Nowatski/Billings Gazette
Environmental Anguish
Though the United States could very well see the benefits of safer and more oil transported on domestic soil, the construction of the pipeline alone would result in possible disturbance of burial grounds and ancient relics from Native American history.
There is also the added potential of what could happen after it is built.
What makes pipelines so risky is their intensifying reputation to spill. Spills and leaks from the vast amount of pipelines in the United States have already polluted streams and rivers, drinking water, and farmland, not to mention residential areas (Sierra Club), which may be the most concerning factor for many land-owning Americans (McKibben).
Derrick Braaten is a lawyer in Bismark, North Dakota, specializing in representing farmers, ranchers and landowners in issues involving environmental, agricultural, real estate and energy law (Braaten). His article “This Land is not for Sale” from a law review outlines why “Big Oil” has no way of compensating landowners for possible detrimental effects on their land. His article defends the land itself, claiming that the potential effects of environmental damage would result in a loss of livelihood for a rancher or farmer, on or off an indian reservation. Obviously non natives and natives alike were upset about this potentially detrimental environmental issue.
This may be why the original route was changed from the area Bismark - which Braaten was defending - to an area farther down the Mississippi, and right on top of the Standing Rock Reservation, home to the Sioux Tribe (Energy Transfer Partners). Most, especially the Standing Rock Sioux, think this change places extremely low value on the lives, not to mention the land, of indigenous peoples. One of the main assessments comes from Bill McKibben, a writer for the New York Times and author of “Why Dakota is the New Keystone.” He compares the act of changing the route from the second biggest city in North Dakota as something not only similar to Keystone but the entire history of the dislocation and containment of Native Americans in the United States. He claims,“The solution, in keeping with American history, was obvious: make the crossing instead just above the Standing Rock reservation, where the poverty rate is nearly three times the national average.” McKibben is suggesting that there is a deeper underlying problem here, not just that there is a group of people being discriminated against but that this group has seen the same exact discrimination for centuries, against the same unified power. I would agree with him in that the change in route is implicitly affecting a group already vulnerable from years of increasingly shrinking land due to government jurisdiction.
There is also the added potential of what could happen after it is built.
What makes pipelines so risky is their intensifying reputation to spill. Spills and leaks from the vast amount of pipelines in the United States have already polluted streams and rivers, drinking water, and farmland, not to mention residential areas (Sierra Club), which may be the most concerning factor for many land-owning Americans (McKibben).
Derrick Braaten is a lawyer in Bismark, North Dakota, specializing in representing farmers, ranchers and landowners in issues involving environmental, agricultural, real estate and energy law (Braaten). His article “This Land is not for Sale” from a law review outlines why “Big Oil” has no way of compensating landowners for possible detrimental effects on their land. His article defends the land itself, claiming that the potential effects of environmental damage would result in a loss of livelihood for a rancher or farmer, on or off an indian reservation. Obviously non natives and natives alike were upset about this potentially detrimental environmental issue.
This may be why the original route was changed from the area Bismark - which Braaten was defending - to an area farther down the Mississippi, and right on top of the Standing Rock Reservation, home to the Sioux Tribe (Energy Transfer Partners). Most, especially the Standing Rock Sioux, think this change places extremely low value on the lives, not to mention the land, of indigenous peoples. One of the main assessments comes from Bill McKibben, a writer for the New York Times and author of “Why Dakota is the New Keystone.” He compares the act of changing the route from the second biggest city in North Dakota as something not only similar to Keystone but the entire history of the dislocation and containment of Native Americans in the United States. He claims,“The solution, in keeping with American history, was obvious: make the crossing instead just above the Standing Rock reservation, where the poverty rate is nearly three times the national average.” McKibben is suggesting that there is a deeper underlying problem here, not just that there is a group of people being discriminated against but that this group has seen the same exact discrimination for centuries, against the same unified power. I would agree with him in that the change in route is implicitly affecting a group already vulnerable from years of increasingly shrinking land due to government jurisdiction.