 |
| Standing Rock Water Protector Camp 2017 photo by Ryan Vizzions |
A federal judge ruled that the Dakota Access Pipeline must shut down by August 5, during an in-depth environmental review of the pipeline, in defeat of the Trump administration.
The ruling is a major win for the Standing Rock Lakota Nation, environmental groups and the Water Protectors who maintained the resistance while being shot with projectiles, gassed and beaten by militarized police in 2016 and 2017.
“Today is a historic day for the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe and the many people who have supported us in the fight against the pipeline,” said Chairman Mike Faith of the Standing Rock Lakota Nation. “This pipeline should have never been built here. We told them that from the beginning.”
Nikki Ducheneaux, of the Big Fire Law and Policy Group, shared these excerpts from the order and opinion today:
ORDER: The Court ORDERS that: 1) The Mineral Leasing Act easement authorizing the Dakota Access Pipeline to cross the Missouri River at Lake Oahe is hereby VACATED; and 2) Dakota Access shall shut down the pipeline and empty it of oil by August 5, 2020. Signed by Judge James E. Boasberg on 7/6/2020.
From the opinion:
Lake Oahe is a large reservoir lying behind a dam on the Missouri River and stretching between North and South Dakota. Fearing severe environmental consequences, American Indian Tribes on nearby reservations have sought for several years to invalidate federal permits allowing the Dakota Access Pipeline to carry oil under the lake. Today they finally achieve that goal — at least for the time being.
Following multiple twists and turns in this long-running litigation, this Court recently found that Defendant U.S. Army Corps of Engineers had violated the National Environmental Policy Act when it granted an easement to Defendant-Intervenor Dakota Access, LLC to construct and operate a segment of that crude-oil pipeline running beneath the lake. This was because the Corps had failed to produce an Environmental Impact Statement despite conditions
that triggered such a requirement.
The Court consequently remanded the case to the agency to prepare such an EIS, but it asked for a separate briefing on the appropriate interim remedy. In other words, the Court asked the parties whether the easement should be vacated and the pipeline emptied during the remand process. Although mindful of the disruption such a shutdown will cause, the Court now concludes that the answer is yes. Clear precedent favoring vacatur during such a remand coupled with the seriousness of the Corps’ deficiencies outweighs the negative effects of halting the oil flow for the thirteen months that the Corps believes the creation of an EIS will take.
