Iowans Celebrate Pipeline Delay While Continuing to Fight

By Scott Galindez, Reader Supported News

06 December 16

 

he U.S. Army Corps of Engineers announced on Sunday that they have denied the final permit for the Dakota Access Pipeline (DAPL) to be constructed under Lake Oahe north of the Standing Rock Reservation. On Monday, Iowans rallied to celebrate this temporary victory and demand that the Iowa Utilities Board (IUB) take similar action to protect Iowans and their water resources from the Dakota Access Pipeline by revoking their permit in Iowa.

This decision forces a “re-route” of the Dakota Access Pipeline in North Dakota around Lake Oahe and the tribal lands of the Standing Rock Sioux. Furthermore, it will require an Environmental Impact Statement for any new proposed route, which will take months to complete.

Bold Iowa director Ed Fallon told WHO News, “Protestors have won a key battle, but the fight isn’t over. I wasn’t surprised, but I was still elated, I was ecstatic, I could hardly talk. I’ve been expecting all along that we’re going to win. I really have. I’ve had that feeling all along that we’re going to stop this, partly because I’m a big believer that truth eventually prevails.”

What does this mean for Iowa? In a mailing to members, Iowa CCI said, “It means there is time to keep organizing and building the power needed to stop DAPL once and for all. It means it will be months before Dakota Access can identify and begin construction on a new route and it means work to keep oil from flowing through the pipeline will continue. The group expects President-elect Trump, who owns investments in this pipeline, to try to roll back the Army Corp of Engineers’ decision.

A few dozen protesters gathered at noon outside the IUB.

“We’re going to let them know that they can make this right by immediately revoking the permit and telling Dakota Access they’re no longer welcomed in Iowa,” said Kari Carney of 1,000 Friends of Iowa.

Following a short rally outside, the group delivered a letter to the Iowa Utilities Board calling for the permit to be revoked.

“For far too long, big oil has acted like they are God,” said Carney. “Our elected officials and government agencies have kowtowed to them, and let them do whatever they want.”

Don Tormey, the board’s communication director. accepted the letter from the activists and took questions for close to 30 minutes. Tormey did not immediately respond to the questions but did respond in writing:

1) When will you revoke the permit?

The Board’s Final Decision and Order of March 10, 2016, regarding construction of the Dakota Access pipeline, is part of a lawsuit now before the District Court in Polk County. Due to this litigation status, the Board is unable to comment on ongoing litigation.

2) Does yesterday’s decision change anything?

It appears the effect of the decision is limited to North Dakota.

3) Was there an environmental impact conducted for Iowa?

The Board addressed environmental issues, including the environmental impact report in its “Final Decision and Order” issued on March 10, 2016, (see attached PDF). Please review pages 47-54 and pages 91-107. The Board also required Dakota Access to file additional information in their Ordering Clauses starting on page 153. The environmental impact report issue was previously presented, considered, and rejected, in the Board’s “Order Denying Motion To Require Environmental Impact Report” issued in this docket (Docket No. HLP-2014-0001) on October 5, 2015 (attached). As the Board stated in that order, there is no explicit legal requirement, in statute or in rule, for an independent environmental impact report as a part of this proceeding.

4) There was testimony about jobs for Iowans, has the Board checked to see if that testimony is accurate?

The Board addressed economic impact on page 46 of its March 10 order.

5) What were the problems associated with the construction near and under the Des Moines river?

The Board has confirmed that construction equipment at this site was moved around and swapped out due to a construction crew being replaced by Dakota Access, and Precision (DA’s sub-contractor) was assigned to take over at this site.

6) At the Des Moines river site, there was word that 3 drillings were made. What happened to those? Is there structural damage to the river bed or to the future of those holes as a result?

Inspections are under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Department of Transportation Pipeline and Hazardous Material Safety Administration (PHMSA).

7) If eminent domain was used in this process, why was there no environmental impact statement for those parcels?

Use of eminent domain does not require completion of an environmental impact statement. Also attached is a copy of the Board’s FAQ’s document on eminent domain for your review.

8) Long term, if the pipeline is no longer needed or if it becomes unusable, what is the plan to deal with the pipe? Who pays to take it out of the ground?

This is addressed in Iowa Code 479B.32. If the pipeline must be taken out of the ground, it would be at the expense of Dakota Access.

