Fact-checked by Grok 2 weeks ago

Dakota Access Pipeline protests

The Dakota Access Pipeline protests were a series of demonstrations, blockades, and encampments from April 2016 to February 2017 opposing the construction of the 1,172-mile Dakota Access Pipeline, an underground conduit designed to transport up to 570,000 barrels per day of Bakken crude oil from North Dakota to Illinois.^[1]^[2] Led initially by the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, the actions highlighted concerns over the pipeline's crossing beneath Lake Oahe—a reservoir on the Missouri River serving as the tribe's primary water source—and potential disturbance to ancestral burial and sacred sites, though the route had been adjusted from an upstream path near the reservation to a downstream location following tribal consultations.^[3] The protests escalated with the establishment of the Oceti Sakowin encampment near Cannon Ball, North Dakota, drawing thousands of participants including non-local activists, resulting in repeated attempts to halt construction through physical obstructions, equipment sabotage, and confrontations that included protester assaults on private security personnel and over 50 documented attacks on pipeline infrastructure such as arson and gunfire.^[4] Law enforcement responses, involving multiple agencies, led to more than 700 arrests for civil disorder and related offenses, amid mutual claims of excessive force—protesters alleging misuse of water cannons and rubber munitions in subfreezing conditions, while official records documented restraint amid provocations like thrown projectiles and threats.^[5]^[6] A U.S. Army Corps of Engineers environmental assessment in December 2015 concluded the project posed no significant impacts to water resources or the human environment, supported by engineering standards for leak detection and spill response, yet public opposition prompted an easement denial under the Obama administration, delaying completion until presidential approval in January 2017 enabled operations to commence in June.^[7] The encampments themselves contributed to localized environmental harm, including wetland degradation from fires, untreated waste, and abandoned debris, which federal officials later testified was underreported to avoid inflaming tensions.^[8] Ongoing legal challenges, including lawsuits over treaty rights and renewed environmental reviews, have not halted flows, which have displaced riskier alternatives like rail transport—responsible for multiple derailments and spills in prior years—with data indicating pipelines incur fewer incidents per ton-mile than trains or trucks.^[9] The events underscored tensions between energy infrastructure development, indigenous land claims, and protest tactics, costing North Dakota over $38 million in response and cleanup while elevating national discourse on fossil fuel conveyance safety versus ecological risks.^[10]^[11]

Project Background

Dakota Access Pipeline Description

The Dakota Access Pipeline (DAPL) is a 1,172-mile (1,886 km) underground pipeline designed to transport light sweet crude oil from production areas in the Bakken and Three Forks regions of northwestern North Dakota to a distribution hub in Patoka, Illinois.^[1]^[12] The 30-inch-diameter pipeline has a capacity of up to 750,000 barrels per day, providing an alternative to rail and truck transport for Bakken shale oil.^[13] Ownership is held by Dakota Access, LLC, a subsidiary primarily controlled by Energy Transfer LP, with minority stakes from partners including Phillips 66 and affiliates of Enbridge and Marathon Petroleum.^[14] The pipeline's route spans four states: North Dakota, South Dakota, Iowa, and Illinois, crossing under rivers including the Missouri River at Lake Oahe and the Mississippi River, while traversing federal, state, private, and tribal lands.^[3] Construction began in May 2016 after federal permitting, with segments completed progressively despite legal challenges, achieving full operational status by June 2017.^[1] The project, estimated at $3.8 billion, incorporates horizontal directional drilling under major water bodies to minimize surface disruption and includes safety features such as automated shut-off valves and leak detection systems monitored 24/7.^[12] As of 2025, the pipeline continues to operate, transporting approximately 600,000 barrels per day on average, contributing to the transport of over 1.5 billion barrels of oil without a major spill since startup.^[14] Independent assessments by the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration have noted minor violations, but the system has maintained integrity through rigorous federal oversight and hydrostatic testing prior to service.^[15]

