{"id":4736,"date":"2016-10-19T10:28:05","date_gmt":"2016-10-19T14:28:05","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/ncjolt.org\/?p=4736"},"modified":"2020-06-04T20:52:58","modified_gmt":"2020-06-04T20:52:58","slug":"d-c-circuit-removes-injunction-dakota-pipeline","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/blogs\/d-c-circuit-removes-injunction-dakota-pipeline\/","title":{"rendered":"D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals Removes Injunction Against Dakota Access Pipeline"},"content":{"rendered":"

On Sunday, October 9, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals released a per curiam order<\/a><\/span> dissolving an injunction that was preventing the pipeline company Energy Transfer<\/a><\/span> from continuing construction on the Dakota Access Pipeline.
\nEnergy Transfer plans for the pipeline to connect sources of sweet crude production in North Dakota with existing pipelines in Illinois, moving approximately 470,000 barrels per day.\u00a0 According to Energy Transfer, the pipeline will allow this oil to \u201creach major refining markets in a more direct, cost-effective, safer, and environmentally responsible manner.\u201d\u00a0 The company also points out that the pipeline project will play a role in establishing energy independence for the U.S.\u00a0 Additionally, Energy Transfer claims that the pipeline will create up to 12,000 local jobs during the construction phase, will generate millions in local tax revenue, and will \u201caddress transportation strains\u201d by freeing up current methods of delivery like rail cars.
\nEnergy Transfer assures citizens that the pipeline will meet and exceed federal safety standards, and that it will utilize the best available technology<\/a><\/span> to ensure that the pipeline will deliver oil safely, efficiently, and in an environmentally friendly manner.\u00a0 Specifically, the company points to the use of X-rays to inspect welds, pressure and temperature sensors that monitor changes and help prevent failures, and a remote-controlled emergency shutdown system.
\nStill, the pipeline has been met with plenty of resistance.\u00a0 The recent D.C. Circuit ruling is the most recent development in the fight of the Standing Rock Sioux tribe to stop the pipeline from crossing under Lake Oahe and through land near the tribe\u2019s reservation \u201cwhich straddles the North and South Dakota border.\u201d\u00a0 The Standing Rock tribe \u201copposes the pipeline because they say the route crosses sacred sites and burial places<\/a><\/span>.\u201d\u00a0 \u201cThey are concerned that if the pipeline ruptures, an oil spill could pollute drinking water.\u201d\u00a0 As a result, the tribe brought suit under Section 106<\/a><\/span> of the National Historic Preservation Act which, \u201crequires all Federal agencies to take into account the effects of their actions on historic properties.\u201d\u00a0 The tribe had achieved a temporary pause in construction while the D.C. Circuit reviewed its claim.\u00a0 The October 9 ruling once again opened the door for construction to continue.\u00a0 Even while ruling to deny an injunction, the D.C. Circuit appears supportive of tribe and environmental issues and makes its regret of the order clear by saying,<\/p>\n

“we can only hope the spirit of Section 106 may yet prevail.”<\/a><\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

 
\nTribal Chairman Dave Archambault II called the ruling “disappointing,”<\/a><\/span> but assured, “We aren’t done with this fight.”\u00a0 And Archambault is not alone.\u00a0 Recently five Senators, including Bernie Sanders, wrote a letter to President Obama, asking the President to use his authority to stop pipeline construction until the Army Corps of Engineers has completed a \u201cfull environmental impact statement . . . that includes meaningful tribal consultation.\u201d
\nSection 102(2)(C)<\/a><\/span> of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires that an environmental impact statement (EIS) be completed for any \u201cmajor Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment.\u201d\u00a0 The EIS process is \u201cthe most rigorous level<\/a><\/span> of NEPA compliance,\u201d and would inevitably cause substantial delay to the pipeline project, even if the project were eventually approved.
\nDespite the ruling, and even without a full EIS, completion of the proposed route is far from certain<\/a><\/span>.\u00a0 The Army Corps of Engineers has yet to approve the necessary easement for construction under Lake Oahe.\u00a0 In fact, the day after the ruling, \u201cthe departments of Justice, Interior, and the Army issued a joint statement<\/a><\/span> refusing to authorize construction along part of the proposed route,\u201d and requesting that the pipeline company \u201cvoluntarily pause all construction activity within 20 miles east or west of Lake Oahe.\u201d\u00a0 Thus far, there has been no such \u201cvoluntary pause,\u201d as construction commenced soon after the ruling.
\nThese recent developments have led to what some call protests, and others call riots<\/a><\/span>.\u00a0 While many protests remain peaceful, some have turned dangerous and even violent.\u00a0 Over two dozen protestors were arrested near the Standing Rock Reservation while, elsewhere, reports of tampering with pipeline infrastructure surfaced.\u00a0 Pipeline representatives warn that such tampering is both dangerous and contrary to environmentalist goals since, \u201cincorrectly closing a valve . . . could cause a pressure surge, rupture the pipeline and cause a spill.\u201d
\nAs tension levels continue to rise, parties on both sides of the conflict await a truly final decision.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

On Sunday, October 9, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals released a per curiam order dissolving an injunction that was preventing the pipeline company Energy Transfer from continuing construction on the Dakota Access Pipeline. Energy Transfer plans for the pipeline to connect sources of sweet crude production in North Dakota with existing pipelines in Illinois, …<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":4737,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[51],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4736"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=4736"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4736\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":7153,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4736\/revisions\/7153"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/4737"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=4736"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=4736"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=4736"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}