On Trump orders, Army to allow completion of Dakota Access pipeline as judge doubts protesters will prevail
The Japan Times AP Feb 8, 2017
Lisa Anderson, a member of the Chumash-Ohlone tribe, holds a sign favoring divestment before a Seattle City Council meeting Tuesday in Seattle. The City Council is scheduled to vote on whether to divest $3 billion in city funds from Wells Fargo over its funding of the Dakota Access Pipeline. | AP
BISMARK, NORTH DAKOTA – The Army said Tuesday that it will allow the $3.8 billion Dakota Access oil pipeline to cross under a Missouri River reservoir in North Dakota, clearing the way for completion of the disputed four-state project.
However, construction could still be delayed because the Standing Rock Sioux tribe, which has led opposition to the pipeline, said it would fight the latest development.
The Army intends to allow the Lake Oahe crossing as early as Wednesday, according to court documents the Justice Department filed that include letters to members of Congress from Deputy Assistant Army Secretary Paul Cramer.
The stretch under Lake Oahe is the final big chunk of work on the 1,200-mile pipeline that would carry North Dakota oil through the Dakotas and Iowa to a shipping point in Illinois. Developer Energy Transfer Partners had hoped to have oil flowing through the pipeline by the end of 2016, but construction has been stalled while the Army Corps of Engineers and the Dallas-based company battled in court over the crossing.
The Standing Rock Sioux, whose reservation is just downstream from the crossing, fears a leak would pollute its drinking water and will challenge to the Army’s decision to grant an easement, though the details were still being worked out, attorney Jan Hasselman said.
The tribe has led protests that drew hundreds and at times thousands of people who dubbed themselves “water protectors” to an encampment near the crossing. ETP claims the pipeline is safe.
An assessment conducted last year determined the crossing would not have a significant impact on the environment. However, then-Assistant Army Secretary for Civil Works Jo-Ellen Darcy on Dec. 4 declined to issue permission for the crossing, saying a broader environmental study was warranted given the Standing Rock Sioux’s opposition.
ETP called Darcy’s decision politically motivated and accused then-President Barack Obama’s administration of delaying the matter until he left office. The Corps launched a study of the crossing on Jan. 18, two days before Obama left office, that could have taken up to two years to complete.
President Donald Trump signed an executive action on Jan. 24 telling the Corps to quickly reconsider Darcy’s decision.
The court documents filed Tuesday include a proposed Federal Register notice terminating the study.
The tribe argues that under the Fort Laramie Treaties of 1851 and 1888, the federal government is obliged to consider a tribe’s welfare when making decisions that affect the tribe.
“The Obama administration correctly found that the tribe’s treaty rights needed to be respected, and that the easement should not be granted without further review and consideration of alternative crossing locations,” Hasselman said. “Trump’s reversal of that decision continues a historic pattern of broken promises to Indian Tribes and violation of treaty rights. They will be held accountable in court.”
ETP has been poised to begin drilling under Lake Oahe as soon as it has approval. Workers have drilled entry and exit holes for the crossing, and oil has been put in the pipeline leading up to the lake in anticipation of finishing the project. ETP spokeswoman Vicki Granado did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the Army’s decision.
Those protesting the pipeline at an encampment the tribe set up on federal land have at times clashed with police, leading to nearly 700 arrests. The camp’s population thinned to fewer than 300 as harsh winter weather arrived and as Standing Rock officials pleaded for the camp to disband before the spring flooding season.
The pipeline opponents involved in a violent clash with police in North Dakota in November are unlikely to succeed in a lawsuit alleging excessive force and civil rights violations, a federal judge said Tuesday.
U.S. District Judge Daniel Hovland didn’t immediately rule on a motion filed Monday by law enforcement to dismiss the lawsuit, but he did deny an earlier request by pipeline opponents to bar police from using such things as chemical agents and water sprays as a means of dispersing crowds of protesters.
Hovland said protesters “are unlikely to succeed on the merits of their claims,” which include that police used inappropriate force, injuring more than 200 protesters, and violated their civil rights. The judge said protesters were trespassing during the confrontation and that “no reasonable juror could conclude” that officers acted unreasonably.