The Dakota Pipeline Controversy Explained

A complicated situation mixing environmental and cultural concerns.

Write in box AFTER reading the article:

SUMMARY: A short paragraph that tells the main points of the article. What did you learn?

The people from South Dakota dont want oil pumping out. If the workers pump out oil, they will leave pollution
behind. The water would be filled with oil which would kill the fish. Public health would also be an issue with
pumping oil. It would pollute the town and its inhabitants.
Write in box AFTER reading the article:
REFLECTION: A short paragraph that tells your thoughts or opinions on the article. What did you think?
What was your reaction? How can you connect with the article personally?

I would say that they shouldnt pump oil because the town would become polluted. The same thing applies to
the water. The living things in the water would die with the oil in water. The people did a good job in stopping the
oil pumping because they didnt want a polluted town and they weren't going to allow it. I was amazed by how
the people responded because they didn't want their town to be polluted with their water.

By now, you've probably read about the conflict between the Standing Rock Sioux tribe of Native
Americans and the energy company Energy Transfer Partners (ETP). Maybe you've seen the
#NoDAPL hashtag, noted the celebrity arrests, or even panicked as you thought half your
Facebook friends had suddenly booked tickets to North Dakota.

The fight is a complex one. On one side, you have the Standing Rock Sioux, who live on a
reservation in North and South Dakota. On the other side, Houston-based ETP, which is
proposing an underground pipeline that comes close to Native American reservation lands. The
conflict speaks to the general distrust of oil pipelines as well as the centuries-old tension
between Native tribes and the U.S. government.

HOW WE GOT HERE

In June 2014, natural gas and

propane company Energy Transfer
Partners (ETP) announced it had
the commitments needed to move
forward with the Dakota Access
Pipeline (DAPL), an underground
pipe from a geological formation called the Bakken Formation to Pakota, Illinois.

The Bakken Formation is a massive 200,773-square mile area. It has become a huge source of oil
and turned small towns in the Dakotas into energy boom towns. With the success of drilling and
fracking in Bakken came the plan for a 1,134-mile pipeline that would carry approximately
500,000 barrels of crude oil through four states to reach its destination.

The Bakken Formation contains oil shale, a useful source of oil that concerns many people
because oil shale can be incredibly environmentally destructive. Oil shale extraction forces lots
of water through the shale rock and leaves behind large amounts of polluted water.

WHAT'S HAPPENING NOW

In 2016, two major fights over the Dakota

Access Pipeline erupted.

The first is over safety, with a particular

concern for water contamination. Oil
contamination of water is a nightmare with
the potential danger to public health.
"Groundwater contamination by crude oil is a widespread problem," a report by the USGS said
back in 1997. ETP (the energy company) promises to monitor the proposed underground
pipeline "24 hours a day, seven days a week and 365 days a year." The U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers has deemed the pipeline safe although many members of the EPA (U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency). disagree.

Meanwhile, there is the political resistance. The Sacred Stone Camp, also known as Iya
Wakhagapi Oth, formed in April as a center of Native American resistance to the pipeline.
Sioux opposition is based in the water safety
issues raised by the EPA and by the fact that the
pipeline runs within half a mile of the
reservation. An early plan for the Dakota
Access Pipeline considered running it through
North Dakota's capital, Bismark, as an
alternative until it was rejected as a
potential threat to Bismarck's water
supply. You can see why the Standing Rock
Sioux wouldn't want it by them, either.

The debate dips into the complex legal world of Native-American sovereignty. The Treaty of
1851, for example, has been cited by Native protesters as they have begun to occupy private land
in protest of the pipeline.

The protests have drawn international attention and have been said to be "reshaping the
national conversation for any environmental project that would cross the Native American
land",[4] but the mainstream media coverage of the events in the United States was limited until
early September. On September 3 construction workers bulldozed a section of land the
tribe had identified as sacred ground in an amendment to the federal injunction a day
earlier. When protesters entered the area, security workers used attack dogs, which bit at least
six of the protesters and one horse. The incident was filmed and viewed by several million people
on YouTube and other social media. In late October, armed soldiers and police with riot gear
and military equipment cleared an encampment that was directly in the proposed pipeline's
path.

In late November many new participants joined the protest; fluctuating numbers of protesters
remained in the thousands. The weather worsened, with snowfall and temperatures
dropping well below freezing. Police use of water cannons on protesters drew significant
media attention. On December 4 under President Barack Obama's administration the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers denied an easement for construction of the pipeline under the
Missouri River. An environmental impact assessment will also be conducted by the Army Corps.
Many protesters continue camping on the site, not considering the matter closed. [5][6][7]

Police
using
water cannons against Standing Rock Protesters during freezing temperatures