Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by charon on Sunday February 12, @10:09AM   Printer-friendly
from the rebellion dept.

The Guardian reports that the U.S. Army sent a letter, dated 7 February, to member of Congress Raúl Grijalva, saying it would grant a permit for the construction of the controversial Dakota Access Pipeline. Work could resume as early as 8 February.

"I have determined that there is no cause for completing any additional environmental analysis," wrote Douglas W Lamon, the senior official performing the duties of assistant secretary of the army, wrote in a notice to the federal register.

More recent news in Standing Rock from Feb 9:

The restarting of the drilling operation, which a pipeline spokeswoman confirmed on Thursday morning, began soon after the US government gave the oil corporation the green light to proceed on Wednesday. The controversial pipeline could be transporting crude oil from North Dakota to Illinois within three months.

At the Standing Rock camps in Cannon Ball – where activists have been stationed since last spring to fight the project – indigenous and environmental organizers vowed to stay put and continue opposing the pipeline.

[Continues...]

And from Feb 11:

Army veterans from across the country have arrived in Cannon Ball, North Dakota, or are currently en route after the news that Donald Trump's administration has allowed the oil corporation to finish drilling across the Missouri river.

The growing group of military veterans could make it harder for police and government officials to try to remove hundreds of activists who remain camped near the construction site and, some hope, could limit use of excessive force by law enforcement during demonstrations.

"We are prepared to put our bodies between Native elders and a privatized military force," said Elizabeth Williams, a 34-year-old air force veteran, who arrived at Standing Rock with a group of vets late on Friday. "We've stood in the face of fire before. We feel a responsibility to use the skills we have."

Previous stories:

Army Corp [sic] of Engineers Now Accepting Public Comment on the Dakota Access Pipeline
Army Corps of Engineers Blocks the Dakota Access Pipeline and many others in the archives.


Original Submission

Related Stories

Army Corps of Engineers Blocks the Dakota Access Pipeline 137 comments

According to an article at Snopes.com:

The Army Corps of Engineers has denied the easement needed to complete the Dakota Access Pipeline, according Colonel Henderson, who notified Veterans for Standing Rock co-organizer Michael A. Wood Jr on 4 December 2016.

More than 3,000 veterans had converged at the Standing Rock camp to support the Sioux in their ongoing opposition to the building of a $3.7 billion pipeline that would cross through disputed land managed by the Army Corps of Engineers. Wood said upon learning of the move, "This is history."

From a report in Al Jazeera :

The US Army Corps of Engineers has turned down a permit for a controversial pipeline project running through North Dakota, in a victory for Native Americans and climate activists who have protested against the project for several months, according to a statement released.

The 1,885km Dakota Access Pipeline, owned by Texas-based Energy Transfer Partners LP, had been complete except for a segment planned to run under Lake Oahe, a reservoir formed by a dam on the Missouri River.

"The Army will not grant an easement to cross Lake Oahe at the proposed location based on the current record," a statement from the US Army said.

The Standing Rock Sioux tribe, along with climate activists, have been protesting the $3.8bn project, saying it could contaminate the water supply and damage sacred tribal lands.

[...] "Today, the US Army Corps of Engineers announced that it will not be granting the easement to cross Lake Oahe for the proposed Dakota Access Pipeline," said Standing Rock Chairman Dave Archambault II, in a statement.

"Instead, the Corps will be undertaking an environmental impact statement to look at possible alternative routes."


Original Submission

Army Corp of Engineers Now Accepting Public Comment on the Dakota Access Pipeline 53 comments

The Army Corp of Engineers is now accepting public comment until February 20th regarding the permits for the Dakota Access Pipeline.

You may mail or hand deliver written comments to Mr. Gib Owen, Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works, 108 Army Pentagon, Washington, DC 20310-0108. Advance arrangements will need to be made to hand deliver comments. Please include your name, return address, and "NOI Comments, Dakota Access Pipeline Crossing" on the first page of your written comments. Comments may also be submitted via email to Mr. Gib Owen, at gib.a.owen.civ@mail.mil. If emailing comments, please use "NOI Comments, Dakota Access Pipeline Crossing" as the subject of your email.

The location of all public scoping meetings will be announced at least 15 days in advance through a notice to be published in the local North Dakota newspaper (The Bismarck Tribune) and online at https://www.army.mil/?asacw.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mr. Gib Owen, Water Resources Policy and Legislation, Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works, Washington, DC 20310-0108; telephone: (703) 695-6791; email: gib.a.owen.civ@mail.mil.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The proposed crossing of Lake Oahe by Dakota Access, LLC is approximately 0.5 miles upstream of the northern boundary of the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe's reservation. The Tribe protests the crossing primarily because it relies on Lake Oahe for water for a variety of purposes, the Tribe's reservation boundaries encompass portions of Lake Oahe downstream from the proposed crossing, and the Tribe retains water, treaty fishing, and hunting rights in the Lake.

