Feds deny permit for Dakota Access pipeline

[Valin]

The Hill:

Devin Henry

12/04/16

 

Federal officials have denied the final permits required for the Dakota Access Pipeline project in North Dakota.

 

The Army Corps of Engineers on Sunday announced it would instead conduct an environmental impact review of the 1,170-mile pipeline project and determine if there are other ways to route it to avoid a crossing on the Missouri River.

 

“Although we have had continuing discussion and exchanges of new information with the Standing Rock Sioux and Dakota Access, it’s clear that there’s more work to do,” Army Assistant Secretary for Civil Works Jo-Ellen Darcy said in a statement.

 

“The best way to complete that work responsibly and expeditiously is to explore alternate routes for the pipeline crossing.”

 

(Snip)

 

__________________________________________________________________________________________

 

 

[Draggingtree]

The Standing Rock Protests: What Our Kids Need to Know

This explainer on the North Dakota pipeline project demonstrates the importance of facts over fiction

December 2, 2016

by Benjamin Kain | Updated 03 Dec 2016 at 11:26 AM

 

Celebrities, activists, and even Bernie Sanders have been calling for an end to the construction of the Dakota Access Pipeline (DAPL) in the state of North Dakota.

 

The back-and-forth battle between the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe and the managers of the pipeline project has sparked divisive protests. And a growing group of supporters of the project — many of them local North Dakotans — have fired back at the protesters. Supporters argue the DAPL was approved years ago and that the behavior of the protesters at Standing Rock is fueled by professional activists and radical, anti-oil, climate change extremists.

The protesters, naturally, call themselves “water protectors” — and say their human rights are being violated and their land stolen from them.

 

An all-out social media blitz with the hashtag #NoDAPL has set the internet ablaze, garnering more attention for the protests at Standing Rock. The governor of North Dakota issued an executive order that requires all protesters to clear the area — yet protesters have vowed to continue their resistance.

It is important to note that eight other pipelines traverse the same Missouri River safely each day. http://www.lifezette.com/polizette/steins-false-promise-free-recounts/

[Valin]

@Draggingtree

 

 

 

The protesters, naturally, call themselves “water protectors” — and say their human rights are being violated and their land stolen from them.

 

And The Sioux/Lakota stole it from...the Mandans?

[Draggingtree]

Why Indian-Tribe Sovereignty Is Important

0 Views

12 hours ago Ryan McMaken

In the midst of the Dakota Access Pipeline controversy, Trump's transition team has suggested that it may pursue efforts to "privatize" Indian reservation lands as a way of circumventing regulatory hurdles that stand in the way of Tribal oversight of operations such as drilling and other types of resource extraction.

 

Now, "privatization" is one of those words that can mean any number of things, and in this case, the true meaning is especially murky given the complexity of the relationship between Tribal governments and the United States federal government.

 

There is little doubt that for many leftwing and rightwing activists, the term "privatization" will elicit very different reactions. For many rightwing activists, the term will spell an opportunity to start selling off tribal lands piecemeal in the pursuit of allegedly more "efficient" ownership outside the influence of Tribal governments. Perhaps it might even be a chance to get rid of the Tribes completely. For leftwing activists, it will mean largely the same thing, except for them, this will be an overwhelmingly negative development and even lead to what is known as "Indian termination" which was a federal policy to undermine tribal sovereignty.

https://www.mises.org/blog/why-indian-tribe-sovereignty-important

[Draggingtree]

Why Indian-Tribe Sovereignty Is Important

0 Views

12 hours ago Ryan McMaken

In the midst of the Dakota Access Pipeline controversy, Trump's transition team has suggested that it may pursue efforts to "privatize" Indian reservation lands as a way of circumventing regulatory hurdles that stand in the way of Tribal oversight of operations such as drilling and other types of resource extraction.

Now, "privatization" is one of those words that can mean any number of things, and in this case, the true meaning is especially murky given the complexity of the relationship between Tribal governments and the United States federal government.

There is little doubt that for many leftwing and rightwing activists, the term "privatization" will elicit very different reactions. For many rightwing activists, the term will spell an opportunity to start selling off tribal lands piecemeal in the pursuit of allegedly more "efficient" ownership outside the influence of Tribal governments. Perhaps it might even be a chance to get rid of the Tribes completely. For leftwing activists, it will mean largely the same thing, except for them, this will be an overwhelmingly negative development and even lead to what is known as "Indian termination" which was a federal policy to undermine tribal sovereignty.

https://www.mises.org/blog/why-indian-tribe-sovereignty-important