Dakota Access Pipeline Route Denied Near Standing Rock

[LordKiran]

And yet again the Obama administration lets partisan politics dictate approval processes. This is a very blatantly political decision, not driven by any facts. The approval was already given, and the Standing Rock Sioux did not object during the consultation process. Furthermore, the pipeline follows the route of an already existing gas pipeline. Now that the pipeline is complete except for the short section under the Missouri the Obama administration wants to derail it just because a few thousand radicals are camping on federal land.
And make no mistake about it, the #nodapl activists are radicals. They are not "peaceful and prayerful 'water protectors'", they have engaged in vandalism, chained themselves to construction equipment, they have attacked construction workers etc. And their aim is not just to reroute the pipeline away from imaginary "sacred lands", it is to end US oil production and make us much more dependent of foreign oil.

What happened to Obama's "all of the above approach"? Since he made that commitment, he blocked expansion of off-shore drilling, he blocked the Keystone XL pipeline, he blocked Arctic drilling (apparently Arctic drilling is good enough for Russia, Norway, Canada, just not for US) and now this. Un-fucking-believable. And it opens the federal government to lawsuits by Energy Transfer Partners. A really weak conclusion to his presidency.

DAPL did not have the right to build across the river and knew this well in advance of the standing rock protests.

 

[Derec]

DAPL did not have the right to build across the river and knew this well in advance of the standing rock protests.

A permit was granted and that withdrawn when radicals started to protest.

And where would you route a pipeline without crossing rivers such as the Missouri?

 

[LordKiran]

DAPL did not have the right to build across the river and knew this well in advance of the standing rock protests.

A permit was granted and that withdrawn when radicals started to protest.

And where would you route a pipeline without crossing rivers such as the Missouri?

Well I wouldn't create a pipeline to begin with.

And no, The Army Corps of Engineers made it clear they were not going to grant them any such permit since the river falls under their jurisdiction

 

[Axulus]

Trump is gonna love having the power to deny government permissions to those he deems as disagreeing with or opposing him in some fashion and will wield it as a bargaining chip to obtain politically favorable press releases (to him).

 

[bleubird]

The NIMBY thing is BS.The people of Bismark did not want the pipeline so they move the route.

 

[dismal]

Trump is gonna love having the power to deny government permissions to those he deems as disagreeing with or opposing him in some fashion and will wield it as a bargaining chip to obtain politically favorable press releases (to him).

This is worse than that. We have a whole civil service infrastructure whose job it is to assess pipeline safety/impact and issue permits. They signed off on this project years ago. Construction proceeded based on the permits they issued.

This is Obama overriding the professional the civil service in a short term political ploy (which Trump can simply undo) after hundreds of millions have been spent based on the permits that were issued. If the government starts making permits subject to instant change based on prevailing political whims the climate it creates will be chilling to development.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Is there a point there?

Should any and all such projects with minimax criteria concerns for a neighborhood or community be denied as a matter of course?

No. My point is that their concerns should simply be viewed as irrational.

Then what criteria, in general, do you believe should be used to determine which such projects should be approved or rejected?

None.

If a community doesn't want private infrastructure that is potentially hazardous in it's backyard that's their right. It falls to the private interest to 'sweeten the deal' for said community or to make concessions that assuage their concerns.

The problem with this approach is that it encourages holdouts asking for the sky.

If a concessions approach is to be used it should be done by a vote of all of those affected. Unfortunately, in a case like this it's basically impossible to declare who is affected. I don't believe there is any good answer.

- - - Updated - - -

Why is that their right? What is the basis for the right in a situation where they don't own the land?

Should neighborhoods/community in general be able to override state and federal law in general?

The courts have generally held that tribal lands have sovereignty with regard to the welfare and safety of their people. A private company can't simply force construction projects because they imagine the states don't have an interest in protecting their water access because the project is across a river in a bordering state.

One wonders why the northern route (rejected for concerns over water contamination) gets special dispensation for NIMBYism but the Standing Rock land doesn't.

The northern route went through much more heavily occupied territory, the costs would have been a lot higher.

 

[Derec]

The northern route went through much more heavily occupied territory, the costs would have been a lot higher.

I made a comparison of population vs. square miles of Bismarck and Standing Rock Reservation in the other thread. It was soundly ignored.
And since there are Indians living in and around Bismarck, actually more Indians would be affected as well.

 

[LordKiran]

Is there a point there?

Should any and all such projects with minimax criteria concerns for a neighborhood or community be denied as a matter of course?

No. My point is that their concerns should simply be viewed as irrational.

Then what criteria, in general, do you believe should be used to determine which such projects should be approved or rejected?

None.

