How Is The Dakota Pipeline Legal

Reading Time: 8 minutes

The Dakota Access Pipeline has been the subject of protests and legal battles for months, as opponents say the project would damage sacred sites and put the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe’s water supply at risk. Supporters of the project argue that it would create jobs and reduce reliance on foreign oil.

The $3.8 billion project would transport oil from North Dakota to Illinois, and the 1,172-mile pipeline would cross under the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe’s reservation. The tribe argues that the project would damage ancient sites and affect their water supply.

In September, the tribe asked a federal judge to stop the project, arguing that the Army Corps of Engineers had not properly consulted with them before approving the project. The tribe also said that the project would damage sacred sites.

In early October, a federal judge denied the tribe’s request for an injunction, ruling that the Army Corps had adequately consulted with the tribe. The tribe has appealed that decision.

The Standing Rock Sioux Tribe has also been protesting the project, and in early December, hundreds of people gathered to protest the project. The protests have turned violent at times, with law enforcement using pepper spray and water cannons on the protesters.

The project has also been the subject of protests in other states. In November, a group of protesters shut down a valve on a pipeline in Montana.

So far, the $3.8 billion project has qualified for more than $1 billion in state and federal tax breaks.

Table of Contents

Is the Dakota Access Pipeline legal?

In light of the protests against the Dakota Access Pipeline (DAPL), many people are asking whether the project is legal. The answer to this question is complex, as the legality of the DAPL depends on a variety of factors.

The DAPL is a $3.8 billion project that would transport crude oil from the Bakken Formation in North Dakota to refineries in Illinois. The project has faced significant opposition from the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, as well as from environmental activists. The tribe and its allies argue that the DAPL would threaten the tribe’s water supply and damage sacred sites.

The DAPL is facing a number of legal challenges. In July 2016, the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe filed a lawsuit against the US Army Corps of Engineers, alleging that the Corps had failed to properly consult with the tribe about the project. In August 2016, a federal judge denied the tribe’s request for an injunction to halt construction of the pipeline.

In September 2016, the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe filed a second lawsuit, this time alleging that the DAPL would damage sacred sites. A federal judge is expected to rule on this lawsuit in early 2017.

The legality of the DAPL is also being challenged in state court. In September 2016, the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe and the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe filed a lawsuit against the state of North Dakota, arguing that the state’s revised energy policy, which allows for the construction of the DAPL, violates the tribes’ rights under the US Constitution.

It is still too early to say how these lawsuits will play out. However, it is clear that the DAPL is facing significant legal challenges.

Why is the Dakota Access Pipeline controversial?

The Dakota Access Pipeline is a 1,172-mile-long crude oil pipeline that will stretch from the Bakken Formation in northwestern North Dakota to Patoka, Illinois. This $3.8 billion project has been controversial from the start, with environmental activists arguing that the pipeline could contaminate water supplies and damage sacred Native American sites.

Supporters of the Dakota Access Pipeline argue that it will create jobs, reduce the United States’ dependence on foreign oil, and help to keep energy prices low. They also say that the pipeline will be constructed and operated safely, and that the risk of any leaks or spills is very low.

The Obama administration initially delayed approval of the project in order to allow for additional environmental review. But in February 2017, shortly after Donald Trump took office, the Trump administration overturned that decision and granted final approval for the project. This has led to further protests and demonstrations, with opponents of the pipeline arguing that the Trump administration is putting the interests of the oil industry ahead of the environment and Native American rights.

Why do we need the Dakota Access Pipeline?

The Dakota Access Pipeline (DAPL) is a proposed crude oil pipeline project in the United States. The pipeline would start in the Bakken Formation in northwestern North Dakota and terminate at the Patoka Oil Terminal Hub in Illinois. The proposed pipeline would transport up to 570,000 barrels of crude oil per day.

Supporters of the DAPL argue that the pipeline is necessary to reduce the dependence of the United States on foreign oil, and that the pipeline will create jobs and stimulate the economy.

Opponents of the DAPL argue that the pipeline is unnecessary, that it will damage the environment, and that it will not create as many jobs as supporters claim.

What is the Dakota Access Pipeline?

Why is the DAPL being built?

Supporters of the DAPL argue that the pipeline is necessary to reduce the dependence of the United States on foreign oil, and that the pipeline will create jobs and stimulate the economy.

Opponents of the DAPL argue that the pipeline is unnecessary, that it will damage the environment, and that it will not create as many jobs as supporters claim.

What is happening with the Dakota Access Pipeline?

The Dakota Access Pipeline is a proposed crude oil pipeline that would run from the Bakken Formation in North Dakota to Patoka, Illinois. The proposed route would cross under the Missouri and Mississippi Rivers, as well as under the Standing Rock Sioux Nation.