9) If the answers provided are vague, when will a meeting be held to clarify the answers?

The Board is providing the most up to date information to all of your questions as of today.

10) Shouldn’t Dakota Access stop construction while the litigation involving the permit is pending?

The Board is investigating complaints regarding construction and any potential violations as they are filed with the Board and, if any person decides to file a complaint, the board will follow the procedures required by Iowa law and Board rules in addressing the issues raised in that complaint. The Board held a proceeding August 25, 2016, to discuss a motion for emergency stay of the Board’s March 10, 2016, “Final Decision and Order” that was filed by petitioners concerning the Dakota Access pipeline, Docket HLP-2014-0001. After hearing from the parties, the Board voted to deny the motion for stay pursuant to Board rule 7.28.

11) Why is there the bigger question of litigation and the Board being unable to comment on the permit?

The Board’s Final Decision and Order of March 10, 2016, regarding construction of the Dakota Access pipeline, is part of a lawsuit now before the District Court. Due to the litigation status, the Board is unable to comment on ongoing litigation.

12) What are the specifics to ensure damage to landowners is mitigated and compensated?

There is specific language addressing DAMAGES in Iowa Code 479B.

13) Why is the parent company’s refusal to sign the guarantees for cleanup not stopping the project? If the parent companies won’t pay for the cleanup, will it fall on the backs of the Iowa taxpayers?

The Utilities Board issued an ORDER REGARDING POTENTIAL CORPORATE REORGANIZATION today for your review and noting that in the Board’s “Final Decision and Order” issued on March 10, 2016, the Board required that Dakota Access, LLC (Dakota Access), file certain parent company financial guarantees as a condition of issuance of a permit pursuant to Iowa Code chapter 479B. The Board is not aware of any refusal to sign the parental guarantees. Energy Transfer Partners, L.P., and Phillips 66 Company filed.

14) Why did the IUB violate its own parameters in allowing Dakota Access to construct without having all of its permits in place?

Please review the Board’s June 7, 2016, “Order Granting Motion,” in which the Board granted Dakota Access’ request to start pipeline construction in areas outside USACE jurisdiction. A subsequent filing by Dakota Access on July 26, 2016, the Iowa verification letter, for pre-construction notifications/verifications from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) as required by that Board order met the requirements set forth by the Board.

15) In the event of pipeline leaking, is the company responsible for remediation as is required for hog confinements?

Dakota Access is responsible for remediation under the applicable federal statutes.

16) Are farmers responsible for inspecting the pipeline?

No, inspections are under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Department of Transportation Pipeline and Hazardous Material Safety Administration (PHMSA). Landowners have received information about whom to contact in the event that they suspect a leak or other event with the pipeline has occurred.

17) The pipeline pressure notification system won’t go off for small leaks, what happens then? Is the farmer responsible for those?

Dakota Access will be responsible for any leaks.

18) When the IUB gets answers, will you share those with the Board?

The Board is providing the most up to date information to you today.

19) Have there been any applications from out-of-state corporations to put in pipeline?

Could you please clarify if this question is regarding any current applications with the Board or have any ever been filed?

The lawsuit that Tormey was referring to will finally make it to court on December 15th. Pipeline fighters are meeting at 8 a.m. outside the courthouse in Des Moines to support the landowners who are suing the Utility Board. The landowners’ chief complaint is that eminent domain was illegally used to access their land for private gain.

While the construction is nearly complete in Iowa, pipeline opponents continue to fight on, vowing to make sure no oil ever flows through the pipe already in the ground. On Wednesday there will be a non-violence training at the Des Moines Catholic Worker followed by a direct action at the Iowa Utilities Board. For more information go to http://iowacci.org/.

---

Scott Galindez attended Syracuse University, where he first became politically active. The writings of El Salvador's slain archbishop Oscar Romero and the on-campus South Africa divestment movement converted him from a Reagan supporter to an activist for Peace and Justice. Over the years he has been influenced by the likes of Philip Berrigan, William Thomas, Mitch Snyder, Don White, Lisa Fithian, and Paul Wellstone. Scott met Marc Ash while organizing counterinaugural events after George W. Bush's first stolen election. Scott will be spending a year covering the presidential election from Iowa.

Reader Supported News is the Publication of Origin for this work. Permission to republish is freely granted with credit and a link back to Reader Supported News.