If a community doesn't want private infrastructure that is potentially hazardous in it's backyard that's their right. It falls to the private interest to 'sweeten the deal' for said community or to make concessions that assuage their concerns.

The problem with this approach is that it encourages holdouts asking for the sky.

If a concessions approach is to be used it should be done by a vote of all of those affected. Unfortunately, in a case like this it's basically impossible to declare who is affected. I don't believe there is any good answer.

That's just the nature of negotiation though. But if that's the communities' imperative then so be it, the truth is the DAPL people need them more than they need the pipeline, so bargains will of course be in their favor.

- - - Updated - - -

The northern route went through much more heavily occupied territory, the costs would have been a lot higher.

I made a comparison of population vs. square miles of Bismarck and Standing Rock Reservation in the other thread. It was soundly ignored.
And since there are Indians living in and around Bismarck, actually more Indians would be affected as well.

The number of people effected is not the issue. If one community can say 'no' then they all can.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Trump is gonna love having the power to deny government permissions to those he deems as disagreeing with or opposing him in some fashion and will wield it as a bargaining chip to obtain politically favorable press releases (to him).

This is worse than that. We have a whole civil service infrastructure whose job it is to assess pipeline safety/impact and issue permits. They signed off on this project years ago. Construction proceeded based on the permits they issued.

This is Obama overriding the professional the civil service in a short term political ploy (which Trump can simply undo) after hundreds of millions have been spent based on the permits that were issued. If the government starts making permits subject to instant change based on prevailing political whims the climate it creates will be chilling to development.

Ya, God forbid that the people who live in an area get a say over what the government can or cannot do in that area. That causes society to degenerate into anarchistic ideals such as freedom and self-determination and may even lead to dancing.

This sort of thing will not be appropriate in Trump's America. Government bureaucrats will make a ruling and the non-Donald Trumps (is it still appropriate to refer to them as people if they're not even Donald Trump?) of the country will accept it without complaint or question or else the terrorists win.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

What happened to Obama's "all of the above approach"? Since he made that commitment, he blocked expansion of off-shore drilling, he blocked the Keystone XL pipeline, he blocked Arctic drilling (apparently Arctic drilling is good enough for Russia, Norway, Canada, just not for US) and now this. Un-fucking-believable. And it opens the federal government to lawsuits by Energy Transfer Partners. A really weak conclusion to his presidency.

Hahahahaha Obama is soo evil. He blocked oil exploration drilling in a wildlife refuge and his opponents get butt-hurt. Why didn't Reagan or either of the Bushes drill there? Hmmmm.

 

[dismal]

This is worse than that. We have a whole civil service infrastructure whose job it is to assess pipeline safety/impact and issue permits. They signed off on this project years ago. Construction proceeded based on the permits they issued.

This is Obama overriding the professional the civil service in a short term political ploy (which Trump can simply undo) after hundreds of millions have been spent based on the permits that were issued. If the government starts making permits subject to instant change based on prevailing political whims the climate it creates will be chilling to development.

Ya, God forbid that the people who live in an area get a say over what the government can or cannot do in that area. That causes society to degenerate into anarchistic ideals such as freedom and self-determination and may even lead to dancing.

This sort of thing will not be appropriate in Trump's America. Government bureaucrats will make a ruling and the non-Donald Trumps (is it still appropriate to refer to them as people if they're not even Donald Trump?) of the country will accept it without complaint or question or else the terrorists win.

Tip: get a clue about how the permit process works before commenting about it. Groups have the opportunity to comment.

 

[Elixir]

Ya, God forbid that the people who live in an area get a say over what the government can or cannot do in that area. That causes society to degenerate into anarchistic ideals such as freedom and self-determination and may even lead to dancing.

This sort of thing will not be appropriate in Trump's America. Government bureaucrats will make a ruling and the non-Donald Trumps (is it still appropriate to refer to them as people if they're not even Donald Trump?) of the country will accept it without complaint or question or else the terrorists win.

Tip: get a clue about how the permit process works before commenting about it. Groups have the opportunity to comment.

The review process for the DAPL was done using a loophole to avoid scrutiny of the entire project. There is a lower-level review process for micro-projects, so TEP divided their massive pipeline into scads of "micro-projects" to keep their humongous project safe from the kind of review to which large projects are supposed to be subjected, thus circumventing the intent of the law. Technically legal, so IDK if they can be slapped for that, but they can certainly be forced to undergo the review processes that should have applied to the DAPL from day one.

 

[dismal]

Tip: get a clue about how the permit process works before commenting about it. Groups have the opportunity to comment.

The review process for the DAPL was done using a loophole to avoid scrutiny of the entire project.

Link?