Route Selection and Permitting Process

The route for the Dakota Access Pipeline, spanning approximately 1,168 miles from the Bakken oil fields in North Dakota to Patoka, Illinois, was determined through an initial evaluation process employing a proprietary Geographic Information System (GIS)-based routing program. This methodology assessed multiple corridor alternatives, prioritizing alignment with existing utility rights-of-way, pipelines, and railroads to minimize new land disturbances, wetland impacts, and potential conflicts with cultural or historical sites.^[16] ^[17] The selected path crossed primarily private lands, with water body crossings—numbering over 200—requiring federal verification, and incorporated route adjustments to avoid identified sensitive areas during early surveys.^[18] ^[19] Several alternative routes were evaluated but deemed non-viable, including one proposed north of Bismarck, North Dakota, which was rejected early in the process due to its location upstream of the city's primary water intake on the Missouri River, posing elevated risks from potential spills to municipal water supplies and proximity to denser population centers.^[20] Other options were dismissed for factors such as excessive wetland crossings, deviation from existing infrastructure corridors increasing construction costs and environmental footprints, or infeasibility for meeting the project's purpose of efficient Bakken crude transport to refineries.^[16] Dakota Access LLC, the project developer, emphasized that the chosen route enhanced safety by leveraging established easements and reduced overall ecological disruption compared to greenfield alternatives.^[21] The permitting process commenced at the state level, with applications submitted to public service commissions in North Dakota, South Dakota, Iowa, and Illinois starting in late 2014. In North Dakota, the Public Service Commission accepted the siting application on December 22, 2014, conducted public input hearings on May 28, June 15, and June 26, 2015, and issued route permits on October 23, 2015, following evaluations of environmental and safety criteria.^[22] Similar state approvals followed in South Dakota (November 2015), Iowa (March 2016), and Illinois (August 2015), confirming compliance with local regulations for pipeline siting on private lands.^[23] Federally, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) reviewed over 200 jurisdictional water crossings under the Clean Water Act and Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899, issuing verifications for Nationwide Permit 12 for most linear crossings by July 2016, which allowed construction without a full environmental impact statement (EIS) due to the project's alignment with pre-existing regulatory thresholds for minimal individual impacts.^[3] ^[2] For the Missouri River crossing at Lake Oahe, USACE granted preliminary approvals under Section 14 of the Rivers and Harbors Act on July 25, 2016, modifying flowage easements and permitting horizontal directional drilling beneath the reservoir bed to avoid surface disruption.^[2] The process incorporated tribal notifications under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, though subsequent litigation contested the adequacy of consultations. No comprehensive EIS was required initially, as USACE determined the segmented review and mitigation measures—such as leak detection systems and emergency response plans—sufficed for the project's scope.^[19] Construction commenced in June 2016 following these state and federal authorizations, transporting up to 570,000 barrels of crude oil daily upon completion.^[24]

Historical Context

Relevant Treaties and Tribal Land Claims

The Standing Rock Sioux Tribe and supporting tribal entities, including the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe, primarily invoked the Treaty of Fort Laramie of 1851 and the Treaty of Fort Laramie of 1868 to challenge the Dakota Access Pipeline's route as an encroachment on treaty-guaranteed territories.^[25]^[26] These treaties, negotiated between the United States and various Sioux bands (collectively Oceti Sakowin), delineated boundaries for tribal occupation and reserved rights to hunt, fish, and gather across expansive regions of the Great Plains, including areas upstream of the Standing Rock Reservation along the Missouri River.^[25]^[15] The Treaty of Fort Laramie of 1851, signed September 17, 1851, at Horse Creek near Fort Laramie, Wyoming Territory, assigned defined territories to Sioux signatories, encompassing over 60 million acres in present-day North and South Dakota, Nebraska, Wyoming, and Montana.^[27] Article 1 specified boundaries for Sioux "undisturbed use and occupation," while subsequent articles prohibited non-Indian settlement without tribal consent and affirmed rights to resources within those lands.^[27] Protesters asserted that the pipeline's crossing of the Missouri River at Lake Oahe—approximately 0.55 miles north of the Standing Rock Reservation boundary—traversed unceded aboriginal lands within this 1851 territory, potentially disrupting treaty-reserved rights to clean water essential for hunting and fishing.^[25]^[26] The tribe's 2016 complaint in Standing Rock Sioux Tribe v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers explicitly alleged that the route violated these guarantees by endangering downstream water quality and sacred sites tied to historical use.^[26] The Treaty of Fort Laramie of 1868, signed April 29, 1868, superseded aspects of the 1851 agreement by creating the Great Sioux Reservation—a consolidated 25-million-acre area including proto-Standing Rock lands—and retaining adjacent "unceded Indian territory" for seasonal hunting between the North Platte River and the Big Horn Mountains.^[28] Article 12 confirmed Sioux title to reservation lands "in perpetuity," while Article 16 preserved access rights across ceded transit corridors.^[28] Although the reservation was diminished by the Illegal "Sell or Starve" Act of 1889 (following the controversial 1877 Black Hills cession amid gold discoveries) and the Dawes Act of 1887, which allotted and opened surplus lands to non-Indian ownership, tribes maintained that core rights to environmental integrity persisted.^[15]^[29] Standing Rock officials argued the pipeline's proximity to Lake Oahe—a federal reservoir formed by the Pick-Sloan Flood Control Act of 1944 on former reservation-adjacent lands—threatened these rights, as any spill could contaminate the tribe's primary water source and cultural sites.^[25]^[30] Federal courts evaluating these claims, including U.S. District Judge James E. Boasberg's 2020 ruling in Standing Rock Sioux Tribe v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (1:16-cv-01534), did not find the pipeline to directly violate the Fort Laramie treaties, emphasizing instead procedural lapses under the National Environmental Policy Act and National Historic Preservation Act.^[31] The D.C. Circuit affirmed this approach in 2021, upholding the easement while remanding for fuller environmental review, as treaty language was interpreted not to confer veto power over federal easements on non-reservation fee lands.^[31] Critics of the tribal position, including legal analyses, noted that post-treaty diminishment and U.S. plenary power over Indian affairs (per Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock, 187 U.S. 553, 1903) limited enforceability, rendering claims more symbolic than dispositive in blocking infrastructure on acquired federal or private titles.^[32]

