Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Monday December 05 2016, @01:13PM   Printer-friendly
from the embrace-extend-extinguish? dept.

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

 
This discussion has been archived.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 VLM on Monday December 05 2016, @04:23PM

    by VLM (445) Subscriber Badge on Monday December 05 2016, @04:23PM (#437215)

    > so they paid off the indians

    Really? Come on. You can't just accuse them of being indian-givers without some evidence.

    Their Pick-Sloan settlement was kind of a ripoff, twice, sorta.

    $12M in '58 and $91M in '92 in recognition that the $12M payment was a ripoff.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pick%E2%80%93Sloan_Missouri_Basin_Program [wikipedia.org]

    http://nativeamericannetroots.net/diary/406 [nativeamericannetroots.net]

    On one hand the inflation adjusted equivalent of a years decent pay per family is generous for 10% of your undeveloped land. On the other hand if you're trying to live off that land and you no longer have it and it was the best land you had, it is kinda a ripoff. On one hand they didn't get a terribly good price, on the other hand they accepted payment, twice, so at some point ya gotta admit its sold and move on.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 05 2016, @04:32PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 05 2016, @04:32PM (#437221)

    > so they paid off the indians

    Really? Come on. You can't just accuse them of being indian-givers without some evidence.

    Their Pick-Sloan settlement was kind of a ripoff, twice, sorta.

    What is it with people like you who cite things that say the opposite of your claims as support for your claims?

    The Pick-Sloan "settlement" was the result of the government condemning indian lands. They didn't agree to it, they had it imposed on them.