The proposed crossing of Corps property requires the granting of a right-of-way (easement) under the Mineral Leasing Act (MLA), 30 U.S.C. 185. To date, the Army has not made a final decision on whether to grant the easement pursuant to the MLA. The Army intends to prepare an EIS to consider any potential impacts to the human environment that the grant of an easement may cause.

Specifically, input is desired on the following three scoping concerns:

(1) Alternative locations for the pipeline crossing the Missouri River;

(2) Potential risks and impacts of an oil spill, and potential impacts to Lake Oahe, the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe's water intakes, and the Tribe's water, treaty fishing, and hunting rights; and

(3) Information on the extent and location of the Tribe's treaty rights in Lake Oahe.

Those wishing to submit comments opposing the pipeline can do so directly at the email address listed above, or use web pages setup to do so by the following groups:

Action Network

Sierra Club

Likewise, if you support the pipeline you can comment as well and respond to the questions asked via email or letter to the addresses listed above.


Original Submission

US District Court: Approval of Dakota Access Pipeline Violated the Law 32 comments

AlterNet reports

A federal judge ruled [June 14] that the Trump administration must conduct additional environmental review of the Dakota Access Pipeline, handing a limited victory to Native American tribes fighting the administration's decision to move forward with the project.

In an extensive opinion,[PDF][1] Washington, DC District Court Judge James Boasberg sided with the tribes by agreeing the Army Corps of Engineers "did not consider the impacts of an oil spill on fishing rights, human rights, or environmental justice."

[...] Boasberg did not order a shutdown of operations on the pipeline, which began pumping oil early this month. The tribes and pipeline owner Energy Transfer Partners are ordered to appear in court next week to decide next legal steps, and the tribes are expected to argue for a full shutdown of pipeline operations.

[1] Link in article redirects.

Previous coverage:
Dakota Access Pipeline Suffers Oil Leak Even Before Becoming Operational
Recent News Dispatches From Standing Rock (DAPL)
Army Corp of Engineers Now Accepting Public Comment on the Dakota Access Pipeline
Army Corps of Engineers Blocks the Dakota Access Pipeline
Standing Rock Protester May Lose Her Arm Because of Police Grenades
Water Cannons Used in Sub-Freezing Temperatures at Dakota Access Oil Pipeline Protest
Standing Rock Protestors Gassed and Attacked; Bundy Gang Acquitted [Updated]
Journalist Charged in North Dakota with Rioting; Case is Dismissed


Original Submission

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough

Mark All as Read

Mark All as Unread

The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Sunday February 12, @12:06PM

    by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Sunday February 12, @12:06PM (#466107)

    ... what the hell has US army to do with the pipeline approval?

    • (Score: 4, Informative) by DavePolaschek on Sunday February 12, @12:19PM

      by DavePolaschek (6129) Subscriber Badge on Sunday February 12, @12:19PM (#466111)

      The US Army Corps of Engineers, along with the Bureau of Reclamation, control the dams and waterways of the country. The Bureau controls those that are used for irrigation, and the Corps controls those that are used for flood control (such as the dam that forms Lake Oahe, which flooded the best Lakota land in North Dakota, how's that for flood control?) and power generation.

  • (Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday February 12, @02:32PM

    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Sunday February 12, @02:32PM (#466153) Journal

    "I have determined that there is no cause for completing any additional environmental analysis," wrote Douglas W Lamon, the senior official performing the duties of assistant secretary of the army, wrote in a notice to the federal register.

    In a previous story on the subject, I pointed out [soylentnews.org] the importance of rule of law. Here's one of the observations I made:

    I did mention this as well as several, more substantive tactics of obstruction. Here, the pipeline company simply ignored [dailykos.com] the request as is their right (since it is voluntary and the company has no common cause in hindering its own project). Given that Trump won (the request was even made weeks after the election), it would be rather dumb to comply with a demand that's going to be outright tossed in a couple of months.

    Here, what one president can arbitrarily do, another can arbitrarily undo.

    • (Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 12, @04:50PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 12, @04:50PM (#466200)

      Here, what one president can arbitrarily do, another can arbitrarily undo.

      Congrats. You've just argued away the existence of the office of the president.