Prior Energy Infrastructure in the Region

The Bakken Formation, underlying parts of western North Dakota including areas near the Standing Rock Sioux Reservation, saw crude oil production surge from about 273,000 barrels per day in December 2010 to over 1.1 million barrels per day by mid-2014, driven by hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling advancements.^[33]^[34] This rapid expansion outpaced pipeline capacity, leading to heavy reliance on rail transport for up to 70% of Bakken crude exports by 2013, alongside an established network of intrastate and interstate pipelines gathering and moving oil from wells to refineries or export points.^[35] North Dakota hosted dozens of crude oil pipelines prior to 2016, including segments of the Keystone Pipeline System operational since 2011, which transported Canadian and domestic heavy crude southward through the state.^[36] These lines, often aging steel pipes from the 1980s and 1990s, crisscrossed the Bakken region to handle gathering from thousands of wells, with daily flows supporting the state's emergence as the second-largest U.S. oil producer.^[37] A prominent example was the Tesoro Logistics pipeline, a 6-inch diameter line ruptured on September 29, 2013, near Tioga in Williams County, spilling an estimated 20,690 barrels of Bakken crude over seven acres of farmland, contaminating soil and groundwater without reaching surface water bodies.^[38]^[39]^[40] This incident, one of the largest onshore oil spills in U.S. history, stemmed from corrosion and a quarter-inch hole in the 20-year-old pipe, prompting ongoing remediation through 2018.^[41] Other pre-2016 spills underscored vulnerabilities in the existing grid, such as a 2013 rupture near Belfield on another 6-inch pipeline, which released crude into a creek and highlighted operational risks in the dense Bakken infrastructure.^[36] Rail alternatives, involving unit trains from loading terminals in Williston and New Town, carried volatile Bakken light sweet crude but faced derailments and fires due to inadequate tank car designs, though federal data showed pipelines generally safer per barrel-mile than rail.^[42] Hydropower infrastructure, including the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' Oahe Dam completed in 1958 upstream of Standing Rock, generated electricity from the Missouri River but had submerged significant tribal lands under Lake Oahe, altering ecosystems and water flows long before oil development intensified.^[43]

Protest Origins and Organization

Initial Tribal Objections

The Standing Rock Sioux Tribe formally opposed the Dakota Access Pipeline project via Tribal Council Resolution No. 406-15, adopted on September 2, 2015, which declared that the proposed 1,168-mile crude oil pipeline threatened public health, political sovereignty, and cultural and biological resources.^[15]^[25] The resolution highlighted the pipeline's route crossing upstream of Lake Oahe, the tribe's primary drinking water source from the Missouri River, raising risks of contamination from potential leaks or spills that could affect over 17 million people downstream, including reservation residents reliant on the water for daily use.^[44]^[15] Tribal leaders contended that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers had not fulfilled statutory consultation obligations under the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) and National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), despite the Corps issuing nationwide permits for water crossings without site-specific environmental impact statements or thorough tribal engagement.^[45]^[44] The tribe identified over 380 potential archaeological and cultural sites within a half-mile of the route on federal and private lands adjacent to the reservation, arguing that construction could irreparably damage sacred areas, including burial grounds and prayer sites tied to historical treaties like the 1868 Fort Laramie Treaty.^[44]^[46] These objections stemmed from the project's announcement in December 2014 by Dakota Access, LLC (a subsidiary of Energy Transfer Partners), which routed the pipeline through unceded territory claimed under the 1851 Treaty of Fort Laramie, though the Corps maintained the selected path minimized impacts compared to alternative routes evaluated during permitting.^[3]^[45] The tribe's position emphasized sovereignty, asserting that inadequate notification—despite multiple invitation letters from the Corps for input—violated trust responsibilities, as the pipeline's 570,000 barrels-per-day capacity amplified spill hazards in a seismically active region with historical precedents of pipeline failures.^[44]^[45]

Formation of Resistance Camps

The Sacred Stone Camp was established on April 1, 2016, by LaDonna Brave Bull Allard, the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe's historic preservation officer, on her private property approximately three miles west of Cannon Ball, North Dakota, near the confluence of the Cannonball and Missouri Rivers.^[47] ^[48] This initial site functioned as a spiritual prayer camp intended to oppose the Dakota Access Pipeline's route, which protesters argued threatened sacred sites, ancestral burial grounds, and the tribe's primary water source from the Missouri River (impounded as Lake Oahe).^[47] Allard and a small group of tribal members initially set up tipis and basic structures to maintain a nonviolent presence, emphasizing cultural ceremonies and direct action to halt construction near culturally significant areas identified in tribal consultations.^[48] As awareness spread through social media and tribal networks following the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe's lawsuit against the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in July 2016, attendance at Sacred Stone swelled from dozens to hundreds, prompting the formation of additional overflow camps on nearby federal and private lands managed by the Corps.^[29] The largest, Oceti Sakowin Camp—named for the seven council fires (sub-tribes) of the Lakota, Dakota, and Nakota peoples—was established in late July 2016 on Corps-administered land north of the Cannonball River, serving as a hub for intertribal coordination and accommodating thousands of participants from over 100 tribes and non-Native allies.^[49] ^[50] Other satellite camps, such as Rosebud Camp (affiliated with the Rosebud Sioux Tribe) and 1851 Treaty Camp, emerged shortly thereafter on private lands to distribute the growing population and focus on specific tribal contingents, with structures including traditional tipis, yurts, and donated RVs for communal living, kitchens, and medical aid stations.^[29] ^[51] These camps operated under a decentralized structure guided by tribal elders and youth leaders, prioritizing nonviolent prayer, horse-mounted patrols, and legal observers to monitor pipeline activity, while relying on volunteer labor, food donations, and solar-powered infrastructure for self-sufficiency amid remote conditions.^[49] By September 2016, the combined camps housed an estimated 5,000 to 10,000 people at peak, drawing participants motivated by concerns over pipeline spills (citing precedents like the 2010 Enbridge rupture in Michigan that released 843,000 gallons into wetlands) and perceived inadequacies in federal environmental reviews under the National Historic Preservation Act and Clean Water Act.^[5] ^[23] Tribal officials, including Standing Rock Chairman Dave Archambault II, endorsed the camps as extensions of sovereign resistance rather than formal tribal operations, distinguishing them from earlier prayer rides and blockades.

