Feds Deny Approval of Construction of the DAPL on Lands that Border Lake Oahe [corrected headline]

Here is the United States’ press release:

JOINT STATEMENT FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, THE DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY AND THE DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR REGARDING STANDING ROCK SIOUX TRIBE V. U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS

WASHINGTON – The Department of Justice, the Department of the Army and the Department of the Interior issued the following statement regarding Standing Rock Sioux Tribe v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers:

“We appreciate the District Court’s opinion on the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ compliance with the National Historic Preservation Act.  However, important issues raised by the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe and other tribal nations and their members regarding the Dakota Access pipeline specifically, and pipeline-related decision-making generally, remain.  Therefore, the Department of the Army, the Department of Justice, and the Department of the Interior will take the following steps.

“The Army will not authorize constructing the Dakota Access pipeline on Corps land bordering or under Lake Oahe until it can determine whether it will need to reconsider any of its previous decisions regarding the Lake Oahe site under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) or other federal laws.  Therefore, construction of the pipeline on Army Corps land bordering or under Lake Oahe will not go forward at this time.  The Army will move expeditiously to make this determination, as everyone involved — including the pipeline company and its workers — deserves a clear and timely resolution.  In the interim, we request that the pipeline company voluntarily pause all construction activity within 20 miles east or west of Lake Oahe.

“Furthermore, this case has highlighted the need for a serious discussion on whether there should be nationwide reform with respect to considering tribes’ views on these types of infrastructure projects.  Therefore, this fall, we will invite tribes to formal, government-to-government consultations on two questions:  (1) within the existing statutory framework, what should the federal government do to better ensure meaningful tribal input into infrastructure-related reviews and decisions and the protection of tribal lands, resources, and treaty rights; and (2) should new legislation be proposed to Congress to alter that statutory framework and promote those goals.

“Finally, we fully support the rights of all Americans to assemble and speak freely.  We urge everyone involved in protest or pipeline activities to adhere to the principles of nonviolence.  Of course, anyone who commits violent or destructive acts may face criminal sanctions from federal, tribal, state, or local authorities.  The Departments of Justice and the Interior will continue to deploy resources to North Dakota to help state, local, and tribal authorities, and the communities they serve, better communicate, defuse tensions, support peaceful protest, and maintain public safety.

“In recent days, we have seen thousands of demonstrators come together peacefully, with support from scores of sovereign tribal governments, to exercise their First Amendment rights and to voice heartfelt concerns about the environment and historic, sacred sites.  It is now incumbent on all of us to develop a path forward that serves the broadest public interest.”

 

Standing Rock’s Request for an Injunction Denied

Here:

memorandum-opinion-09_09_2016

Atlantic: “The Legal Case for Blocking the Dakota Access Pipeline”

Here.

Subtitled: “Did the U.S. government help destroy a major Sioux archeological site?”

An excerot:

“These are valid claims and, as alleged, they are strong claims,” says Sarah Krakoff, a professor of environmental resource and Indian law at the University of Colorado Boulder. “These [federal provisions] are intended to slow this process down, so that they can make sure the right environmental decision is being made.”

She added, “the Clean Water Act has substantive provisions that prefer good environmental outcomes to bad. And the proximity of this pipeline to their main water source does make their legal case stronger than some I’ve seen.”

Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe Intervenor Complaint in DAPL Suit

Here is the complaint in Standing Rock Sioux Tribe v. United States Army Corps of Engineers (D.D.C.):

37-crst-complaint

final-revised-treaty-complaint-press-release-2016-09-08

Yankton Sioux Tribe Sues US Army Corps over DAPL

Here is the complaint in Yankton Sioux Tribe v. United States Army Corps of Engineers (D.D.C.):

16-09-08-complaint

16-09-08-press-release-re-complaint

NYTs: “‘I Want to Win Someday’: Tribes Make Stand Against Pipeline”

Here.

Standing Rock’s TRO Granted in Part and Denied in Part

As this article notes, the TRO was partially granted this afternoon.

Here’s the docket entry:

MINUTE ORDER: As explained at today’s hearing, the Court ORDERS that Plaintiffs’ [30, 31] Motions for Temporary Restraining Order are GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. As agreed by Defendants, the Court ORDERS that no construction activity on the DAPL may take place between Highway 1806 and 20 miles to the east of Lake Oahe. Construction activity to the west of Highway 1806 may proceed. Signed by Judge James E. Boasberg on 9/6/2016. (lcjeb1) (Entered: 09/06/2016)

Documents here.

 

Standing Rock v. Army Corps Update — New Pleadings on Newly Discovered Archeological Sites

Here are the new pleadings in Standing Rock Sioux Tribe v. United States Army Corps of Engineers (D.D.C.):

srst-motion-tro

usace-response

Warrant Issued by Federal Court to Recover Acoma Ceremonial Shield

Here are the materials in United States v. Acoma Ceremonial Shield (D. N.M.):

1 Complaint

9 Warrant

Dakota Access SLAPP Suit in Iowa Rejected

Here are the materials in Dakota Access, LLC v. Iowa Citizens for Community Improvement (S.D. Iowa):

2-1 Motion for TRO

4 Opposition

6 DCT Order