Update on Standing Rock Sioux Tribe’s Litigation NIWRC Files Amicus Brief Joined by 118 Organizations and Indian Tribes
On February 22, 2017, NIWRC filed an amicus brief urging the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia to rule in favor of the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe’s (“Standing Rock”) motion for partial summary judgment. NIWRC was joined by 118 additional organizations and Tribal Nations that share NIWRC’s commitment to ending domestic violence, rape, sexual assault, and other forms of violence in the United States. NIWRC had previously submitted comments on the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) on January 26, 2017, eight days after the Army Corps initiated the EIS comment period on January 18, 2017, and thirteen days before the Corps terminated the EIS process on February 8, 2017. In its submitted Comments, NIWRC provided the Corps with its views on:
the unconsidered risks that would result from the Army Corps granting
the easement without adequately considering the public interest implications of the proposed pipeline. Specifically, the Army Corps must consider the increased levels of violence Native women and children in the Bakken region will face if the pipeline is permitted to cross the Missouri River at Lake Oahe and commence operations.
NIWRC’s amicus brief reiterated the points NIWRC had made in the comments submitted on January 26, specifically that permitting of the pipeline without any consideration of the public interest impacts on the health and welfare of Native women and children living in the Bakken region would likely result in greater rates of domestic violence, murder, and sexual assault.
On June 14, 2017, Judge Boasberg ruled on Standing Rock’s motion for partial summary judgment and held that:
In particular, the Tribes believe that
the Corps did not sufficiently consider the pipeline’s environmental effects before granting permits to Dakota Access to construct and operate DAPL under Lake Oahe, a federally regulated waterway. This volley meets with some degree of success. Although the Corps substantially complied with NEPA in many areas, the Court agrees that it did not adequately consider the impacts
of an oil spill on fishing rights, hunting rights, or environmental justice, or the degree to which the pipeline’s effects are likely to be highly controversial.
Judge Boasberg went on to state that “[t]o remedy those violations, the Corps will have to reconsider those sections of its environmental analysis upon remand by the Court. Whether Dakota Access must cease pipeline operations during that remand presents a separate question of the appropriate remedy, which will be the subject of further briefing.”
Accordingly, all the parties have now submitted further briefing on the question of whether the Court should enjoin all operations of the pipeline while the Army Corps reconsiders its environmental analysis. Thus, the June 14, 2017, decision constitutes a victory for Standing Rock, the NIWRC, and all Native women and children whose safety and welfare are further jeopardized by an increase in oil production in the Bakken.
Whether the Dakota Access Pipeline company will be forced to stop pumping oil through the pipeline while the Army Corps undergoes its renewed environmental analysis remains a question the Court has yet to answer.
