Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Monday June 19 2017, @11:47AM   Printer-friendly
from the considering-the-other-side dept.

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This discussion has been archived.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: 0, Interesting) by khallow on Monday June 19 2017, @12:31PM (9 children)

    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Monday June 19 2017, @12:31PM (#527867) Journal
    It's too bad the judgment turned against the pipeline though at least the remedy is something reasonable. But this illustrates the morass of laws that make up environmental regulation. A sane policy could have been in place years ago to handle the problems of oil pipelines rather than this long, dragged out process.

    I notice too the judge ignored the Obama administration's malfeasance in deliberate obstruction of pipeline construction and operation. For example, the judge stated:

    The Corps’ February 8, 2017, decision to grant the easement was arbitrary, capricious, and contrary to law because the Corps reversed a prior policy without reasoned justification and because the decision constituted a breach of trust responsibilities

    while ignoring that the Obama administration had done this for real in the Fall of 2016 and the latter Corps decision was a mere reversal of a prior bad and unlawful decision.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   -1  
       Interesting=1, Overrated=2, Total=3
    Extra 'Interesting' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   0  
  • (Score: 2, Insightful) by VLM on Monday June 19 2017, @12:36PM (3 children)

    by VLM (445) Subscriber Badge on Monday June 19 2017, @12:36PM (#527869)

    the judge ignored the Obama administration's malfeasance

    The judge has Trump Derangement Syndrome.

    Its highly unlike the judge knows anything about the oil biz or ecology, so naturally they're in charge.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 19 2017, @04:27PM (2 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 19 2017, @04:27PM (#527986)

      This commenter has Trump Phelatiotic Syndrome.
      Its highly unlike(ly) the keyboard warrior knows anything about the oil biz or ecology, so naturally they support Trump and spew uninformed bile.

      • (Score: 2) by DannyB on Monday June 19 2017, @06:06PM (1 child)

        by DannyB (5839) Subscriber Badge on Monday June 19 2017, @06:06PM (#528061) Journal

        Trump Phelatiotic Syndrome

        Google has "can't find that word" syndrome.

        --
        The one who oppresses the poor person insults his Maker, but one who is kind to the needy honors him. Prov 14:31
        • (Score: 2) by Gaaark on Monday June 19 2017, @09:33PM

          by Gaaark (41) Subscriber Badge on Monday June 19 2017, @09:33PM (#528165) Journal

          It's Felatio, but on a person with really small....... hands... yeah. Hands.

          --
          --- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 19 2017, @03:27PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 19 2017, @03:27PM (#527958)

    Looks like no one cares to push back against the cabal of corporatist evil that us all over these arrixles. I'm not going to bother with more than calling you out.

  • (Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Monday June 19 2017, @06:01PM (1 child)

    by DeathMonkey (1380) on Monday June 19 2017, @06:01PM (#528056) Journal

    Guess who's approval is required to grant an easement that crosses a US border? Guess who's approval wasn't granted.

    It's almost like one of the President's powers is to veto bad ideas...

    • (Score: 1) by khallow on Friday June 23 2017, @12:50AM

      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday June 23 2017, @12:50AM (#529732) Journal

      Guess who's approval is required to grant an easement that crosses a US border? Guess who's approval wasn't granted.

      No US border was crossed by this pipeline.

      It's almost like one of the President's powers is to veto bad ideas...

      The power to veto bad ideas is the power to veto good ideas.

  • (Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Monday June 19 2017, @07:45PM (1 child)

    by DeathMonkey (1380) on Monday June 19 2017, @07:45PM (#528104) Journal

    I notice too the judge ignored the Obama administration's malfeasance in deliberate obstruction of pipeline construction and operation. For example, the judge stated:

    The Corps’ February 8, 2017, decision to grant the easement was arbitrary, capricious, and contrary to law because the Corps reversed a prior policy without reasoned justification and because the decision constituted a breach of trust responsibilities

    Guess who wasn't president in Feb, 2017.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 19 2017, @09:56PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 19 2017, @09:56PM (#528173)

      Guess who didn't read their parent's post.

      The Corps’ February 8, 2017, decision to grant the easement was arbitrary, capricious, and contrary to law because the Corps reversed a prior policy without reasoned justification and because the decision constituted a breach of trust responsibilities

      while ignoring that the Obama administration had done this for real in the Fall of 2016 and the latter Corps decision was a mere reversal of a prior bad and unlawful decision.

      Whether or not you agree, the argument was a rational one to make... quoting the courts saying "Trump did bad" and then explaining how Obama (supposedly) did the exact same thing but wasn't called out on it.