Court of Appeals for District of Columbia Grants Administrative Injunction In Standing Rock Sioux v. Army Corps

Here.

ORDERED that Dakota Access LLC be enjoined pending further order of the court from construction of the Dakota Access Pipeline for 20 miles on both sides of the Missouri River at Lake Oahe. The purpose of this administrative injunction is to give the court sufficient opportunity to consider the emergency motion for injunction pending appeal and should not be construed in any way as a ruling on the merits of that motion. See D.C. Circuit Handbook of Practice and Internal Procedures 33 (2016).

Pleadings here.

Map here

Standing Rock v. Army Corps Update: Emergency Motion for Injunction Pending Appeal

Download(PDF):

Plaintiff’s Emergency Motion for Injunction Pending Appeal

Federal Defendants’ Opposition to Plaintiff-Appellant’s Emergency Motion for Injunction Pending Appeal

Intervenor-Defendant’s Opposition to Emergency Motion for Injunction Pending Appeal

Link: Previous coverage

Kickapoo Indian Reservation Water Right Settlement Agreement

Download (PDF): Settlement Agreement and Memorandum of Understanding

Links:

Kan. Dept. of Agriculture
Kansas Reaches Water Rights Agreement With Kickapoo Tribe (9/9/16)
Kickapoo Indian Reservation Water Right Settlement Agreement (9/14/16)

Previous posts

Gabe Galanda’s Interview on Pipeline Protest with Seattle Public Radio

Links:

Seattle lawyer explains why the North Dakota pipeline protests mark a historic moment

A RESOLUTION proclaiming the City of Seattle’s Support for the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe’s Opposition to the Construction of the Dakota Access Pipeline

D. N.M. Denies Motion to Amend Judgment in Water Rights Settlement

Here are the materials in the matter of New Mexico et al v. Aamodt el al, 66-cv-00639 (D. N.M. Sept. 9, 2016):

Doc. 9972 – Response in Opposition to Motion to Approve Settlement Agreement and Entry of Proposed Partial Final Judgment and Decree

Doc. 10543 – Memorandum Opinion and Order Approving Settlement Agreement

Doc. 10567 – Opposed Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment Pursuant to Rule 59(e)

Doc. 10581 – Plaintiffs-In-Intervention the United States, Pueblo de Nambé, Pueblo de Pojoaque, Pueblo de San Ildefonso, and Pueblo de Tesuque’s Response in Opposition to Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment Pursuant to Rule 59(E)

Doc. 10632 – Reply in Support of Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment Pursuant to Rule 59(e)

Doc. 10858 – Memorandum Opinion and Order Denying Opposed Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment Pursuant to Rule 59(e)

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.”

Colorado gold mine is one of the EPA’s new Superfund pollution sites

A Colorado gold mine that spilled more than 3 million gallons of wastewater into western rivers was among nearly a dozen sites added Wednesday to the Environmental Protection Agency’s Superfund National Priorities List.

HERE.

Prior posts on the Gold King Mine HERE.

 

Historic Water Agreement Between Oklahoma and Tribes

Download agreement here.

Link to official website and additional documents here.

Link to previous coverage here.

The agreement requires Congressional approval.