WFHB Bloomington Community Radio
Podcast: Play in new window | Download (Duration: 5:01 — 3.6MB)
More than three years after the epic pipeline began pumping crude oil across the country, Boasberg has stated, “given the seriousness of the Corps’ NEPA error, the impossibility of a simple fix, and the fact that Dakota Access did assume much of its economic risk knowingly, and the potential harm each day the pipeline operates, the Court is forced to conclude that the flow of oil must cease.”
The decision for a review came after the April decision by a federal judge in Montana to halt the Keystone pipeline which opened the question of whether or not more extensive environmental reviews would be needed for the other projects.
The environmental review or appealing of the ruling could take from months to years to be completed. The thorough review would be done by the Army Corps of Engineers.
Almost four years prior, the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe along with other Native American tribes stood on their land to protect and protest against the construction of the North Dakota pipeline that runs under a lake where the tribe gets their drinking water from.
In December of 2016, the Obama Administration formally denied the permit needed to complete the last leg of the pipeline that crossed the Midwest from North Dakota to Illinois.
Shortly thereafter, during President Trump’s first days in office, he signed a number of executive orders causing conflict for many environmental advocates. Trump promptly approved both the Dakota Access and Keystone pipelines for the go ahead, also stating that the U.S. would be making their own pipes. His stance was largely due to the amount of jobs that the pipelines would create for the country. During a meeting with auto industry executives in 2017, Trump stated, “I am, to a large extent, an environmentalist, I believe in it… But it’s out of control, and we’re going to make it a very short process… And generally speaking, we’re going to be giving you your permits.”
Although statements are not set in stone, analysts say that a Biden White House may not allow the pipeline to continue operating.
Former vice president and current Democratic nominee, Joe Biden has said that he opposes the Keystone pipeline and will, “weigh any project’s contribution to climate change before approving it.” Stated in a Washington Post from last week.
The fire of passion that was seen in the 2016 protests against the construction of the dakota access pipeline still continues to this day, even with the slight shine of light for advocates with the positive news from last week.
Just two days after the court ruling, Energy Transfer spokeswoman, Vicki Granado stated in an email that they would not be shutting down the pipeline. Granado asked the court Wednesday to halt the order and sought an expedited appeal. As of now, the company will still be taking orders to move oil in August.
As the parent company of Dakota Access, Energy Transfer holds the title of one of the largest partnerships in the United States with approximately 3,265 miles of refined products for pipelines.
Granado commented on the hope for an appeal stating, “The economic implications of the Judge’s order are too big to ignore and we will do all we can to ensure its continued operation.”
She continued to support her statement by examples of loss revenue in the states that the pipeline runs through saying, “Billions of dollars in tax and royalty revenue will be lost by state, local and tribal governments in North Dakota, South Dakota, Iowa and Illinois. Farmers will suffer as crude transportation will move to rail, displacing corn, wheat and soy crops that would normally be moved to market.”
Back in 2016, the tribes protesting argued in favor of stopping the pipeline due to negative impacts to drinking water and disturbance of ancient sacred sites in the area.
According to the “Final Environmental Assessment of the Dakota Access Pipeline Project Section Consent for Crossing Federally Authorized Projects and Federal Flowage Easements” published in August of 2016, alternatives for carrying crude oil across the states were scarce.
As stated in the document that was posted online, “The alternatives available to the St. Louis District in responding to the request are limited because of limited federal control and responsibility for the DAPL Project.”
The document continued to state, “If a determination is made that environmental impacts, including mitigation and appropriate measures to minimize environmental impacts, are acceptable, the Proposed Action may be approved. For this reason alternatives addressed in detail in this EA include a “No Action” Alternative and Proposed Action Alternative.”
In the following paragraph under the section “Alternatives” it is stated, “Alternatives considered but eliminated from detailed analysis.”
