Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 18 submissions in the queue.
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This discussion has been archived.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 Phoenix666 on Monday December 05 2016, @07:18PM

    by Phoenix666 (552) on Monday December 05 2016, @07:18PM (#437321) Journal

    He has not much time to put a team together. Two months isn't very long when you consider the import of the positions he's trying to fill. He's going to do what most managers do and go with people he knows, if he can. He's going to choose people who will be loyal to him, if he can. The Chief of Staff is typically the person that helps guide that effort, so that's why his choice for that role pretty much insta-killed every campaign promise he made.

    If a candidate elected to office had a ready-made roster of non-partisan, independent, acclaimed and accomplished people ready to take up those roles and work for the good of the country rather than the private benefit of a connected few, Trump could hire from that. But I don't think such a thing exists; at least I've never heard about one.

    --
    Washington DC delenda est.
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 05 2016, @07:31PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 05 2016, @07:31PM (#437328)

    Obama nominated 3 and got 2 republicans for his cabinet.
    His campaign obviously had prepared a list of potentials that weren't just loyalists ahead of the election.
    Trump's so ill-prepared that he's literally running his cabinet selection process like a season of the bachelor.