      • (Score: 1) by khallow on Monday February 13, @04:37AM

        by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Monday February 13, @04:37AM (#466448) Journal

        Congrats. You've just argued away the existence of the office of the president.

        Just because the US President is subject to constraints doesn't mean that they don't exist. After all, the office exists in the first place despite your assertion otherwise.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 13, @07:13AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 13, @07:13AM (#466495)

          What you fail to understand, which is completely understandable since you are so ignorant of how the world works, is that the office of presidency has been guided by norms. One of those norms is that arbitrarily undoing the actions of a previous president is only done under exceptional circumstances. In other words, there is a huge difference between ability do something and actually doing it. The loser president's schtick has been to ignore norms, but his anti-social behavior is not valid grounds for eliminating traditions of respecting the actions of prior presidents. Slack is the lubricant that makes the world work, if we decide that rigid adherence to lowest common denominator rules is the best we can do then the operation of the government would grind to a halt.

          And now you may commence with the obvious idiocy of someone who himself is too rigid and callow to understand anything I just wrote.

          • (Score: 1) by khallow on Monday February 13, @02:06PM

            by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Monday February 13, @02:06PM (#466582) Journal

            What you fail to understand, which is completely understandable since you are so ignorant of how the world works, is that the office of presidency has been guided by norms. One of those norms is that arbitrarily undoing the actions of a previous president is only done under exceptional circumstances.

            Electing Trump satisfied your "exceptional circumstances". Check.

            The loser president's schtick has been to ignore norms, but his anti-social behavior is not valid grounds for eliminating traditions of respecting the actions of prior presidents.

            Getting elected is valid grounds for eliminating the traditions of respecting the actions of prior presidents. Let us also recall that arbitrary actions are being undone here. Check.

            It should never be a norm to honor bad or inimical policies and corrupt decisions of previous administrations. It sounds to me like you will be glad that this norm doesn't exist when future presidents undo the harms created by a Trump presidency.

            Slack is the lubricant that makes the world work, if we decide that rigid adherence to lowest common denominator rules is the best we can do then the operation of the government would grind to a halt.

            Slack hasn't worked at the federal level for many decades. It's too easy to abuse. Here was a classic example. The pipeline owner jumped through all the hoops, yet still gets denied merely because the Obama administration has enough slack to get away with blocking construction for as long as they were in power.

            And a lot of slack has been abused heavily by the US intelligence community. Where's your talk of "norms" when it concerns wholesale surveillance, condoned torture and other lawbreaking, and over seventy years of meddling in the world at large?

            The obvious solution is to have the feds do far less than they currently do. Then you can have your slack without having your tyrannical government.

            And now you may commence with the obvious idiocy of someone who himself is too rigid and callow to understand anything I just wrote.

            Because lack of understanding has to be the only reason one would disagree. I can't help but notice how we've gone from a discussion of the rule of law to touchie feelie notions of political squatters' rights where things have to be honored indefinitely, merely because someone got elected in the past. Here's my view. If you don't have rule of law, you don't have such norms.

          • (Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday February 26, @11:43PM

            by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Sunday February 26, @11:43PM (#472037) Journal
            MY post is late and probably will be the very last posted to this topic, but I think it's worth mentioning a historical example to show just how hypocritical this discussion of "norms" actually is.

            The loser president's schtick has been to ignore norms, but his anti-social behavior is not valid grounds for eliminating traditions of respecting the actions of prior presidents.

            How about norms such as using the power of the office of president exploiting traditions topublicly humiliate [washingtonpost.com] rivals? Here, Trump was invited to the 2011 White House Correspondents' Association dinner and then publicly joked about by both President Obama and Seth Meyer at length. Then the media proceeded to speculate for years (up to the present day) as to how that made Trump feel. If we're going to speak of alleged norms, we should note the norm of ignoring norms when they don't suit previous holders of the office.

    • (Score: 2) by butthurt on Sunday February 12, @06:30PM

      by butthurt (6141) on Sunday February 12, @06:30PM (#466239) Journal

      In a previous story on the subject, I pointed out the importance of rule of law.

      Opponents of the pipeline have the same concern:

      Protesters on [24 October 2016] said the land in question was theirs under the Fort Laramie Treaty of 1851, which was signed by eight tribes and the U.S. government. Over the last century, tribes have challenged this treaty and others like it in court for not being honored or for taking their land.

      -- http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-pipeline-dakotaaccess-idUSKCN12O2FN [reuters.com]

      • (Score: 1) by khallow on Monday February 13, @12:35AM

        by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Monday February 13, @12:35AM (#466376) Journal
        And what was the result of these challenges? Doesn't sound like this tribe is getting any more land out of it.