Chronology of Major Events

Early Demonstrations and Blockades (2016)

The initial phase of the Dakota Access Pipeline protests unfolded in spring 2016, centered on the establishment of prayer camps near the Standing Rock Sioux Reservation to oppose construction encroaching on tribal lands and water sources. On April 1, 2016, LaDonna Brave Bull Allard, the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe's historic preservation officer, founded Sacred Stone Camp on her private property along the Cannonball River, positioning it as a spiritual base to safeguard sacred sites and block the pipeline's route beneath the Missouri River reservoir, Lake Oahe.^[52] The camp emphasized non-violent resistance through prayer, cultural ceremonies, and direct monitoring of construction crews, drawing initial participants from the Standing Rock Sioux and allied tribes concerned over potential spills threatening the Missouri River, their primary water supply.^[53] Early demonstrations included horseback rides to ancestral burial and prayer sites threatened by surveying, as well as petitions delivered by youth runners to federal officials in Washington, D.C., highlighting treaty violations and environmental risks.^[25] These actions evolved into rudimentary blockades, with protesters forming human chains and occupying access roads to halt bulldozers and earthmovers advancing on private and federal lands adjacent to the reservation; by May and June, such tactics disrupted initial site preparation, prompting the first arrests for criminal trespass by Morton County authorities.^[54] The Standing Rock Sioux Tribe formally notified the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers of unpermitted disturbances to cultural resources on June 1, 2016, after construction crews graded over known grave sites, intensifying camp-based occupations as a means to enforce consultation requirements under the National Historic Preservation Act.^[55] As summer approached, the Sacred Stone Camp expanded with support from the Cheyenne River Sioux and other Great Sioux Nation bands, leading to coordinated blockades that temporarily stalled pipeline segments south of the reservation. On July 27, 2016, the Standing Rock Sioux filed their first lawsuit against the Corps, seeking an injunction while ground actions— including locking to heavy machinery—continued to physically impede work, with over a dozen arrests reported in July alone for blocking private contractor access.^[5] These early efforts relied on self-sustaining camp infrastructure for hundreds of participants, funded through donations and emphasizing de-escalation protocols to maintain legal and moral high ground amid escalating private security presence hired by Dakota Access LLC.^[56]

Peak Confrontations and Federal Intervention

Tensions escalated in late 2016 as protesters, numbering in the thousands at Standing Rock, increasingly confronted law enforcement to halt Dakota Access Pipeline construction. On November 20, 2016, a major clash occurred at the Backwater Bridge north of the Oceti Sakowin camp, where demonstrators attempted to clear two burned semi-trucks obstructing the span, which had been closed since late October following earlier fires set by activists. North Dakota law enforcement, including state troopers and National Guard, responded with tear gas, rubber bullets, bean bag rounds, and water cannons in sub-freezing temperatures, resulting in at least 26 hospitalizations and reports of over 300 injuries among protesters from exposure, projectiles, and non-lethal munitions. Sixteen individuals were arrested during the incident for charges including rioting and obstructing a public road.^[57]^[58]^[59] By late October 2016, cumulative arrests from pipeline protests exceeded 400, with a single operation on October 27 yielding 141 detentions as authorities cleared a new protest camp near the Cannonball River. Morton County Sheriff's Department reported deploying over 200 officers, including from multiple states, to manage confrontations involving barricades, fires, and armed protesters, amid claims of improvised explosives and gunfire directed at police. Protester tactics, including locking to machinery and road blockades, delayed construction but prompted private security firms to use dogs on trespassers as early as September 3, injuring several. These events marked the peak of physical standoffs, with law enforcement citing threats to infrastructure and officer safety as justification for escalated force.^[5]^[60] Federal intervention intensified in response to the mounting unrest. On September 9, 2016, the Obama administration directed the Army Corps of Engineers to suspend pipeline work within 20 miles of Lake Oahe and conduct further tribal consultations, effectively pausing advancement near Standing Rock. This was followed by the December 4, 2016, announcement that the Corps would deny the easement for crossing Lake Oahe under the Missouri River, mandating a full environmental impact statement review—a decision influenced by tribal concerns over potential spills threatening water sources, though critics argued it prioritized political pressure over completed environmental assessments. The ruling prompted camp evacuations but faced immediate legal challenges from pipeline operators, setting the stage for reversal under the incoming Trump administration, which issued executive actions in January 2017 to expedite permitting for energy infrastructure.^[61]^[62]^[63]

