Will Trump overturn this?
Still, it's a good precedent for Western ranchers fighting DC over-reach.
Will Trump overturn this?
Still, it's a good precedent for Western ranchers fighting DC over-reach.
DAPL Inc. should have made sure of this ahead of time. Can they sue US Army for breach of contract?
Oil me wrote:
DAPL Inc. should have made sure of this ahead of time. Can they sue US Army for breach of contract?
More likely is a collusive lawsuit and settlement once Trump DOJ takes over.
Time to send in the Marines.
This Land Is My Land wrote:
Will Trump overturn this?
Still, it's a good precedent for Western ranchers fighting DC over-reach.
No. They will do a more thorough environmental analysis and consider alternative routes. Nixon signed these laws into effect in 1969.
Coyote Montane wrote:
This Land Is My Land wrote:Will Trump overturn this?
Still, it's a good precedent for Western ranchers fighting DC over-reach.
No. They will do a more thorough environmental analysis and consider alternative routes. Nixon signed these laws into effect in 1969.
What if the more thorough analysis just proves this was the best route in the first place?
I'm pro-oil and anti-liberal crybabies. However, I think this is a good move! Way to go Trump! Another W.
"This is going to set a precedent to activists that everything is negotiable and all they have to do is say they're going to protest and president Ronald Trump will give them special treatment"- Bennie (out of touch) randers.
Ain't over 'till it's over wrote:
Coyote Montane wrote:No. They will do a more thorough environmental analysis and consider alternative routes. Nixon signed these laws into effect in 1969.
What if the more thorough analysis just proves this was the best route in the first place?
It's not about "proving" one thing or another. It's about disclosure and making the best decision, considering environmental, social, and economic factors (risks and benefits). They still might decide that the route proposed in the first analysis is the best. Or maybe they will chose another route. We might be facing the same situation in 3 or 4 years, either with the tribes or some North Dakota nimbys.
Im a conservative who is ok with it..
A pipeline under a river....nowadays
What engineer planned for this?
Fire him.
Pitchfork protests prevail!
This Land Is My Land wrote:
Still, it's a good precedent for Western ranchers fighting DC over-reach.
Coyote Montane wrote:
It's not about "proving" one thing or another. It's about disclosure and making the best decision, considering environmental, social, and economic factors (risks and benefits). They still might decide that the route proposed in the first analysis is the best. Or maybe they will chose another route. We might be facing the same situation in 3 or 4 years, either with the tribes or some North Dakota nimbys.
"The reality is that the company has observed all proper procedures and met all environmental standards required by four states and the Corps itself. Further, refusing the easement has ramifications over the long term; if companies and individuals cannot rely on a system that follows the rule of law, nobody will risk making future investments in our country's vital infrastructure. That will make our nation vulnerable and less secure."
North Dakota Senator here wrote:
Coyote Montane wrote:It's not about "proving" one thing or another. It's about disclosure and making the best decision, considering environmental, social, and economic factors (risks and benefits). They still might decide that the route proposed in the first analysis is the best. Or maybe they will chose another route. We might be facing the same situation in 3 or 4 years, either with the tribes or some North Dakota nimbys.
"The reality is that the company has observed all proper procedures and met all environmental standards required by four states and the Corps itself. Further, refusing the easement has ramifications over the long term; if companies and individuals cannot rely on a system that follows the rule of law, nobody will risk making future investments in our country's vital infrastructure. That will make our nation vulnerable and less secure."
The true reality is no, DAPL tried to take the shortest route rather than the proper environmental route. That will cost more.
Not a chance Trump forces the cheaper route. Why? Because he would be erasing White Collar jobs. Many more jobs than he "saved" in Indiana.
SD Klowns on Patrol wrote:
The true reality is no, DAPL tried to take the shortest route rather than the proper environmental route. That will cost more.
How is this not the proper environmental route? Did they fail to pass the environmental laws?
Their "Finding of No Significant Impact" indeed indicated a potential significant impact. The law states that it's time to do an environmental impact statement.
Stop being a breitbart fool and educate yourself.
This pipeline goes through my county in Iowa. Land owners tried to stop it, but the Iowa Utility Board treated the Pipeline company like it was a Public Utility instead of a private company, so they were able to claim eminent domain and lay pipe on farms even if the farmers didn't want it on their land.
Also...as I understand it, the company was able to facilitate the permits and avoid studies by segmenting the project into many small projects.
qaz wrote:
This pipeline goes through my county in Iowa. Land owners tried to stop it, but the Iowa Utility Board treated the Pipeline company like it was a Public Utility instead of a private company, so they were able to claim eminent domain and lay pipe on farms even if the farmers didn't want it on their land.
Also...as I understand it, the company was able to facilitate the permits and avoid studies by segmenting the project into many small projects.
The damn line is nearly a dead straight run. Nothing was considered except plowing through whatever was in the way. A lot of people were bribed to get such an obvious cheapest price route--straight path and take-over of private property. No consideration of anything except lowest cost.