******************** POSTING RULES & NOTES ********************
#1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
#2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived.
#3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern.
*****************************************************************
NY Times, May 6 2015
Grass-Roots Push in the Plains to Block the Keystone Pipeline’s Path
By MITCH SMITH
ROSEBUD INDIAN RESERVATION, S.D. — In early 2010, the South Dakota
government gave its blessing to a Canadian company seeking to move crude
oil in a pipeline beneath the American heartland. Opposition had been
minimal.
“We didn’t know about it,” said Faith Spotted Eagle, the chairwoman of
the Yankton Sioux Tribe’s treaty council. “It was real swift and quiet.”
But in the years since, the proposed pipeline, known as Keystone XL, has
become the object of a national debate, and Ms. Spotted Eagle has
emerged as a leader of an increasingly organized coalition of Native
Americans, landowners and grass-roots groups seeking to block its
construction in this state and elsewhere. So much time has elapsed that
the 2010 construction permit is now up for recertification, requiring a
new round of hearings expected to pit South Dakota activists against
pipeline supporters eager for construction to begin.
The process in South Dakota is playing out amid a much broader debate
about Keystone XL, which would run 1,179 miles from Alberta’s vast
fields of oil sands, with the capacity to carry an estimated 800,000
barrels of oil per day to southern Nebraska, connecting to existing
pipelines. The project has stoked passions on both sides. Many
Republicans in Congress and business groups see it as an economic
necessity. Opponents fear the possibility of a leak, an influx of
temporary workers into their communities, and the environmental
consequences of petroleum use. Now, more than six years after it was
proposed, the project remains hobbled by bureaucratic hurdles and legal
challenges.
In Nebraska, long a hotbed of pipeline opposition, some landowners along
the proposed route have gone to court to challenge eminent domain
proceedings. On the federal level, President Obama’s permission is
required because the pipeline would cross a national border. Mr. Obama
has put off making a decision until the State Department finishes its
review of the project, and he infuriated conservatives by vetoing
legislation to approve it.
For years, South Dakota had been mostly an afterthought in the permit
battle. But emboldened by the coming hearing and the success of
protesters elsewhere, some South Dakotans say their state could be
another barrier to construction. That goal has frustrated many pipeline
supporters in the state, including all three members of its
congressional delegation, who say they are satisfied with TransCanada’s
assurances that the pipeline would be safe.
“Keystone XL has allowed this conversation, this resistance against oil
development, tar sands development, to take place on a national scale,
on a scale that hasn’t happened before,” said Dallas Goldtooth of the
Indigenous Environmental Network, a group opposed to Keystone XL that
works with tribal governments.
Among the most consistent and vocal opponents here have been Native
Americans, by far the largest minority group in the state with about 9
percent of the population. They plan to challenge the route’s
recertification this summer when it goes before the State Public
Utilities Commission in a hearing that begins July 27. They contend that
the project has changed since 2010, and that the company should have to
start the permitting process from scratch, rather than seek a renewal.
TransCanada says the 313-mile route through South Dakota would steer
clear of reservations and tribally owned lands. But on the expansive
Rosebud Indian Reservation, the path would be much closer than many are
comfortable with. Even if the pipeline would not cross their property,
tribal leaders say, it would pose a threat to drinking water and to
ancestral homelands on the rolling plains and hilly riverbeds where they
still hold treaty claims.
“We’re so frustrated to the point of breaking,” said Wayne Frederick, a
Rosebud Sioux tribal council member.
So strong is their opposition that members have maintained a spirit camp
on tribal property near the planned route. Despite the camp’s rustic
accommodations — a tent, a trailer and no running water — members have
kept a vigil there for more than a year, and have vowed to use the site
as a base camp for protesters if construction ever begins. Several
activists, including Mr. Frederick, have said they would risk arrest
through civil disobedience.
At one point, Keystone XL’s path through South Dakota seemed a foregone
conclusion. Unlike in Nebraska, the company quickly received a state
permit and eventually secured rights to build. But as opposition spread
elsewhere and delays mounted, an unlikely group of South Dakotans
coalesced in opposition to the project.
Like other landowners along the proposed path, Paul Seamans signed an
easement allowing TransCanada to build the pipeline on his land outside
Draper, near the central part of the state. Mr. Seamans said he had
qualms when he signed, but figured that the pipeline was going to be
built anyway and that he should take the best price available.
After signing, Mr. Seamans soured further on the project, and began
attending anti-pipeline meetings with Indian tribes. A grass-roots group
he heads, Dakota Rural Action, has emerged as one of the state’s most
vocal organizations opposing the pipeline. Mr. Seamans said he hoped the
new alliance could stall the project.
To some in the state, the opposition has proved baffling. Several South
Dakota politicians have signaled their support for Keystone XL, and some
landowners along and near the route say they look forward to the tax
revenue a pipeline would bring. Many also say they trust TransCanada’s
repeated assurances that the project would be safe.
“I didn’t think it would drag out this doggone long,” said Tyrone Moos,
a South Dakota farmer whose land is not along the route but who has
leased some of his property to TransCanada for use during construction.
“I have some concerns, too. But they swore up and down that if there’s
any leaks or damage to the land, ‘We will take care of that.’ ”
Jim Doolittle, a rancher who raises cattle in the state’s northwestern
corner, signed an easement with TransCanada early on. He said he has
remained enthusiastic about the project. Though he has doubts that Mr.
Obama will approve the project, Mr. Doolittle said he believes the
permit will be recertified.
“I really don’t think that whenever this happens in South Dakota,” he
said, “that it’s going to all of a sudden turn around.”
But Native American opponents portray the fight against Keystone XL as a
necessary battle that transcends the pipeline issue.
Ms. Spotted Eagle, the Yankton Sioux official, said the pipeline
violates her tribe’s treaty rights to land across wide swaths of South
Dakota. To allow Keystone XL to go in the ground, she said, would not
only imperil the water, but also serve as another affront to the state’s
Native American population.
Ms. Spotted Eagle signaled that the outcome of the hearing this summer
might not be the final word. If TransCanada’s South Dakota permit is
recertified, she and other Native American leaders have said a lawsuit
will probably follow.
“I think it’s going to be a spiritual victory,” Ms. Spotted Eagle said,
“and we’re not going to back down.”
_________________________________________________________
Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm
Set your options at:
http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com