Adam Vann wrote this brief (3+ pages) CRS Legal Sidebar (1 February 2021): Court Rules Dakota Access Pipeline Needs Further Environmental Review.
The map is not from the CRS report but here.
Download CRS_LegalSidebar_Court_Rule_DAPL_Env_Review_1Feb2021
Introduction
UPDATE: On January 26 2021, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision requiring the Army Corps of Engineers to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) prior to issuance of an easement across federal land for the Dakota Access Pipeline, but reversed the district court’s injunction prohibiting the operation of the Pipeline and directing that it be emptied of oil. The original Sidebar discussing the district court case is below.The Dakota Access Pipeline (DAPL), a crude oil pipeline developed by Energy Transfer Partners, carries crude oil from the Bakken fields in northwest North Dakota to southern Illinois. As discussed in this Legal Sidebar, the DAPL has been the subject of extensive debate and media attention, as well as prolonged litigation. Much of the attention on the DAPL centers on the portion of the pipeline route that is near or runs under Lake Oahe in North Dakota, a lake that has particular significance to Native Americans in the region. The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia (D.C. District Court) recently held that this controversial portion of the route needs further environmental review.
The Standing Rock Indian Reservation is shown in orange.
Background on DAPL Environmental Review
Because the pipeline crosses waters subject to regulation under the Clean Water Act and land controlled by the federal government, federal law required the Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) to issue several authorizations for the project, including authorization for the stretch of pipeline under Lake Oahe. The Corps’ federal actions triggered the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), which requires federal agencies to assess the environmental impacts of a proposed action before making a decision about that action. Under NEPA, agencies considering actions not eligible for “categorical exclusions” must prepare Environmental Assessments (EAs). If the federal action will “significantly affect the quality of the human environment,” agencies must prepare an EIS. (Sometimes the agency skips the EA and moves directly to prepare the EIS.) Despite a previous determination that the Corps should prepare an EIS to assess the environmental impacts of the Corps action in depth, a 2017 Presidential Memorandum encouraged the Corps to consider a previously published EA–one that concluded with a Finding of No Significant Impact– sufficient to satisfy NEPA.
Cutting to the chase...
What’s Next for the DAPL?
The Corps is likely to move forward with both the EIS and an appeal of the D.C. District Court’s decision. In the meantime, the court asked the parties to brief the issue of whether the court must vacate the easement across Lake Oahe that allows the pipeline to flow until the review on remand is completed or the issue is otherwise resolved. As those judicial and administrative proceedings move forward, legislators also have the option of superseding judicial or agency action with legislative action related to the DAPL and NEPA obligations.
See what the Native Americans - water protectors of Standing Rock -say about the DAPL (from WBUR). Also check out this 2016 article from the High Country News about the creation of maps showing the DAPL route vis-a-vis Native American and other lands by Jennifer Veilleux and colleagues.
Enjoy!
"We've lost a lot of land to history. We have to stand up for our rights." - Lee Plenty Wolf, an Oglala Lakota from the Pine Ridge Reservation
Comments