Dakota Access Pipeline

[jackfaire]

All Native Americans that had land effected got ballots sent to them to vote. So it's not like they had no clue.

AKA those who live on US property. This is less about "Land affected" and more about water supply.

IF we learned anything from Flint Michigan it's that if someone's about to contaminate your water supply they don't have to tell you shit about it or let you know it's going to happen.

[Cia]

They don't have to give suggestions. That's not their job. That’s the job of the Corp of Engineers. And the big issue is that the US is in violation of standing agreements with native governments:

http://inter-american-law-review.law...sts-arent-oil/

We've treated our native population shamefully, so it's no surprise they'd eventually stand to fight.

If they're going to bitch then yes, it is their job to help out and figure a different or better way for the pipeline to go through. The land is lying fallow.. ranch, farm, use it for something beyond not having to pay property taxes.

I don't give a flying butt hair about the "poor, down trodden" Sioux. I have to deal with the tribes every month since they don't think they have to pay their freakin' bills. But oh boy do they freak the hell out if you don't pay for a business license or pay their TERO/TECRO fees.

They whine over and over a gain but do nothing to bring industry to the rez this includes all the rezs. When someone tries to bring industry in they are shot down faster than a flaming snowball or bribery runs rampant.

If you can't bother to help yourself then shut the hell up.

[s_stabeler]

Actually, I disagree. However, I think I know where the disagreement comes from. I imagine you see it as the pipeline should be approved unless there is good reason not to ( burden of proof being on objectors to a development to prove their objections reasonable) while I think it's down to the developer to prove their case.

There's also two other factors:
1) is a pipeline even needed in the first place? it's kind of harsh to demand people who don't want a pipeline at all identify a site for the pipeline to go.
2) presumably it is a reasonably skilled job determining a route for a pipeline. It is not entirely reasonable to insist on opponents of the route for a pipeline determine an alternative route- however, it is the case that no alternative route being available can be evidence to overrule objections to the route. ( basically, if you can prove the pipeline needs to be built, and the only reasonable route causes objections, those objections should be overruled. Also, it helps if the developer doesn't act in complete opposition to opponents (how I would do it is the developer makes their case for the development being necessary in the first place, then every stakeholder- and the tribes ARE stakeholders- gets to weigh in on the exact location & details of the development ( for instance, can the pipeline be designed in such a way to minimise the risk of water pollution? ( which I understand is the main issue.) can the pipeline be designed in such a way as to minimise the risk of leaks? ( I've often wondered why oil pipelines couldn't have a double pipeline: the outer one being to contain any leaks from the inner one- design it so that a leak allows you to bypass the leaking section ( yes, this would mean each pipeline would probably need to de facto be two pipelines ( one actively used, one bypass) so you can fix the leaking section while minimising disruption to the flow of oil ( the idea is inspired by the internet-any individual router going down means only the computers connected only to that specific router lose their signal (it can get more complicated. but basically, provided there is at least one surviving route of less than 16 hops to get to the destination, the exact route is irrelevant.) by allowing you to divert oil flow to a second pipeline, any leak can be minimised until it can be fixed, minimising the damage.)