Sarah Radcliff
SLCC e-Portfolio
WE ARE WATER!
What is DAPL?
The Dakota Access Pipeline is a proposed 1,168-mile-long pipeline stretching from the Bakken oil fields of North Dakota to Illinois, where it will connect to several major oil pipelines that carry crude oil throughout the United States. Also known as the Bakken Pipeline, the DAPL is projected to carry around 470,000 gallons of crude oil from the Bakken oil fields in North Dakota to refineries across the nation. Sunuco, the major oil company backing the construction of the pipeline, claims that the creation of the DAPL will create 8,000-12,000 construction jobs, boosting the economy in the states installing the pipeline. However, the jobs are skilled trade jobs, which are typically occupied by out of state journeymen, such as skilled welders and pipe fitters. The Department of Economics at Iowa State University says the figure would likely only create around 1,500 skilled labor jobs during the time of construction, and result in only 12-15 permanent jobs after construction. The pipeline is routed south east and cuts through North Dakota, South Dakota, Iowa, and ends in Illinois. The DAPL would cut through active farmland, forests, sacred Native American lands, and under three major U.S. rivers: Big Sioux River, Missouri River, and Mississippi River.
How Did DAPL Bypass the EPA?
During the review process of pipeline construction, the Clean Water Act ensures prevention of harm to national water sources by evaluating if “(1) a practicable alternative exists that is less damaging to the aquatic environment or (2) the nation’s waters would be significantly degraded. In other words, when you apply for a permit, you must first show that steps have been taken to avoid impacts to wetlands, streams and other aquatic resources; that potential impacts have been minimized; and that compensation will be provided for all remaining unavoidable impacts.” The National Environmental Protection Act review process ensures the need for the proposal, what alternatives are available to the current proposal that would promote a healthier environment, what the environmental impact of the proposed action would be, and a listing of agencies and persons consulted during the review process. The Dakota Access Pipeline bypassed both of these reviews by obtaining a Nationwide Permit 12 to begin construction. What this means, is that the DAPL has not yet been reviewed to assess the possible damages to the water supply and environment when it spills. Retribution for the damages when the pipeline spills have also not been discussed or negotiated.
Why is DAPL unsafe?
Over the course of the last month, the DAPL has gained increasing attention from the American public by protests and various media outlets. This fast tracked pipeline escaped the scrutiny of review by the Clean Water Act and The National Environmental Policy Act under Nationwide Permit 12. The Army Corps of Engineers grants utility lines Nationwide Permit 12s in order to construct, remove, or repair utility pipelines throughout the nation. The key word in that sentence is utility. It is widely debated on whether or not to consider DAPL a utility line, as it is owned by a private company and is utilized for profit. Most utility lines that receive Nationwide Permit 12s are pipelines that route sewage, water, and power to citizens of the U.S.; whereas the DAPL will be routing billions of dollars-worth of crude oil to privately owned companies.
The fast tracking of the Dakota Access Pipeline has put three major rivers at risk. The Missouri River is gaining much needed attention due to the protests of the pipeline at Standing Rock Indian Reservation. Protestors include Native American tribes from all over the United States, environmentalists, reporters, activists, and politicians. The DAPL will pass under the Missouri River only a few miles upstream from the Standing Rock Indian Reservation. It is reported that the crossing of the Missouri had been moved north of Standing Rock from north of the capital in fear that a leak could “contaminate the state capital’s water supply”. The Missouri River provides drinking water and irrigation for the entire Standing Rock Sioux Indian Reservation. Protestors are asking why it is not safe enough to pass the pipeline upstream of the capital, but safe enough to pass the pipeline upstream from the Reservation? These are all issues that would have been addressed had the construction and plans been evaluated by the Clean Water Act and National Environmental Protection Act. Residence of the Standing Rock Indian Reservations and Native American protestors see the fast tracking of this pipeline as prejudiced against the Native American tribes residing in the path of the pipeline, which surfaces old racial tensions between white America and Native American tribes. One of the protests most forward activists, Winona LaDuke, stated, “Someone needs to explain to me why wanting clean drinking water makes you and activists, and proposing to destroy water with chemical warfare doesn’t make your corporation a terrorist.” The tension that has been heightened due to the protests over DAPL at Standing Rock have caused media outlets to turn their attention towards protestors. Protestors have been aggressed by security and police, including being pepper sprayed and having attack dogs released on them. Green Party candidate Jill Stein was even issued an arrest warrant for her participation in the protest. The warrant issued was for criminal trespass and criminal mischief. Other arrest warrants have been issued for tribal leaders and activists for the same charges.
