On Oct. 24, Native American protesters occupied privately owned land in North Dakota in the path of the proposed Dakota Access Pipeline, claiming they were the land's rightful owners under an 1851 treaty with the U.S. government.
The move is significant because the company building the 1,100-mile (1,886-kilometer) oil pipeline, Dallas-based Energy Transfer Partners LP, has bought tracts of land and relied on eminent domain to clear a route for the line across four states from North Dakota to Illinois.
Video posted on social media showed police officers using pepper spray to try to disperse dozens of protesters, who chanted, beat drums and set up a makeshift camp near the town of Cannon Ball in southern North Dakota, where the $3.8 billion pipeline would be buried underneath the Missouri River.
The Native American protesters said on Oct. 24 that the land in question was theirs under the Treaty of Fort Laramie of 1851, which was signed by eight tribes and the U.S. government. Over the last century, tribes have challenged this treaty and others like it in court for not being honored or for taking their land.
"We have never ceded this land. If Dakota Access Pipeline can go through and claim eminent domain on landowners and Native peoples on their own land, then we as sovereign nations can then declare eminent domain on our own aboriginal homeland," Joye Braun of the Indigenous Environmental Network said in a prepared statement.
The area is near the reservation of the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe. It was not immediately known who owns the occupied land.
In September, the U.S. government halted construction on part of the line. The Standing Rock Sioux and environmental activists have said further construction would damage historical tribal sacred sites and that spills would foul drinking water.
Since then, opponents have pressured the government to reroute construction. The current route runs within half a mile of the reservation.
Dave Archambault II, chairman of the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, said the proposed route should be changed. "The best way to resolve this is to reroute this pipeline and for the [Obama] administration to not give an easement to build it near our sacred land," Archambault said in an interview.
In filings with federal regulators, Energy Transfer said that at one point, it considered running the line far north of the reservation and close to Bismarck, North Dakota's capital.
Energy Transfer could not be reached for comment.
Recommended Reading
Darbonne: The ESG Sword: BlackRock's Life, Death by ESG
2024-04-17 - BlackRock, the $10 trillion investment manager, is getting heat for too much ESG investing, while shareholders are complaining it’s doing too little.
Fire Closes Atlas Energy’s Kermit, Texas Mining Facility
2024-04-15 - Atlas Energy Solutions said no injuries were reported and the closing of the mine would not affect services to the company’s Permian Basin customers.
Coalition Launches Decarbonization Program in Major US Cities, Counties
2024-04-11 - A national coalition will start decarbonization efforts in nine U.S. cities and counties following a federal award of $20 billion “green bank” grants.
Exclusive: Scepter CEO: Methane Emissions Detection Saves on Cost
2024-04-08 - Methane emissions detection saves on cost and "can pay for itself," Scepter CEO Phillip Father says in this Hart Energy exclusive interview.