Dakota Access Pipeline Route Denied Near Standing Rock

[RavenSky]

This is breaking now. Hopefully it is true:

The secretary of the Army Corps of Engineers has told Standing Rock Sioux Chairman David Archambault that the current route for the Dakota Access pipeline will be denied.


http://www.nbcwashington.com/news/n...-Denied-near-sioux-reservation-404636436.html

 

[RavenSky]

"Today, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers announced that it will not be granting the easement to cross Lake Oahe for the proposed Dakota Access Pipeline," the tribe said in a statement. "Instead, the Corps will be undertaking an environmental impact statement to look at possible alternative routes."

http://www.reuters.com/article/north-dakota-pipeline-ruling-idUSL1N1DZ0MI

 

[whichphilosophy]

This is breaking now. Hopefully it is true:

The secretary of the Army Corps of Engineers has told Standing Rock Sioux Chairman David Archambault that the current route for the Dakota Access pipeline will be denied.


http://www.nbcwashington.com/news/n...-Denied-near-sioux-reservation-404636436.html

Respecting Native Americans territories? Is that a first? The article indicates this could be per an old treaty, not that this has historically made a difference.
Of course it is very easy to reroute a pipeline.

 

[rousseau]

Hopefully this leads to a permanent resolution to the problem. I'd like to think that when a community of people is adamantly against anything pertaining to their way of life in regards to private interests, they should be listened to. Logic by force shouldn't be a thing anymore.

 

[Axulus]

Hopefully this leads to a permanent resolution to the problem. I'd like to think that when a community of people is adamantly against anything pertaining to their way of life in regards to private interests, they should be listened to. Logic by force shouldn't be a thing anymore.

Should any project that is protested against due to NIMBYism be killed?

The pipeline didn't cross directly through their reservation. There was onlybthe potential for a leak in a certain section to impact water supplies that to lead to theor reservation.

The question is, what is the relevant lae in place here? Additionally, what is the objective odds of an adverse event taking place to their water supply as a result of the pipeline, and was it rejected for that reason? Should the objective reason matter, or should the ony thing that matters is that the tribe was adamately against it regardless of whether the objective danger was minute or not?

 

[laughing dog]

Hopefully this leads to a permanent resolution to the problem. I'd like to think that when a community of people is adamantly against anything pertaining to their way of life in regards to private interests, they should be listened to. Logic by force shouldn't be a thing anymore.

Should any project that is protested against due to NIMBYism be killed?

The pipeline didn't cross directly through their reservation. There was onlybthe potential for a leak in a certain section to impact water supplies that to lead to theor reservation.

The question is, what is the relevant lae in place here? Additionally, what is the objective odds of an adverse event taking place to their water supply as a result of the pipeline, and was it rejected for that reason? Should the objective reason matter, or should the ony thing that matters is that the tribe was adamately against it regardless of whether the objective danger was minute or not?

The objective odds are not the only relevant issue because they were bearing the risk to something essential to their water supply - no one else was. If we were talking about a low possibility of an adverse effect on something that was not essential to their well-being, your points would be play more importance in discussing a general strategy.

One way to look at this opposition is that they were applying the minimax criteria: they want the option that minimized the maximum cost to themselves. Rerouting the pipeline away from their water supply achieves that goal.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Hopefully this leads to a permanent resolution to the problem. I'd like to think that when a community of people is adamantly against anything pertaining to their way of life in regards to private interests, they should be listened to. Logic by force shouldn't be a thing anymore.

Should any project that is protested against due to NIMBYism be killed?

The pipeline didn't cross directly through their reservation. There was onlybthe potential for a leak in a certain section to impact water supplies that to lead to theor reservation.

The question is, what is the relevant lae in place here? Additionally, what is the objective odds of an adverse event taking place to their water supply as a result of the pipeline, and was it rejected for that reason? Should the objective reason matter, or should the ony thing that matters is that the tribe was adamately against it regardless of whether the objective danger was minute or not?

That's enough reason to object.

 

[Axulus]

Should any project that is protested against due to NIMBYism be killed?

The pipeline didn't cross directly through their reservation. There was onlybthe potential for a leak in a certain section to impact water supplies that to lead to theor reservation.

The question is, what is the relevant lae in place here? Additionally, what is the objective odds of an adverse event taking place to their water supply as a result of the pipeline, and was it rejected for that reason? Should the objective reason matter, or should the ony thing that matters is that the tribe was adamately against it regardless of whether the objective danger was minute or not?

The objective odds are not the only relevant issue because they were bearing the risk to something essential to their water supply - no one else was. If we were talking about a low possibility of an adverse effect on something that was not essential to their well-being, your points would be play more importance in discussing a general strategy.

One way to look at this opposition is that they were applying the minimax criteria: they want the option that minimized the maximum cost to themselves. Rerouting the pipeline away from their water supply achieves that goal.

That's the basic argument for a sizable number of NIMBY protests. Should any and all such projects with minimax criteria concerns for a neighborhood or community be denied as a matter of course?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Should any project that is protested against due to NIMBYism be killed?

The pipeline didn't cross directly through their reservation. There was onlybthe potential for a leak in a certain section to impact water supplies that to lead to theor reservation.

The question is, what is the relevant lae in place here? Additionally, what is the objective odds of an adverse event taking place to their water supply as a result of the pipeline, and was it rejected for that reason? Should the objective reason matter, or should the ony thing that matters is that the tribe was adamately against it regardless of whether the objective danger was minute or not?

The objective odds are not the only relevant issue because they were bearing the risk to something essential to their water supply - no one else was. If we were talking about a low possibility of an adverse effect on something that was not essential to their well-being, your points would be play more importance in discussing a general strategy.

One way to look at this opposition is that they were applying the minimax criteria: they want the option that minimized the maximum cost to themselves. Rerouting the pipeline away from their water supply achieves that goal.

In other words, you're admitting it's a NIMBY protest, not a legitimate objection.

 

[laughing dog]

In other words, you're admitting it's a NIMBY protest, not a legitimate objection.

First, NIMBY's can be legitimate objections. Second, I admit no such thing. Perhaps if you explained why you came to such an erroneous conclusion, I might be able to point out the flaw in your reasoning.

 

[laughing dog]

The objective odds are not the only relevant issue because they were bearing the risk to something essential to their water supply - no one else was. If we were talking about a low possibility of an adverse effect on something that was not essential to their well-being, your points would be play more importance in discussing a general strategy.

One way to look at this opposition is that they were applying the minimax criteria: they want the option that minimized the maximum cost to themselves. Rerouting the pipeline away from their water supply achieves that goal.

That's the basic argument for a sizable number of NIMBY protests.

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 rational.

 

[Axulus]

That's the basic argument for a sizable number of NIMBY protests.

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?

 

[laughing dog]

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?

I think a project should first pass a strict benefit-cost test. Then, the views and concerns of the affected communities should be heard and weighed. In this case, concern about the possibility of an accident that would poison the water supply is a valid one that needs to be addressed, instead of being dismissed. For example, what are the contigency plans, if any, for that possible situation?

 

[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.

 

[Axulus]

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.

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?

 

[laughing dog]

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.

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

If there is a possible negative externality situation (such as this - contaminating ground water that they will use).

 

[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.

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

If there is a possible negative externality situation (such as this - contaminating ground water that they will use).

Or building a prison/halfway house/low income housing/Walmart right next door. For better or worse, communities have the right to deny the construction of any variety of ammenity in their...community. Well, that is of course unless you're black.

 

[Deepak]

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.

 

[Axulus]

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 DAP is close to but does not infringe on tribal lands.

 

[Derec]

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.