridge pipeline company,” she said. “All their action and time suppressing water protectors and protesters is reimbursable.” 

Verheyden-Hilliard was referencing a public safety escrow trust fund the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission required Enbridge to establish as part of the permitting process, with the stated purpose of combatting increases to drug and sex trafficking common along pipeline construction routes. She said the fund was serving as a perverse incentive for law enforcement to increase the severity of their tactics against protesters. 

“Enbridge has poured more than a million dollars into it, and the sheriff’s departments send their invoices,” she said. “Including huge amounts of overtime, which means these individual officers, along with the departments overall, are being financially incentivized to take these unlawful actions.” 

Aukes disputed that. “There’s no incentive whatsoever for us to increase our patrols of the Enbridge Line 3 project at all — we’re not making money off of any of this,” he said. The fund was mandated by the state to pay for the enforcement of state laws, he said, and that’s how he was using it. 

“Enbridge is willing to pay it, and I’m going to take their money when the time comes,” he said. “The Hubbard County taxpayers shouldn’t have to be saddled with this extra expense. Enbridge should.”

Enbridge spokeswoman Juli Kellner wrote in an email Saturday morning that protests of the pipeline’s construction had been cause for growing concern. 

“Our first priority is the safety of all involved — our workers, men and women in law enforcement and the protestors themselves,” Kellner wrote. “As a company, we recognize the rights of individuals and groups to express their views legally and peacefully, but we will not tolerate illegal and unsafe acts.  Now we are seeing a marked increase in violence and illegal activity from protesters who have attempted to physically block workers from safely leaving work sites where protests have occurred.” 

She cited an incident at the Two Inlets pump station near Itasca State Park, where protesters occupied a work site and locked themselves to equipment early in June.

“Hundreds of thousands of dollars in damage was done to contractor equipment there, including that of Gordon Construction,” she wrote, name-checking a tribal contractor from the White Earth Nation. 

Aukes also said Switchboard, as the new owners, had an opportunity to prevent the situation. 

“The owners of this property are not here. We’ve never cited or arrested the owners of this property. The owners are based out of Texas,” he said. "And when you go to their website, you will see they are about training, basically ... civil disobedience, resisting the police. They’re a self-proclaimed ... anarchy group, right on their website,”

The group’s website was not accessible at time of publication. 

“We’re not keeping those people off of their land. If they wanted guests to come, maybe they should have done what Winona LaDuke did and get an easement," Aukes added.

Verheyden-Hilliard said Aukes’ approach was disingenuous. “It has nothing to do with an issue of county property and everything to do with an effort to harass and disrupt people,” she said. What he’s created here is a de facto open-air prison, where people cannot come and go in this rural area in their vehicles.”

Disrupting access to food and water on a property with no well, she said, was “creating a dangerous situation.” 

“You simply just can’t lock people in on their private property. If this was a private landowner who suddenly stopped you from being able to leave your land, or take in water, action would be taken immediately,” she said. “And here, it’s a sheriff’s department with weapons, and people, and guns, and cars, and power to take criminal action.” 

A representative for Enbridge did not respond to a request for comment. Nor did Hubbard County Land Commissioner Mark Lohmeier, who signed a notice prohibiting travel over the easement and is named as a co-defendant.

Hubbard County Land Commissioner Mark Lohmeier, who signed a notice prohibiting travel over the easement and is named as a co-defendant in the lawsuit, did not respond to a request for comment.

Subscribe to Closing Arguments

Sign up for new weekly newsletter Closing Arguments to get the latest about ongoing trials, major litigation and hot cases and rulings in courthouses around the U.S. and the world.

Email *

Submit