Will DAPL Spill?
 |  |  |  |  |
|---|---|---|---|---|
 |
Environmental experts, such as Michael Brune of the Sierra Club, a well-known non-profit dedicated to conservation and preservation of the environment, states, “It’s not a question of if the pipeline will malfunction, but rather a question of when.” Tony Iallonardo, Energy Communications Director of Wilderness Society and Speaker for the National Wildlife Federation tells news sources, “It’s inevitable that as pipelines age, they are exposed to the elements. Eventually they are going to spill. They are ticking time bombs.”
The astounding evidence of the failure of these types of pipelines is undeniable. Hundreds of pipeline leaks occur every year. Since 1986, pipelines have cost 7 billion dollars in damages and over 4 million barrels of substance has been spilled into water resources, wetlands, and farmlands. From 2012-2013, over 300 spills occurred in North Dakota alone. Oil companies argue in favor of the safety of these pipelines, claiming that they spill less often than trains and trucks. This may be true, however, the volume of the spills is much higher when spilled from a pipeline. Sunuco and Enbridge, two of the major oil companies backing the DAPL, urge the public that new and safer technology is being used in their pipelines, however, these two oil companies are considered to have the worst track record regarding spills. Enbridge, in 2010, dumped 800,000 to 1 million gallons of oil (the exact amount of oil spilled has still not been able to be accounted for) into the Kalamazoo River. Cleanup for this spill cost over a billion dollars, making the spill one of the worst oil spills in U.S. history. Sunoco alone was responsible for over 200 spills in 2013.
The effects of these spills can be felt for hundreds of miles, especially when they occur near major rivers. Sediments can be carried for hundreds of miles all across the United States. For example, the Gold King Mine spill, which happened in Colorado, has carried lead, mercury, and arsenic all the way into the waters of Lake Powell in Utah by way of the Colorado River.
The recent media hype of the DAPL has also gripped the attention of the Obama Administration, who recently called for a halt on the construction of the pipeline. The Obama Administration is calling for meetings with tribal and community leaders, as well as activists and protestors to discuss the proceedings of the DAPL, similar future pipeline proposals, and current and future federal policy regarding the impact the construction of these types of pipelines has on the environment and the communities involved. The recently rejected Keystone XL pipeline is also a forward topic of discussion for these meetings, as the Keystone XL pipeline was of similar characteristics, followed nearly the same route, and was only 7 miles longer than the proposed DAPL. The DAPL has the potential to create a major turning point in policy making regarding the environmental impact of oil companies and other fossil fuel industries.
Bibliography
Healy, J. (2016, August 26). New York Times. Retrieved from New York Times: http://www.newyorktimes.com
Paul, J. (2016, August 1). Denverpost.com. Retrieved from Denverpost.com: http://www.denverpost.com
Sammon, A. (2016, August 12). Motherjones.com. Retrieved from Motherjones.com/environment: http://www.motherjones.com
Sidder, A. (2016, September 14). Smithsonian.com. Retrieved from Smithsonian: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/understanding-controversy-behind-dakota-access-pipeline-180960450/?no-ist
United States Environmental Protection Agency. (2016, March 3). EPA.gov. Retrieved from EPA.gov: http://www.epa.gove/cwa-404
United States Environmental Protection Agency. (2016, March 3). EPA.gov. Retrieved from EPA.gov: http://www.epa.gove/nepa