The controversy over a planned 1,100-mile pipeline, originating in North Dakota and stretching across four States to Illinois, came to Capitol Hill in September, when Senator Bernie Sanders (VT-I) attempted to add an amendment to a water projects bill to slow its development.
The Dakota Access Pipeline, as it is called, would carry up to 570,000 barrels of domestically produced oil each day. The Standing Rock Sioux Tribe in North Dakota, which opposes the project, says that a spill from the pipeline near their reservation could pollute the water and that construction would destroy sacred sites and burial grounds.
Dallas-based Energy Transfer Partners, which is building the pipeline, maintains that the project would reduce U.S. dependence on foreign oil, create up to 12,000 local jobs, and generate $129 million in property and income taxes annually during construction.
The company also says it has met with tribal leaders many times over the past two years, and that most of the pipeline route is through private land and runs parallel to an existing natural gas line. The Standing Rock Sioux Tribe claims that meaningful consultations with their leaders were never held and that their concerns have been ignored.
Energy Transfer Partners needs an easement from the Federal Government to construct and maintain the pipeline across Army Corps of Engineers land. That easement review is pending.
Senator Sanders’ amendment would prohibit the granting of the easement until a full environmental review is completed. Although the amendment was not included in the version of the Water Resources Development Act (S. 2848) that passed the Senate, Senator Sanders has vowed to continue pushing it, possibly as part of an energy policy bill currently in a House-Senate conference.
In the meantime, on September 9, a Federal judge rejected the tribe’s petition for an injunction, ruling that the work on the pipeline could go forward. Shortly after that ruling, however, the Obama Administration halted construction around the Standing Rock reservation while the Army Corps of Engineers reviews whether the pipeline respects Federal law.
The Administration announced that it will invite tribes to formal consultations this fall to discuss whether Federal rules and laws relating to such infrastructure projects should be reformed to protect tribal rights and resources. And on November 2, President Obama said in an interview that the Army Corps of Engineers is examining possible alternative routes. This setback for pipeline supporters may be temporary, however, as the incoming Trump administration is likely to approve its completion.
Opponents of the pipeline have compared it to the Keystone XL pipeline, which was the subject of prolonged battles in Congress before President Obama announced a year ago that he was rejecting the project.
For related background, see the December 2011 issue of Congressional Digest titled, “Keystone Pipeline.”
