The Standing Rock Sioux tribe won on key arguments against approval of permits to complete the Dakota Access Pipeline.
In a dramatic turnaround, a federal judge has ruled that permits to complete the Dakota Access Pipeline must be reconsidered, and the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe has demanded the flow of oil through the pipeline be stopped.
Completion of the controversial pipeline was stopped by the Obama Administration last December, with a call for an environmental-impact statement to assess risks.
However, the judge wrote in his ruling, “As we all know, elections have consequences, and the government’s position on the easement shifted significantly once President Trump assumed office on January 20, 2017.”
President Trump called on the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to issue the permits, which it did shortly after he took office. Completion of the pipeline swiftly followed, as contractors drilled under a lake formed by a dam on the Missouri River, to hook up the two ends of the pipeline. The flow of oil began June 1.
But on Wednesday, U.S. District Court Judge James Boasberg for the District of Columbia said in a 91-page decision that the Corps did not adequately consider the impacts of an oil spill on the tribe’s fishing rights, hunting rights, or issues of environmental justice when it issued the permits needed to complete the project. The Corps must now reconsider those aspects under the judge’s demand that the agency substantiate its decision to issue the permits.
About the DAPL protestThe Trump administration has advanced the Keystone XL and Dakota Access oil pipeline projects. Seattle Times reporter Lynda V. Mapes and photographer Alan Berner traveled to North Dakota last year to cover the protests against the $3.8 billion Dakota Access Pipeline. Here are recent stories to help you understand the conflict:
- Background stories: Here's a primer on the pipeline project, including the key players on all sides, a brief history of broken treaty promises and a closer look at the courtroom battle. And here's what we're reading related to the controversy.
- March 28: What the completed Dakota Access pipeline means for key players.
- Feb. 23: Dakota Access Pipeline protest camp closed; 46 holdouts arrested.
- Feb. 22: Preparing to leave, Standing Rock protesters ceremonially burn camp.
- Feb. 13: Judge rejects tribes’ bid to halt Dakota Access Pipeline; feds plan to shut down protest camp.
- Feb. 1: Hundreds rally as the Seattle City Council considers divesting from Wells Fargo because of its role as a Dakota Access Pipeline lender.
- Jan. 24, 2017: Donald Trump signs executive orders advancing the Keystone and Dakota Access pipelines. The Standing Rock Sioux tribe says it will push back.
- Dec. 4, 2016: Tribes celebrate as Corps rejects Dakota Access pipeline easement
- Nov. 21: Washington tribes urge that Obama stop, reroute Dakota Access Pipeline
- Nov. 12: Hundreds rally in Tacoma against Dakota Access Pipeline
- Live updates from from Seattle Times journalists on the scene Oct. 26, 27 and 28.
- Oct. 25: Tribes in Washington state call on President Obama to improve federal consultations over infrastructure projects
- Oct. 24: Citing treaty claim, protesters occupy land a rancher recently sold to pipeline developer Energy Transfer Partners.
- See photos from the Dakota Access Pipeline protests.
“This is a significant victory,” said Jan Hasselman, attorney for EarthJustice in Seattle, representing the tribe. He said the tribe in a status conference before the judge next week will also demand that the flow of oil be stopped while the remand is underway.
Standing Rock Sioux Tribal Chairman Dave Archambault II said in a statement: “We applaud the courts for protecting our laws and regulations from undue political influence and will ask the court to shut down pipeline operations immediately.”
The developer, Energy Transfer Partners, in a prepared statement released Thursday expressed confidence the setback is temporary and stated no shutdown is warranted:
“Pipeline operations can and will continue as this limited remand process unfolds,” the company said.
“It is important to note that while Judge Boasberg asked the Corps to provide greater substantiation for its conclusions, the Court did not find the prior determinations to be erroneous.
“Dakota Access believes the record supports the fact that the Corps properly evaluated both issues, and that the record will enable the Corps to substantiate and reaffirm its prior determinations.”
Hasselman noted the court found three separate violations of legal standards when the Corps issued the permits to complete the pipeline.
An analysis of the potential for spills by an outside analyst was not adequately addressed. The Corps also didn’t consider risks to hunting and fishing rights reserved by the tribe in waters of Lake Oahe, formed by the damming of the Missouri River, where the pipeline crossing was drilled.
Finally, the environmental-justice concerns raised by the tribe were also not adequately addressed, nor the highly controversial nature of the project.
While the tribe lost on other points it raised, “These are not minor, paperwork transgressions,” Hasselman said, who called the ruling a “major victory for the tribe.”
If the judge won’t shut down the flow of oil as the Corps does its reconsideration, the tribe will demand a deadline for its work, Hasselman said. “If pipeline operations are suspended, they can take all the time they want,” he added.
The decision will turn on how disruptive turnoff would be, and the likelihood that the deficiencies in the Corps’ review can be remedied, Boasberg wrote in his ruling.
The $3.8 billion pipeline runs for 1,168 miles across North and South Dakota, Iowa, and Illinois to carry more than half a million gallons a day of Bakken crude to hook up to other pipelines in Patoka, Ill.
The tribe argued the pipeline, routed within a half mile of its reservation, puts its water supply in the Missouri River and tribal lands, including sacred sites, unduly at risk.
Its fight against the pipeline was joined by tribes from around the Northwest and the nation, as well as opponents from all walks of life from around the globe.
Energy Transfer Partners has argued the pipeline is safe and preferable to either tanker trucks or oil trains for the transport of an essential commodity.