 

[Nice Squirrel]

Interesting, so this is like when a federal agency "interprets" an existing rule, it does not have to go through the public comment phase of the APA.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

http://www.honorearth.org/standingrockhearings

Under the law, (a 404 permit), the Army Corps of Engineers must provide “notice and an opportunity for public hearings” and evaluate the project’s impacts pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (That’s the one that keeps, for instance your drinking water clean, and the poisons out of air of residential communities).

That didn’t happen. Instead the Army Corps used regulatory review called the Nationwide Permit process. The Clean Water Act’s general permit program was intended for projects with minimal environmental impacts, or result in under a half acre loss of waters. This is for essentially boat ramps, mooring buoys, and recreational facilities.

So, instead of getting a large pipeline approved, they got thousands of mini-pipelines approved and then strung those together.

 

[dismal]

http://www.honorearth.org/standingrockhearings

Under the law, (a 404 permit), the Army Corps of Engineers must provide “notice and an opportunity for public hearings” and evaluate the project’s impacts pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (That’s the one that keeps, for instance your drinking water clean, and the poisons out of air of residential communities).

That didn’t happen. Instead the Army Corps used regulatory review called the Nationwide Permit process. The Clean Water Act’s general permit program was intended for projects with minimal environmental impacts, or result in under a half acre loss of waters. This is for essentially boat ramps, mooring buoys, and recreational facilities.

So, instead of getting a large pipeline approved, they got thousands of mini-pipelines approved and then strung those together.

Do you have a source that is not an environmentalist propaganda site? Like a major newspaper or government website?

 

[Tom Sawyer]

http://www.honorearth.org/standingrockhearings



So, instead of getting a large pipeline approved, they got thousands of mini-pipelines approved and then strung those together.

Do you have a source that is not an environmentalist propaganda site? Like a major newspaper or government website?

Like the quotes from the lawsuit they filed?

Do you have any objections to the link presented that don't come from the opinions of a right winger?

 

[Elixir]

http://www.honorearth.org/standingrockhearings

Under the law, (a 404 permit), the Army Corps of Engineers must provide “notice and an opportunity for public hearings” and evaluate the project’s impacts pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (That’s the one that keeps, for instance your drinking water clean, and the poisons out of air of residential communities).

That didn’t happen. Instead the Army Corps used regulatory review called the Nationwide Permit process. The Clean Water Act’s general permit program was intended for projects with minimal environmental impacts, or result in under a half acre loss of waters. This is for essentially boat ramps, mooring buoys, and recreational facilities.

So, instead of getting a large pipeline approved, they got thousands of mini-pipelines approved and then strung those together.

Yup. Boat ramps etc. are not required to produce full-blown environmental impact statements; large pipeline projects are. Er, are supposed to be...
DAPL used Nationwide Permit 12, and should have been required to get a Section 404 Permit. That let them avoid public review, and a number of other requirements that would normally accrue to a project of that scope.

 

[dismal]

Hmmm, do these guys have it wrong?

Question: Does this mean the complete pipeline was approved by USACE? If not, why wasn’t the entire project federalized and an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) prepared for the whole 1,168-mile pipeline?

Answer: No federal agency has jurisdiction over oil pipelines. For this project, USACE has jurisdiction over a very small portion of the overall pipeline and may not regulate where it does not have jurisdiction. In this case, it may only regulate the areas where the pipeline crosses waters of the United States or federal real property interests acquired and managed by the Corps for flood control and navigation projects.
Under Section 10/404, 202 jurisdictional crossings apply. USACE must review each crossing as a “single and complete” project for the purposes of verifying Nationwide Permits (NWP). NWP 12 authorizes utility line construction activities that affect no more than ½ acre of jurisdictional waters at any single crossing, and which otherwise comply with the NWP 12 general conditions. USACE has regulatory jurisdiction over approximately 37 miles of the 1,168-miles of proposed pipeline. The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) applies to Section 10/404 decisions. That process was completed when NWP 12 was issued in 2012. This process is underway for permits expiring in March 2017.
In locations where federal real property interests acquired and managed by the Corps for flood control and navigation projects are apply, 33 U.S.C. Section 408 authorizes USACE to give permission for a pipeline to cross federal project lands and flowage easements after determining that it will not be injurious to the public interest and will not impair the usefulness of the federal projects. NEPA applies to these permissions and USACE drafted an Environmental Assessment (EA) to determine if the placement and operation and maintenance of the pipeline on federal real property interests have potential to cause significant environmental effects. If there is such potential, USACE will prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS); if not, USACE will issue a Finding of No Significant Impact.

http://www.nwo.usace.army.mil/Media...ticle/749823/frequently-asked-questions-dapl/