        I'll note also that there have been two relevant treaties since, the Treaty of Fort Laramie of 1868 [wikipedia.org] and the Agreement of 1877 [wikipedia.org]. Why should the first treaty be counted, but not the subsequent two (the last in particular being what defines the current Standing Rock Reservation). I get that there's a lot of brutal history, oppression, and coercion behind all three of these treaties as well as a variety of parties that simply ignored these treaties outright (including at times portions of US government and military). What I think is notable about all but the third treaty, is the lack of ability by any of the signatories to enforce the treaties. There is certainly a great lack of rule of law.

        But now that's an excuse to interfere with this pipeline which had nothing to do with those old troubles. I just don't buy it.
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 13, @05:00AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 13, @05:00AM (#466454)

          One might argue that the tribe never imagined a pipeline of potential poison being run directly over their primary source of water. Did you even read the second treaty? Sell or starve, the tribe lost a huge amount of hunting grounds and the US military comes in and blackmails them into signing a bad treaty. Then in the 1920s the tribe started attempting to reverse the treaty. Come on! This pipeline is just another incident in a long history of oppression, as you admit. But hey, can't let that get in the way of profits!!

  • (Score: 3, Interesting) by tisI on Sunday February 12, @06:09PM

    by tisI (5866) on Sunday February 12, @06:09PM (#466225)

    Those people, Standing Rock Indian Reservation, were fucked from the start and didn't even know it.
    This standoff is over the final mile of pipe. Construction was started at both ends by the conglomeration of oil companies and billionaire investors (trump being one, and still is), and built backwards to their final immovable obstacle, an Indian reservation that didn't want their money. And here we are today.

    Unfortunately for the Sioux Nation, billionaire investors love only money so the rightful owners of the land must get out of the way, now it seems with force, by the dictator himself.

    Although looking at the maps of their chosen route, the Dakota Access Pipeline, it's all retarded to begin with. If they went direct line route from the oil fields at Bakken, east south east to the terminus in Illinois, they would've avoided all this and would have cut billions from the cost of construction of the thing. Instead they went west for a hundred miles, wandered through the toulies for a bit, then took it straight at the Sioux Nation. Almost like planned incompetence.

    American citizens vs the dictators militia, and chump wants his money.
    Not good

    --
    "Suppose you were an idiot...and suppose you were a member of Congress...but I repeat myself."
    • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 12, @07:36PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 12, @07:36PM (#466264)

      > Almost like planned incompetence.

      More likely geology. It can be faster and cheaper to do 300km of pipeline than 3km, if the 300km is on exposed bedrock and the 3km is clay and sand and silt.

      I haven't looked at the specifics for this case, of course. It could be planned incompetence.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 12, @08:26PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 12, @08:26PM (#466283)

        Another reason for a particular route* is to parallel existing pipelines -- it is much harder to fight a new pipeline on private land if there is an existing one already in place. Not sure if this was a factor in this particular pipeline, but it is very common.

        * I found this out the hard way when a new pipeline came through our families rural retreat property ~10 years ago and made a huge mess. We lost over 1000 trees (4" or larger) in a quarter mile of right-of-way. There were already two small pipes in place when my father bought the vacant land (not suitable for farming) in the late 1960s. One was a 4" from the 1950s (disused--but a company still owns the right of way) and another from the early 1960s that was 6" or 8". Now we have a 24" at 1200 psi running parallel.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 12, @09:51PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 12, @09:51PM (#466310)

      They were going to get screwed by either side. As the other side wants rail car oil (who also play the right of way game). Two of the larger funders of the DNC just happen to control large swaths of the rail in the continental united states.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 12, @11:48PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 12, @11:48PM (#466357)

      Indians have been persecuted for a long time, why stop now?

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 13, @06:53AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 13, @06:53AM (#466484)

    The protesters left crazy amounts of human waste, burned tires, burned cars, and other junk... all in an area that gets flooded by the river. Some "water protectors" they are!

    http://legalinsurrection.com/2017/02/dakota-pipeline-protesters-leave-behind-mountains-of-garbage/ [legalinsurrection.com]

    • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 13, @07:16AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 13, @07:16AM (#466497)

      Lol, that's hilarious.
      Hilarious that you would believe that.
      Look at the picture. It is a very small pile of junk shot in a way to make it look like all the snow behind it is part of a vast field of garbage.
      I don't even need to read the article to know its exaggeration and lies, the deceptive photo is sufficient to discredit it.