[zephyr]

As many of you must know the Standing Rock Sioux tribe, other Sioux tribes and many other Indian nations from across the country have joined together to oppose the Dakota Access oil pipeline construction across the Missouri River near their reservation. Here's an Opinion piece from the New York Times written by David Archambault II, the chairman of the Standing Rock tribe that describes the chain of events leading up to the current confrontation. Here's a pull quote from that letter: The Sioux tribes have come together to oppose this project, which was approved by the State of North Dakota and the United States Army Corps of Engineers. The nearly 1,200-mile pipeline, owned by a Texas oil company named Energy Transfer Partners, would snake across our treaty lands and through our ancestral burial grounds. Just a half-mile from our reservation boundary, the proposed route crosses the Missouri River, which provides drinking water for millions of Americans and irrigation water for thousands of acres of farming and ranching lands. Our tribe has opposed the Dakota Access pipeline since we first learned about it in 2014. Although federal law requires the Corps of Engineers to consult with the tribe about its sovereign interests, permits for the project were approved and construction began without meaningful consultation. The Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of the Interior and the National Advisory Council on Historic Preservation supported more protection of the tribe’s cultural heritage, but the Corps of Engineers and Energy Transfer Partners turned a blind eye to our rights. The first draft of the company’s assessment of the planned route through our treaty and ancestral lands did not even mention our tribe. The Dakota Access pipeline was fast-tracked from Day 1 using the Nationwide Permit No. 12 process, which grants exemption from environmental reviews required by the Clean Water Act and the National Environmental Policy Act by treating the pipeline as a series of small construction sites. And unlike the better-known Keystone XL project, which was finally canceled by the Obama administration last year, the Dakota Access project does not cross an international border — the condition that mandated the more rigorous federal assessment of the Keystone pipeline’s economic justification and environmental impacts. I found it very interesting that some of the canoe family that recently paddled from Suquamish to Olympia and stopped here in West Seattle have made the journey overland to the protest site in North Dakota with their canoe team. They plan to canoe on the Missouri River in a show of support. The Seattle Stranger has a reporter on the site and today she published this article and video with an interview of Harvey Anderson, a member of the Quinault Indian Nation. Per the article there are several Northwest tribes at the protest--Kalispel Tribe, Coeur d'Alene tribe, Quinault Indian Nation and the Puyallup tribe. Here's the video interview. I wish these folks success in preserving their water source for themselves and others downstream. ~z

[drm]

With the justifiable focus on Native American impacts, there has been less focus on the extensive use of eminent domain for this project. From wikipedia on just the North Dakota portion of the pipeline:

[mike]

A few nut balls in the desert make national news and hardly a word about this...

[Klapton]

Aren't we still supposed to be arguing about football players worshiping or not worshiping pieces of cloth and not noticing this?

[Ski]

the link to the NYT article requires logging in to be able to read it.

[mike]

Try HCN

[zephyr]

[lostintheforest]

[WANative]

Meh. Better to ship it through a pipe vs trucking it over the road, especially if you're concerned about C02 emissions. Concerns of the pipes rupturing are valid but you can't run a pipe without crossing rivers and streama.

[Ski]

considering the history of pipe failures and the damage caused I think their concerns are more than justified. it doesn't take a whole bunch of oil to foul up a body of water. I'm a little puzzled by how they got away with making an end run around NEPA and the other statutes by claiming it to be "separate" projects.

[zephyr]

I read another article yesterday that I have since been unable to locate. But it speaks to the many legal conflicts on other projects in other states with the corporation planning the pipeline. Apparently other states have pending lawsuits for a variety of mishaps in the wake of other similar projects. Meanwhile here is an amazing list of oil pipeline leaks and spills just since 2000. More information here on the Bakken pipeline in this accessible Wikipedia entry. This project has been quite controversial in Iowa where the Governor has been implicated in close ties to the parent company of Dakota Access LLP. "Dakota Access, LLC is a fully owned subsidiary of Energy Transfer Partners LP". A pull quote from the Iowa section of this article: Landowners across the state are also deeply concerned about the implications of allowing the state to condemn privately owned land, particularly agricultural land, on behalf of a company that has not demonstrated any substantial public benefit to the residents of Iowa.[41] According to a Des Moines Register poll, seventy-four percent of Iowans are opposed to the use of eminent domain condemnation on behalf of a private corporation.[42] Yes, when you consider how many people are affected by this project, it is deplorable that there is not more media attention on this issue. ~z

[WANative]

The only alternative is to move the product by truck or train where it needs to go. Are those better options? Discuss.

[moonspots]

[zephyr]

Wow. This is awesome breaking news. In spite of a Federal Court's ruling in favor of the pipeline by denying the injunction pressed by the tribes, "... the decision by District Judge James E. Boasberg was effectively put on hold by a federal order to stop construction near the tribe’s reservation until the Army Corps of Engineers can revisit its previous decisions in the disputed portion." More information in this article in The Washington Post (a subscribed site that allows 10 views per month). More from the article: Within minutes of Boasberg’s ruling, however, the departments of Justice, Army and Interior issued an unusual joint statement related to the disputed land. Thousands of Native Americans have camped out nearby in protest, and the showdown between tribe members and construction workers had grown increasingly tense. “We appreciate the District Court’s opinion on the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ compliance with the National Historic Preservation Act. However, important issues raised by the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe and other tribal nations and their members regarding the Dakota Access pipeline specifically, and pipeline-related decision-making generally, remain,” read the joint statement issued by the Justice, Army and Interior departments. “This case has highlighted the need for a serious discussion on whether there should be nationwide reform with respect to considering tribes’ views on these types of infrastructure projects. Therefore, this fall, we will invite tribes to formal, government-to-government consultations on two questions: (1) within the existing statutory framework, what should the federal government do to better ensure meaningful tribal input into infrastructure-related reviews and decisions and the protection of tribal lands, resources, and treaty rights; and (2) should new legislation be proposed to Congress to alter that statutory framework and promote those goals.” Here is a similar article in The Guardian on this latest development in the Standing Rock Sioux stand-off. It looks like this event has brought more attention on having the tribes have a more proactive involvement in decisions that affect their lands, environment and cultural history. ~z

[contour5]

A huge, unexpected win for the Standing Rock. A lot of people threw down and went to jail for this...