A federal judge has allowed 13 more Republican-led states — including Iowa — to intervene as codefendants in the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe’s new lawsuit against the Army Corps of Engineers over the Dakota Access Pipeline.
The lawsuit, filed in October, accuses the Army Corps of unlawfully allowing the oil pipeline to operate without an easement, a complete environmental assessment or sufficient emergency spill response plans. The tribe ultimately wants a federal judge to shut the pipeline down.
Standing Rock has opposed the pipeline for years, saying it infringes upon the tribe’s sovereignty, has damaged sacred cultural sites and jeopardizes the tribe’s water supply.
The Army Corps of Engineers has jurisdiction over a part of the pipeline that passes below the Missouri River less than a half-mile upstream from the Standing Rock Reservation, which straddles the border between North and South Dakota.
“The Corps has failed to act and failed to protect the tribe,” Standing Rock Chair Janet Alkire said in an October news conference announcing the lawsuit.
The more than 1,000-mile pipeline, often referred to as DAPL, passes through North Dakota, South Dakota, Iowa and Illinois. Its pathway includes unceded land recognized as belonging to the Sioux Nation under an 1851 treaty with the U.S. government.
The crude oil underground pipeline crosses 18 counties in Iowa, running diagonally from the northwest to the southeast.
The Iowa Utilities Board — now called the Iowa Utilities Commission — in 2016 granted its developers a permit to build the pipeline. Iowa regulators also granted the developers eminent domain authority, allowing them to force unwilling landowners to grant easements for the route in exchange for compensation.
In 2019, the Iowa Supreme Court ruled against landowners protesting the use of eminent domain and instead sided with Dakota Access and the regulators.
In 2020, the Iowa regulators gave support to a request by Dakota Access to double its capacity. Developer Energy Transfer Partners — a Texas-based consortium of companies and investors — said a higher volume was needed because of demand.
North Dakota joined the case on the side of the Army Corps earlier this month, arguing that closing the pipeline would cost the state hundreds of millions of dollars in tax revenue, put thousands of jobs at risk, hamper regional supply chains and harm the environment. State attorneys also argue that a federal court order shuttering the pipeline would violate North Dakota’s right to regulate its own land and resources.
In a brief filed last week, the 13 additional co-defendant states made similar arguments. The group, led by Iowa, said Dakota Access is integral to the health of regional energy and agriculture markets.
“DAPL plays a vital role in ensuring the nation’s crops can come to market — not because DAPL itself transports agricultural products, but because every barrel of oil that DAPL transports is a barrel that does not take space in a truck or a train,” the states wrote.
This also makes highways and railways safer and reduces pollution, they added.
Dakota Access pipeline route - Gazette graphic
The 13 states that joined the lawsuit are Iowa, Georgia, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas and West Virginia.
According to the states’ brief, the pipeline has paid over $100 million in property taxes to Iowa counties and over $33 million in property taxes to South Dakota counties since it began operating in 2017.
The Army Corps of Engineers has not yet filed an answer to the tribe’s lawsuit.
Energy Transfer, the developer of the Dakota Access Pipeline, has not requested to intervene in the suit.
The case is before U.S. District Court Judge James Boasberg, who oversaw the tribe’s 2016 lawsuit against the Army Corps opposing the pipeline.
North Dakota in 2021 sought to join that lawsuit as well, but Boasberg denied the request as the case was in the process of wrapping up.
That case concluded with Boasberg instructing the Army Corps to conduct a full environmental impact study of the pipeline, which still is in the works. Boasberg also ordered the pipeline to stop operating pending the completion of the study, though that demand was ultimately overturned by an appellate court.
In a separate federal court case, North Dakota seeks $38 million from the U.S. government for costs the state says it incurred responding to Dakota Access Pipeline protests.
www.thegazette.com
This article first appeared in the North Dakota Monitor.
The lawsuit, filed in October, accuses the Army Corps of unlawfully allowing the oil pipeline to operate without an easement, a complete environmental assessment or sufficient emergency spill response plans. The tribe ultimately wants a federal judge to shut the pipeline down.
Standing Rock has opposed the pipeline for years, saying it infringes upon the tribe’s sovereignty, has damaged sacred cultural sites and jeopardizes the tribe’s water supply.
The Army Corps of Engineers has jurisdiction over a part of the pipeline that passes below the Missouri River less than a half-mile upstream from the Standing Rock Reservation, which straddles the border between North and South Dakota.
“The Corps has failed to act and failed to protect the tribe,” Standing Rock Chair Janet Alkire said in an October news conference announcing the lawsuit.
The more than 1,000-mile pipeline, often referred to as DAPL, passes through North Dakota, South Dakota, Iowa and Illinois. Its pathway includes unceded land recognized as belonging to the Sioux Nation under an 1851 treaty with the U.S. government.
Dakota Access in Iowa
The crude oil underground pipeline crosses 18 counties in Iowa, running diagonally from the northwest to the southeast.
The Iowa Utilities Board — now called the Iowa Utilities Commission — in 2016 granted its developers a permit to build the pipeline. Iowa regulators also granted the developers eminent domain authority, allowing them to force unwilling landowners to grant easements for the route in exchange for compensation.
In 2019, the Iowa Supreme Court ruled against landowners protesting the use of eminent domain and instead sided with Dakota Access and the regulators.
In 2020, the Iowa regulators gave support to a request by Dakota Access to double its capacity. Developer Energy Transfer Partners — a Texas-based consortium of companies and investors — said a higher volume was needed because of demand.
North Dakota joined the case on the side of the Army Corps earlier this month, arguing that closing the pipeline would cost the state hundreds of millions of dollars in tax revenue, put thousands of jobs at risk, hamper regional supply chains and harm the environment. State attorneys also argue that a federal court order shuttering the pipeline would violate North Dakota’s right to regulate its own land and resources.
In a brief filed last week, the 13 additional co-defendant states made similar arguments. The group, led by Iowa, said Dakota Access is integral to the health of regional energy and agriculture markets.
“DAPL plays a vital role in ensuring the nation’s crops can come to market — not because DAPL itself transports agricultural products, but because every barrel of oil that DAPL transports is a barrel that does not take space in a truck or a train,” the states wrote.
This also makes highways and railways safer and reduces pollution, they added.
The 13 states that joined the lawsuit are Iowa, Georgia, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas and West Virginia.
According to the states’ brief, the pipeline has paid over $100 million in property taxes to Iowa counties and over $33 million in property taxes to South Dakota counties since it began operating in 2017.
The Army Corps of Engineers has not yet filed an answer to the tribe’s lawsuit.
Energy Transfer, the developer of the Dakota Access Pipeline, has not requested to intervene in the suit.
The case is before U.S. District Court Judge James Boasberg, who oversaw the tribe’s 2016 lawsuit against the Army Corps opposing the pipeline.
North Dakota in 2021 sought to join that lawsuit as well, but Boasberg denied the request as the case was in the process of wrapping up.
That case concluded with Boasberg instructing the Army Corps to conduct a full environmental impact study of the pipeline, which still is in the works. Boasberg also ordered the pipeline to stop operating pending the completion of the study, though that demand was ultimately overturned by an appellate court.
In a separate federal court case, North Dakota seeks $38 million from the U.S. government for costs the state says it incurred responding to Dakota Access Pipeline protests.
Iowa joins states opposing tribe over Dakota Access pipeline
The more than 1,000-mile pipeline passes through North Dakota, South Dakota, Iowa and Illinois. Its pathway includes unceded land recognized as belonging to the Sioux Nation under an 1851 treaty with the U.S. government.
www.thegazette.com
This article first appeared in the North Dakota Monitor.