Winter Standoff and Policy Shifts

As winter set in during late November 2016, temperatures at the Standing Rock protest camps frequently dropped below freezing at night, with blizzards and subzero conditions posing severe risks to the remaining demonstrators. On November 25, 2016, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers issued an eviction notice directing occupants of the Oceti Sakowin and Rosebud camps north of the Cannonball River to vacate by December 5, citing public safety concerns amid the harsh weather. North Dakota Governor Jack Dalrymple followed on November 28 with a mandatory evacuation order for the primary camps, warning of "life-threatening" winter conditions including heavy snow and extreme cold, though he did not authorize immediate police enforcement. Despite these directives, hundreds of protesters refused to leave, bracing for prolonged occupancy with supplies and heated structures, viewing the standoff as a test of resolve following earlier confrontations.^[64]^[65]^[66] The winter persistence coincided with a pivotal policy decision on December 4, 2016, when the Obama administration's Army Corps denied the easement required for the Dakota Access Pipeline to cross under Lake Oahe on the Missouri River, opting instead for a full environmental impact statement to assess alternative routes. This move, announced amid ongoing protests, was hailed by tribal leaders and activists as a concession to concerns over water contamination risks and inadequate tribal consultation, effectively halting final construction pending review. However, camp populations dwindled due to the encroaching cold, with reports of frostbite, hypothermia cases, and logistical strains on sanitation and heating; by mid-December, only a core group remained, maintaining symbolic prayer sites and monitoring pipeline activity.^[63]^[67] The standoff's dynamics shifted dramatically with the incoming Trump administration. On January 24, 2017, President Trump issued a memorandum directing federal agencies to expedite reviews and approvals for the pipeline, reversing the prior halt to prioritize energy infrastructure and economic benefits. The Army Corps complied, granting the Lake Oahe easement on February 8, 2017, enabling completion of the crossing. In response, the Corps set a February 22, 2017, deadline for full camp evacuation, after which state and federal authorities cleared the sites, dismantling structures and removing debris to mitigate flood and fire hazards. This policy reversal facilitated oil flow through the pipeline by June 2017, though it sparked renewed legal challenges from tribes alleging procedural violations.^[68]^[24]^[69]

Stakeholder Perspectives

Environmental and Indigenous Rights Arguments

Proponents of halting the Dakota Access Pipeline (DAPL) emphasized environmental risks, particularly the potential for oil spills contaminating the Missouri River at its Lake Oahe crossing, which serves as the primary drinking water source for the Standing Rock Sioux Reservation and downstream communities.^[25] The pipeline, transporting up to 570,000 barrels of Bakken crude oil daily, was argued to pose a heightened spill risk due to its proximity to the reservoir—merely 0.5 miles from reservation boundaries—and the Missouri's role in supplying water to over 17 million people across multiple states.^[15] Critics, including over 220 scientists from the Society for Conservation Biology, contended that the project threatened biodiversity in the watershed, including fish species and riparian habitats, while underestimating spill probabilities based on historical data from similar pipelines, where rupture rates exceeded federal models.^[70] Engineering analyses presented in litigation highlighted deficiencies in the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' (USACE) environmental assessments, such as inadequate evaluation of landslide hazards, substandard pipeline coating susceptible to corrosion, and insufficient leak-detection thresholds that could delay spill responses by hours or days.^[71] The Standing Rock Sioux Tribe and allied environmental groups asserted that the Corps' reliance on Dakota Access LLC's self-reported data ignored operator Energy Transfer Partners' history of over 300 safety violations and spills totaling millions of gallons prior to DAPL's construction.^[31] These arguments invoked the Clean Water Act and National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), claiming the 2016 environmental assessment failed to adequately model worst-case spill scenarios, potentially releasing up to 1.5 million barrels into the river—comparable to the 2010 Kalamazoo River disaster.^[29] Additionally, opponents raised concerns over cumulative greenhouse gas emissions from facilitated oil extraction, estimating DAPL would enable 500 million tons of CO2-equivalent annually, exacerbating climate impacts on tribal lands vulnerable to drought and flooding.^[15] Indigenous rights advocates, led by the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, framed opposition as a defense of treaty obligations under the 1868 Fort Laramie Treaty, which reserved hunting, fishing, and gathering rights on unceded territories encompassing the pipeline route for hundreds of miles.^[72] The tribe maintained that construction infringed on these rights by endangering water integral to ceremonial practices and sustenance, violating Article II's guarantees of safe passage and resource access.^[25] In September 2016, Dakota Access contractors bulldozed a 185-foot segment of earth, destroying at least 27 identified graves and sacred stone prayer features dating back thousands of years, as confirmed by tribal historic preservation officers and landowners who had flagged the sites weeks prior.^[73] ^[74] This desecration prompted lawsuits alleging breaches of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), with over 90 archaeologists denouncing the USACE's approval process for bypassing tribal consultation and allowing irreversible damage to cultural patrimony without full archaeological surveys.^[75] Tribal leaders argued that the pipeline's path through areas of ancestral significance—evidenced by oral histories and prior excavations—disrupted spiritual landscapes tied to Lakota cosmology, where water bodies like Mni Sose (Missouri River) embody life-sustaining kinship.^[25] Despite federal easements granted in 2017, ongoing litigation as of 2024 reiterated claims of inadequate mitigation, asserting that no engineering safeguard could restore desecrated sites or compensate for sovereignty erosion, as the project traversed aboriginal lands without consent under international human rights standards like the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.^[72]

