Tuesday, September 13, 2016, was the day to stand with the Dakota Sioux in protesting the Dakota Access Pipeline. Rev. Jorge Montes of Clinton, IA, sent out a last minute e-mail, announcing that he would lead the protest on the dike near the Showboat Theatre, from 5:00 p.m. to midnight. I was very familiar with the issue. I totally supported the Dakota Sioux–and other Native Americans–in their objections to disturbing sacred land and endangering their clean water supply, by putting a 30-inch diameter pipeline carrying crude oil, under the Missouri River, upstream of their tribal boundaries.
Energy Transfer Partners is the pipeline company building this 1172 mile pipeline from the Bakken oil fields, in northwest North Dakota, to Patoka in southern Illinois. ETP claims that the pipeline will have the latest safety technology and provide substantial benefits to the economy. They say that it is a safer transport than trucking the oil or shipping it by rail. They suggest that by eliminating trucks, less traffic and need for road repair will be an asset. They also argue that less oil shipped by rail will free up the ability to ship more grain by rail and lower shipping costs, which will benefit everyone.
I think ETP is making a reasonable argument. But that’s not the end of it. They’re spending $3.7 billion to build the pipeline, creating 8000 temporary construction jobs. They estimate that they will pay to various local governments $129 million a year, in property taxes that can be used for schools, roads, etc., not to mention $74 million annually in sales tax. Surely everyone can see the benefit to this project.
Actually, not everyone is enthused. The Dakota Sioux would prefer the pipeline not go through any part of their reservation and certainly not go under the Missouri River upstream of their water supply. Go downstream, please. Then, if there is spill, we can all feel sorry for the people downstream.
The Native American protest brings up other questions about our Country as a whole. How our Government honors treaties and treats minorities is only part of the question. The Sheriff and Deputies attacked peaceful protesters with dogs and machine guns. The Governor cut off their water supply and called out the National Guard, to set up military check points going in and out of the area. Obviously, protecting corporate interest came before protecting our rights to protest our Government’s actions in approving the pipeline permits in the first place.
Nika Knight in her article, “Peaceful Dakota Access Protestors Face Felony Charges, Escalating Police Action” (Common Dreams, September 15, 2016,) quotes La Donna Allard, the Historic Preservation Officer for the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe.
“We are told it is our right to stand up, if there is injustice in America; but when we do, we are attacked, as North Dakota spends its dollars to protect an oil company, rather than protecting the people from destruction of their lands and water. Where is the justice?”
Unfortunately, there is a long history of our Government protecting corporations over the rights of people seeking justice. While we are at it, we should take a hard look at the 1938 law creating the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FREC.) It gives a little-known agency the power to grant private corporations the power of eminent domain over local Governments. They can overrule your state and local government and okay a pipeline wherever they please.
That’s too much power! There need to be checks on their authority, in order to protect the public. What has not been taken into consideration is the
- method of extracting the oil
- overall environmental consequences.
In the Bakkens, as in many other places, the method is “fracking.” This involves forcing water and chemicals into the earth to break through rock, thus releasing oil, highly-toxic water, and chemicals. These are then forced into the ground–possibly poisoning aquifers and causing earthquakes. So the method, while profitable, is bad and dangerous.
Finally, in order to stop climate change, we–all the people living on this planet–need to cut way back on the use of fossil fuels, carbons. What good will all the nice financial incentives do us, if we end up with an uninhabitable planet?
Thank Jorge, for speaking out. Now, the rest of us need to speak out, too.