Then Julie Fedorchak herself had this to say in the very article you posted:
“The tribes are all in communication with state government officials at various levels throughout our legislative process. And that’s because we’re living and working in communities right next to each other, and we have all the same interests at heart.”
So why would these active tribes suddenly not communicate about the pipeline when they are always active with the government?
And on a personal note, I’m inclined to side with indigenous people that are active with the government over their welfare and their land rights, as opposed to a $4 billion investment into fossil fuels by mega corps. Who do you think is going to win that fight?
“But the plans were on display…”
“On display? I eventually had to go down to the cellar to find them.”
“That’s the display department.”
“With a flashlight.”
“Ah, well, the lights had probably gone.”
“So had the stairs.”
“But look, you found the notice, didn’t you?”
“Yes,” said Arthur, “yes I did. It was on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying ‘Beware of the Leopard.”
I agree with North Dakota’s Governor… (Sort of,… Not really)
Let’s evacuate the area until spring but include everyone connected to the construction of the pipeline as well as the protesters. Let’s especially include private security. (That way the construction crews won’t want to leave expensive equipment handy if it can’t be guarded) Possible exceptions could be tribal designated observers (to make sure the construction people don’t sneak back in), Law enforcement (Most of whom will go away if all the people leave)
RE: “Needing a pipeline” - Yes, having the pipeline would make it easier and cheaper to transport the oil but it’s not as though the oil companies would pass that savings on to their retail consumers. They’d no doubt be perfectly fine with passing on additional expenses to the consumers but any savings are going to end up in the pockets of those who own and/or run the oil companies.
RE: The FAA’s no drones other than law enforcement ban: - Bunch of weasels! Yeah right, just to keep new choppers away. 1. Why should they get to keep any kind of journalists away? 2. They could easily ban just aircraft over a certain size to accomplish their suppression of journalists.
You act as though NIMBYism isn’t a reasonable justification for protest. Are you saying that if you lived in an area with no pipelines you’d be ok with someone building one within half a mile of your municipal water supply?
Maybe Texans should have fought those pipelines if they didn’t want them.
If your fellow Texans didn’t have any objection to the pipelines then you have no basis for complaint. If your fellow Texans did fight those pipelines and you got stuck with them anyway then you should be MORE sympathetic to these protesters’ cause, not LESS.
Considering it’s just going to get colder out there, making everyone (protesters, cops, DAPL people, etc…) leave for the winter might not be the worst idea.
It is nice to see the facts. So it appears they were in fact contacted and given a month to respond despite claims to the contrary however all contact went through a single individual, one Young. It sounds like Young didn’t do his job right but surely the Tribe has more than one official means of contact though.
Good article. According to the actual court ruling Max_Blancke posted it appears they were contacted but only through a single individual for the majority of the process. I personally do not think relying on the competence of a single person to respond is an adequate attempt to contact them when the decisions they were making affected the entire Tribe.
It’s interesting to see that the oil companies get to skate around the EPA by treating their continuous pipeline as a series of construction sites. I’d love to see how that ruling/regulation got passed. The justification was what? “Well jeez, if we had to negotiate and get approval for the entire proposed pipeline route that’d be really hard and expensive.”
Let’s suppose it is – that the Sioux tribes were not opposing development in general, but instead have some special interest in preserving the drinking water for their territory. After all, it is their heritage and granted to them under treaty; it is unlikely that in the event of a spill they would get much redress, considering past treatment of such situations, and they could not simply move away like at least some people in Bismarck could.
If so, what would that prove? That they should suck it up as still more of their national interests are sacrificed to someone else’s profits? That we shouldn’t be sympathetic to them after the people in Bismarck asked the pipeline to be relocated away from their water, without needing to endure dogs and water cannons? Or maybe that declaring something “NIMBY” shouldn’t be such a thought-ending way to dismiss it?
I think it’s reasonable to be scared when a new pipeline goes in, but at this point pipelines aren’t a new technology. We understand them and understand the costs and risks are compared to alternative transportation methods.
I think it’s a little like how my mom is one of those people that feels better when she sees a TSA checkpoint in the airport. She’s afraid of terrorists even though it’s easy to show her that terrorism is a de minimis risk. She should be more afraid of slipping in the shower.
For the people of North Dakota, the response to the pipeline is out of proportion to the actual risk.
To get back to my original question about this being a NIMBY issue, I think the best argument that I’ve found against that is that most of the protestors are from out of state.
To get back to my original question about this being a NIMBY issue, I think the best argument that I’ve found against that is that most of the protestors are from out of state.
It’s not a NIMBY issue because none of the protesters are saying “we want the benefits of the pipeline but not the risk.” They’re saying “we don’t want that pipeline at all, but if you must build it then build it somewhere else. The people who live on this land have been screwed over for centuries already.”
According to the North Dakota state online GIS the land on which the protestors are camped is owned or controlled by the Army Corps of Engineers. I’m guessing that this is because it is on a flood plain.
