First Americans

Eugene

(62,767 posts) Thu Nov 3, 2016, 04:58 PM Nov 2016

Why a Previously Proposed Route for the Dakota Access Pipeline Was Rejected

Source: ABC News

Why a Previously Proposed Route for the Dakota Access Pipeline Was Rejected

By CATHERINE THORBECKE - Nov 3, 2016, 4:19 PM ET

President Obama said in an interview published this week that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers was considering rerouting the Dakota Access Pipeline to accommodate the "sacred lands of Native Americans," sparking speculation over the fate of the controversial crude oil pipeline.

But it also prompted some to point out that the current path of the pipeline is actually a reroute itself, with critics calling this reroute an act of "environmental racism."

A previously proposed route for the 1,172-mile pipeline had it crossing the Missouri River north of Bismarck, North Dakota, according to a document filed as part of the permitting process. The eventual route that was decided on, and is currently in construction, moved the water crossing of the crude oil pipeline south of the North Dakota capital, to just upstream of the Standing Rock Sioux tribe's reservation.

“This pipeline was rerouted towards our tribal nations when other citizens of North Dakota rightfully rejected it in the interests of protecting their communities and water. We seek the same consideration as those citizens," Dave Archambault II, chairman of the Standing Rock Sioux tribe, said in a statement on Sunday.

[font size=1]-snip-[/font]

2 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Why a Previously Proposed Route for the Dakota Access Pipeline Was Rejected (Original Post) Eugene Nov 2016 OP

This is "news" to ABC? Mike__M Nov 2016 #1

This from early September OxQQme Nov 2016 #2

Mike__M

(1,052 posts)

1. This is "news" to ABC?

Reply to Eugene (Original post)

Thu Nov 3, 2016, 05:07 PM

Nov 2016

Better late than never, I guess.

OxQQme

(2,550 posts)

2. This from early September

Reply to Eugene (Original post)

Thu Nov 3, 2016, 05:51 PM

Nov 2016

>:Joint Statement from the Department of Justice, the Department of the Army and the Department of the Interior Regarding Standing Rock Sioux Tribe v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

The Department of Justice, the Department of the Army and the Department of the Interior issued the following statement regarding Standing Rock Sioux Tribe v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers:

“We appreciate the District Court’s opinion on the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ compliance with the National Historic Preservation Act. However, important issues raised by the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe and other tribal nations and their members regarding the Dakota Access pipeline specifically, and pipeline-related decision-making generally, remain. Therefore, the Department of the Army, the Department of Justice, and the Department of the Interior will take the following steps.

The Army will not authorize constructing the Dakota Access pipeline on Corps land bordering or under Lake Oahe until it can determine whether it will need to reconsider any of its previous decisions regarding the Lake Oahe site under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) or other federal laws. Therefore, construction of the pipeline on Army Corps land bordering or under Lake Oahe will not go forward at this time. The Army will move expeditiously to make this determination, as everyone involved — including the pipeline company and its workers — deserves a clear and timely resolution. In the interim, we request that the pipeline company voluntarily pause all construction activity within 20 miles east or west of Lake Oahe.

“Furthermore, this case has highlighted the need for a serious discussion on whether there should be nationwide reform with respect to considering tribes’ views on these types of infrastructure projects. Therefore, this fall, we will invite tribes to formal, government-to-government consultations on two questions: (1) within the existing statutory framework, what should the federal government do to better ensure meaningful tribal input into infrastructure-related reviews and decisions and the protection of tribal lands, resources, and treaty rights; and (2) should new legislation be proposed to Congress to alter that statutory framework and promote those goals."<

more:
https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/joint-statement-department-justice-department-army-and-department-interior-regarding-standing

Reply to this discussion