The Standing Rock Sioux Nation and other indigenous communities have opposed the Dakota Access Pipeline for years, citing the potential for environmental and cultural damage. In April 2016, the tribe filed a lawsuit against the US Army Corps of Engineers, arguing that the Corps did not properly consult with them before approving the project. In August, a federal judge denied the tribe’s request for an injunction to stop construction of the pipeline.

Should the North Dakota pipeline be placed on Native American land?

The North Dakota Access Pipeline is a proposed oil pipeline that would run from the Bakken oil fields in North Dakota to Illinois. The 1,172-mile pipeline would cross four states and carry up to 570,000 barrels of oil a day.

The proposed route for the pipeline crosses the Standing Rock Sioux Nation, and many in the tribe oppose the pipeline, saying it would damage sacred sites and contaminate the tribe’s water supply. In late September, the tribe filed a lawsuit against the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, asking for a halt to the project.

In early October, the Obama administration temporarily halted construction of the pipeline, saying it would review the tribe’s concerns. The decision was praised by the tribe and its supporters.

On November 14, the Army Corps of Engineers granted an easement for the pipeline to be built under Lake Oahe, a reservoir on the Missouri River that is part of the Standing Rock Sioux Nation. The tribe has said it will continue to fight the pipeline’s construction.

The decision to grant the easement has been criticized by many, including tribal members, environmental groups, and celebrities. They argue that the Corps did not properly consult with the tribe, that the risk of a spill is too high, and that the project will damage sacred sites.

Supporters of the pipeline say that it will create jobs, reduce America’s dependence on foreign oil, and is a more environmentally friendly option than transporting oil by rail.

So, should the North Dakota Access Pipeline be built on Native American land? This is a complicated question, with no easy answer.

On the one hand, the tribe has a right to be consulted on projects that affect its land and water supply. The Corps did not properly consult with the tribe before granting the easement, and this could have serious consequences for the tribe.

On the other hand, the pipeline would create jobs, reduce America’s dependence on foreign oil, and is a more environmentally friendly option than transporting oil by rail.

Ultimately, the decision about whether or not to build the North Dakota Access Pipeline on Native American land will come down to a balancing of interests. The tribe’s interests must be taken into account, as must the interests of the people who support the pipeline.

Who benefits from the Dakota Access Pipeline?

The Dakota Access Pipeline (DAPL) has been a source of intense controversy in the United States. The $3.8 billion project would transport crude oil from the Bakken oil fields in North Dakota to Illinois, crossing under the Standing Rock Sioux tribe’s reservation and the 17 million people that rely on the Missouri River for drinking, irrigation, and energy.

The project has faced staunch opposition from the tribe and environmental activists, who argue that the pipeline poses a major threat to the environment and to the tribe’s water supply. The protests, which have drawn thousands of people to the Standing Rock Sioux reservation, have turned violent at times, with police using pepper spray and water cannons on protesters in below-freezing temperatures.

The DAPL is nearly complete, but the Army Corps of Engineers announced in December that it would not grant an easement for the pipeline to cross under the Missouri River, pending further review. The decision was seen as a major victory for the tribe and the protesters.

So who benefits from the DAPL?

The main beneficiaries of the DAPL are the companies involved in the project, including Energy Transfer Partners and Sunoco Logistics. These companies are set to make billions of dollars in profits from the pipeline.

The North Dakota government and its citizens are also likely to benefit from the DAPL. The state has been struggling economically in recent years due to the collapse of the oil industry. The DAPL will create jobs and bring much-needed economic development to the state.

The tribe and the environmental activists who have been protesting the pipeline are the clear losers in this situation. If the DAPL is completed, they could see their water supplies threatened and their environment damaged.

Who does the Dakota pipeline benefit?

The Dakota Access Pipeline (DAPL) is a 1,172-mile, $3.7 billion project that would transport crude oil from the Bakken oil fields in North Dakota to a refinery in Illinois. The proposed route for the DAPL would cross under the Standing Rock Sioux Nation and the 17 million people that rely on the Missouri River for drinking, irrigation and energy—striking communities near the environmental disaster of Flint, Michigan.

The DAPL would not only impact the environment and public health, but it would also benefit a very small number of people. The pipeline would transport up to 570,000 barrels of oil a day and would create just 40 permanent jobs. On the other hand, the DAPL would put the environment and public health at risk and would not create many jobs.

The people who would benefit the most from the DAPL are the people who own the oil companies. The top four investors in the DAPL are Energy Transfer Partners (ETP), Phillips 66, Sunoco Logistics and Marathon Petroleum. These companies would make billions of dollars in profits from the DAPL.

The DAPL is a bad project for the environment, public health and the economy. It would not create many jobs, but it would put the environment and public health at risk. The people who would benefit the most from the DAPL are the people who own the oil companies.

How Is The Dakota Pipeline Legal10 min read