Dakota Access pipeline opponents just scored a huge victory
U.S. regulators rejected a crucial construction permit.
This doesn't mean it's over but the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers said it won't grant an easement that would've allowed the pipeline's builders to run the conduit under Lake Oahe, a reservoir near the Standing Rock Sioux Reservation in North Dakota.
Richard Golebiowski says
The pipeline is probably at least 90% completed so I don't see that there is any chance that it won't get completed.
Paul Spoerry says
The question is WHERE will it get completed… and that's the issue they're taking. It was moved because people who lived near where it was originally going to go objected for fear of their water supply. So they moved it… Standing Rock is taking the same exception.
Richard Golebiowski says
Perhaps you can direct me to a credible source as to why it's route was changed. As far as I have been able to find, there were numerous reasons why this route was chosen. I do think they were callous to choose a route so close to the reservation. As to the pipes completion I see two possibilities, a route slightly north or the current route continuing after Trump becomes President.
Paul Spoerry says
* http://bismarcktribune.com/news/state-and-regional/pipeline-route-plan-first-called-for-crossing-north-of-bismarck/article_64d053e4-8a1a-5198-a1dd-498d386c933c.html
* http://www.pri.org/stories/2016-12-01/bismarck-residents-got-dakota-access-pipeline-moved-without-fight
Paul Spoerry says
http://www.pri.org/stories/2016-12-01/bismarck-residents-got-dakota-access-pipeline-moved-without-fight
Paul Spoerry says
Oddly, I can't post more than one link in the comment. Not sure why but those two are a good start.
Richard Golebiowski says
I have read the articles and did not see anywhere in the articles that the route was moved because of objections from people in Bismark. One article states that the decision, made by the Army, was done for multiple reasons one of which was the proximity of wells for the cities water supply. That other article mentions a minister, Van Fossan, saying :
“I actually read about the original pathway, or an original pathway of the pipeline, in our local newspaper,” she says. “It’s our understanding, and I’ve talked to everybody who I know who would have known about it in advance, that we never even in Bismarck had to make an objection. The pathway was moved away from our drinking supply without our even needing to go to a meeting or write a letter.”
Van Fossan says she believes a decision was independently made to reroute the pipeline to its current location.
So I still cannot see where anyone in Bismark objected!
Paul Spoerry says
Appears I was wrong. Two things happened: People in Iowa protested it… but their land was taken via eminent domain (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/the-super-twisted-history-of-the-dakota-access-pipeline_us_57d9daeae4b08cb14093c741). The path in Bismarck, N.D. that was moved was because the North Dakota Public Service Commission has a 500-foot residential buffer requirement (http://www.mprnews.org/story/2016/09/13/dakota-access-pipeline-frequently-asked-questions).
History also here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dakota_Access_Pipeline#History