Energy Security and Economic Development Views

Proponents of the Dakota Access Pipeline (DAPL) emphasized its role in bolstering U.S. energy security by facilitating the efficient transport of crude oil from the Bakken Shale formation in North Dakota to refineries and markets in the Midwest and beyond. The pipeline's capacity of 570,000 barrels per day supports domestic oil production, reducing dependence on foreign imports and contributing to a lower national trade deficit in energy commodities.^[13] This infrastructure aligns with national interests by enabling the movement of domestically produced oil via a safer method than alternatives like rail or truck transport, which have higher risks of accidents and spills.^[76] Energy Transfer Partners, the primary developer, argued that DAPL provides the most environmentally sensitive means to deliver crude to American consumers, thereby enhancing overall energy independence.^[1] From an economic development perspective, DAPL construction generated an estimated 8,000 to 12,000 temporary jobs across North Dakota, South Dakota, Iowa, and Illinois, stimulating local economies through labor and supplier spending.^[77] The $3.78 billion project also produced approximately $156 million in state and local sales and income taxes during its build phase.^[77] Operationally, the pipeline lowered transportation costs by about $5 per barrel compared to rail, yielding over $750 million in additional revenue for North Dakota producers since 2017 and an annual economic impact exceeding $129 million through sustained activity in the Bakken region.^[78] ^[79] Advocates, including industry groups like the American Petroleum Institute, highlighted that such benefits extend to reduced fiscal strain from alternative transport modes and support for ongoing oilfield employment, countering potential shutdown scenarios that could eliminate thousands of jobs and millions in tax revenue.^[80]

Legal Proceedings

Core Lawsuits Against the Army Corps of Engineers

The Standing Rock Sioux Tribe initiated the primary lawsuit against the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers on July 27, 2016, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, challenging the Corps' approvals for the Dakota Access Pipeline under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Clean Water Act, and treaty obligations.^[81] The tribe argued that the Corps improperly segmented its environmental review by issuing a Nationwide Permit 12 for Lake Oahe crossings without a comprehensive environmental impact statement (EIS), failing to adequately assess risks to tribal water sources, sacred sites, and cultural resources, and neglecting alternatives that would avoid tribal lands.^[82] The suit contended that the Corps' verification of no significant impact overlooked cumulative effects and tribal consultations required under NEPA and the 1851 Treaty of Fort Laramie.^[26] The Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe filed a parallel suit on September 9, 2016, raising similar NEPA violations and asserting that the pipeline's route under Lake Oahe threatened their downstream water rights and violated the Mineral Leasing Act by lacking proper tribal consent.^[83] Both tribes sought preliminary injunctions to halt construction near Lake Oahe, but the district court denied these in September 2016, finding insufficient evidence of irreparable harm outweighing economic interests.^[31] The cases were consolidated under Standing Rock Sioux Tribe v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (No. 1:16-cv-01534), with the Corps defending its approvals as compliant with statutory thresholds for minimal-impact determinations.^[84] In a June 2020 ruling, District Judge James Boasberg granted partial summary judgment to the tribes, vacating the Corps' 2017 environmental assessment and easement for Lake Oahe as arbitrary and capricious under NEPA due to inadequate analysis of spill risks and tribal impacts, remanding for further review without ordering a pipeline shutdown.^[31] The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the vacatur in April 2021, holding that the Corps failed to take a "hard look" at environmental effects as required by NEPA, but reversed any implied cessation of operations, emphasizing deference to agency expertise and the pipeline's existing functionality.^[85] Following remand, the Corps reissued approvals after a supplemental EIS, sustaining operations despite ongoing tribal objections.^[15] These suits highlighted procedural lapses in federal permitting but did not ultimately derail the project, as courts balanced environmental claims against established infrastructure.

Court Rulings and Administrative Actions

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers verified approximately 200 water body crossings under Nationwide Permit #12 and granted Section 408 permissions for crossings at Corps-managed projects on July 25, 2016.^[3] This action followed the Corps' earlier environmental assessment concluding no significant impacts, enabling pipeline construction to proceed under the permit despite tribal objections.^[3] On December 14, 2016, amid intensifying protests, the Corps denied the easement for the Lake Oahe crossing, citing need for further review under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).^[29] Following the presidential transition, the Corps reversed course and granted the Lake Oahe easement on February 8, 2017, after expedited review, allowing the pipeline to complete construction and begin operations in June 2017.^[15] On August 31, 2018, the Corps issued a memorandum affirming its original verification and permitting decisions, rejecting calls for a full environmental impact statement (EIS).^[86] In February 2019, the Corps completed additional review on remand from ongoing litigation, maintaining that no EIS was required for the federal actions involved.^[87] In a July 6, 2020, ruling, U.S. District Judge James Boasberg vacated the Lake Oahe easement, finding the Corps' NEPA analysis inadequate due to unresolved risks like potential oil spills near Standing Rock Sioux Tribe lands, and ordered the pipeline drained of oil within 30 days.^[88] The district court stayed this shutdown order on July 15, 2020, permitting continued operations pending appeal.^[88] The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, on January 26, 2021, affirmed the vacatur of the easement, holding that the Corps violated NEPA by failing to prepare an EIS amid "highly controversial" effects including leak risks and tribal concerns, but reversed the shutdown mandate for lack of demonstrated irreparable harm justifying immediate cessation.^[85] Subsequent administrative actions included the Corps' announcement on May 3, 2021, to prepare a court-ordered EIS while allowing pipeline operations to continue.^[15] A draft EIS assessing Lake Oahe crossing impacts was released on September 8, 2023, with a final version planned but not yet issued as of October 2025; the pipeline has operated without the easement throughout.^[15] In October 2024, the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe filed a new lawsuit alleging unlawful continued operation, which a federal judge dismissed on March 31, 2025, prompting an appeal to the D.C. Circuit on June 2, 2025.^[89]^[90] Separately, on April 24, 2025, a federal judge ordered the U.S. government to pay North Dakota nearly $28 million in damages for costs tied to protest management, faulting the Corps and executive actions for disregarding legal processes and enabling disruptions.^[91]

Post-Operational Litigation (2017-2025)

Following the Dakota Access Pipeline's commencement of full operations on June 1, 2017, tribal plaintiffs, led by the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, persisted in federal lawsuits against the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, contending that the agency's environmental assessments under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and other statutes inadequately addressed risks to water resources, cultural sites, and treaty obligations. On June 14, 2017, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia remanded aspects of the case for additional review but denied requests to enjoin operations, permitting oil flow to continue uninterrupted.^[92] The Corps subsequently prepared a supplemental environmental impact statement, concluding in July 2020 that the pipeline posed no significant new risks, though critics argued this review minimized tribal input and potential spill impacts.^[29] In July 2020, the district court vacated the Corps' 2017 easement for the Lake Oahe crossing, ruling that the original NEPA analysis was deficient in evaluating alternatives and impacts, and initially ordered a halt to operations; however, the court stayed the shutdown pending appeal to avoid economic disruption.^[31] The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, in a January 26, 2021, decision, upheld the vacatur and remand for further NEPA compliance but reversed the operational shutdown, citing insufficient evidence of irreparable harm and the Corps' ongoing remedial authority, thus sustaining pipeline throughput during revised reviews.^[85] The Corps reaffirmed its approval in 2021 after the supplemental review, rejecting calls for rerouting despite tribal assertions of unaddressed groundwater vulnerabilities and historical site disturbances.^[15] Parallel private litigation emerged from protest-related damages, with pipeline developer Energy Transfer Partners filing racketeering claims in 2017 against Greenpeace and affiliated groups, alleging coordinated sabotage that delayed construction and caused over $300 million in losses through blockades, equipment destruction, and supply chain interference.^[93] A North Dakota federal jury, in a March 19, 2025, verdict, held Greenpeace liable under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, awarding Energy Transfer approximately $660 million in compensatory and punitive damages for inciting violence and economic harm during the 2016-2017 encampments, though Greenpeace contested the outcome amid claims of juror conflicts tied to fossil fuel interests.^[94]^[95] Tribal challenges resurfaced in October 2024, when the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe initiated a new suit asserting that ongoing operations without a valid post-vacatur easement violated the Clean Water Act and federal permitting laws, demanding an immediate shutdown to mitigate spill risks to the Missouri River.^[96] On March 28, 2025, Chief Judge James E. Boasberg dismissed the action, ruling that the claims were time-barred and redundant given prior remands, emphasizing the Corps' compliance efforts and lack of demonstrated acute environmental peril.^[89] The tribe appealed the dismissal on June 2, 2025, arguing procedural deficiencies in easement restoration and renewed NEPA violations from unchanged operational risks, with the case pending before the D.C. Circuit as of late 2025.^[90] Throughout, courts consistently prioritized operational continuity absent conclusive evidence of imminent harm, reflecting judicial deference to agency expertise amid protracted reviews.^[15]

Protest Methods and Tactics

Non-Violent Actions and Symbolism

The protests at Standing Rock emphasized non-violent direct action rooted in indigenous spiritual traditions, with encampments serving as centers for prayer, ceremony, and community organization rather than confrontation. The Sacred Stone Camp, established on April 1, 2016, by LaDonna Brave Bull Allard of the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, functioned as an initial hub for peaceful gatherings focused on protecting sacred sites and water sources through ritual and dialogue.^[48] This was followed by the expansion of the Oceti Sakowin Camp, which embodied the unity of the Seven Council Fires (Oceti Sakowin) tribes and hosted ongoing non-violent activities led by elders.^[97] A central element was the sacred fire, lit in the spring of 2016 at the Oceti Sakowin Camp and maintained continuously as a symbol of ancestral guidance and spiritual resolve until its relocation on December 11, 2016, amid evacuation pressures.^[98] Daily prayer walks and ceremonies, often involving hundreds of participants, proceeded from the camps to construction sites or the Missouri River, invoking Lakota traditions to assert moral authority over physical force.^[99] These actions were framed by organizers as embodying "peace, prayer, [and] love," with explicit rejection of violence in favor of teachings on non-violent resistance drawn from indigenous history.^[100] Symbolism played a key role in unifying participants and broadcasting the movement's message, with the Lakota phrase Mni Wiconi ("Water is life") adopted as the core mantra to underscore water's sacred status as a life-giving force inseparable from tribal identity and ecology.^[101] Participants self-identified as "water protectors" to emphasize stewardship over protest, displaying blue flags, banners, and regalia during gatherings to evoke cultural continuity and environmental interdependence.^[102] The pipeline itself was symbolized as the "black snake" from Lakota prophecy—a destructive entity foretold to threaten the people—reinforcing the narrative of existential risk without resorting to aggression. Non-violent direct action trainings, conducted daily by groups like Greenpeace affiliates, reinforced de-escalation tactics and orientation protocols to maintain discipline amid tensions.^[103] On December 5, 2016, over 2,000 U.S. military veterans arrived at the camps to stand in solidarity, publicly pledging to shield unarmed protectors through non-violent interposition and highlighting the movement's commitment to peaceful defiance against perceived overreach.^[104] These elements collectively projected an image of moral and cultural resilience, drawing international attention while adhering to principles that prioritized ceremony and consensus over escalation.

Disruptive Measures and Incidents of Violence

Protesters at Standing Rock implemented disruptive tactics such as road blockades and direct interference with construction sites to halt pipeline advancement. In August 2016, demonstrators used vehicles and debris to obstruct access roads near the Missouri River crossing, delaying work crews for days.^[105] Further disruptions involved chaining to machinery and digging unauthorized trenches with excavators seized from sites, actions that risked worker safety and increased operational costs.^[106] Escalations to violence occurred repeatedly, with law enforcement documenting assaults using improvised weapons. On October 27, 2016, during eviction of a private protest camp, activists ignited tire fires, hurled Molotov cocktails, threw rocks, and discharged firearms at officers advancing in riot gear, resulting in multiple arrests for rioting.^[107]^[108] Similar incidents unfolded on November 20, 2016, at Backwater Bridge, where protesters set fires under a structure and lobbed incendiary devices and projectiles at police, prompting non-lethal responses including tear gas.^[57]^[109] Additional reports detailed attacks with bows and arrows, as well as attempts to shoot officers, contributing to over 700 arrests on charges including assault and criminal mischief by late 2016.^[110]^[111] An explosion on November 23, 2016, severely injured protester Sophia Wilansky, with authorities attributing it to a homemade pipe bomb or explosive device wielded by demonstrators to counter police advances, though her supporters claimed a law enforcement projectile.^[112] Post-camp sabotage extended disruptions, as seen in March 2017 when two activists admitted to arson on a pipeline valve site in Iowa using oxy-acetylene torches, causing $2.5 million in damage and federal charges.^[113]^[114] These actions, while not at Standing Rock, reflected tactics employed by elements within the broader protest network to physically impair infrastructure.^[115]

Resolution and Immediate Aftermath

Camp Evictions and Cleanup Operations

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers issued a formal eviction notice for the Oceti Sakowin camp on February 3, 2017, emphasizing the site's vulnerability to spring flooding on federal land along the Cannonball River.^[116] North Dakota Governor Doug Burgum established a voluntary evacuation deadline of 2:00 p.m. on February 22, 2017, for the remaining occupants, following the federal approval of the pipeline route under President Trump's executive actions.^[55] As the deadline passed, a subset of holdouts remained, prompting law enforcement intervention on February 23, when approximately 100 officers, including National Guard members, conducted a coordinated sweep to clear the site without reported major injuries or widespread violence.^[117] ^[118] Prior to the clearance, some protesters ignited fires in tents and structures, accelerating the site's abandonment.^[119] Cleanup operations commenced immediately after eviction, involving heavy equipment to remove vast quantities of accumulated waste from the 750-acre site, which had housed thousands at its peak.^[120] State-contracted crews hauled away an estimated 48 million pounds of garbage, including debris, abandoned vehicles, and human waste, by early March 2017.^[121] Alternative assessments reported 21 million pounds of trash, debris, and waste extracted, with operations costing North Dakota over $1 million in direct expenses.^[122] The effort addressed sanitation hazards, such as untreated sewage and scattered refuse, which risked contaminating nearby waterways during thaw—ironically mirroring the environmental threats protesters had invoked against the pipeline itself.^[120] By late February, the primary debris removal was complete, though minor follow-up work persisted into spring to restore the floodplain for ecological stability.^[123] Separate handling applied to the Sacred Stone camp on private land south of the river, where eviction pressures began earlier in February but extended beyond the federal deadline due to negotiations with landowners; full clearance there concluded in April 2017 after voluntary departures and limited enforcement.^[124] Overall, the evictions and cleanup marked the operational wind-down of the protest encampments, shifting focus from occupation to litigation and monitoring, with total state enforcement costs—including cleanup—later estimated at tens of millions amid debates over federal reimbursement.^[125]

Pipeline Activation and Initial Operations

The Dakota Access Pipeline, a 1,172-mile, 30-inch-diameter underground conduit designed to transport up to 570,000 barrels of Bakken crude oil per day to Patoka, Illinois, began initial operations on June 1, 2017, after construction completion in April and hydrostatic testing verification.^[2]^[126] First oil entered the system on May 14, 2017, with full commercial flow initiating under the operator Dakota Access, LLC, a subsidiary of Energy Transfer Partners, following federal court denial of injunction requests from tribal and environmental challengers.^[127]^[126] Initial operations proceeded without reported spills, leaks, or safety violations in the first nine months, contrasting with pre-activation concerns raised by opponents regarding potential rupture risks near the Missouri River crossing under Lake Oahe.^[106] The pipeline integrated into the broader U.S. network of over 190,000 miles of liquid petroleum lines, adhering to Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) standards for integrity management and emergency response, including 24-hour spill response training for designated personnel.^[128]^[129] Flow rates ramped up to operational capacity, supporting North Dakota's Bakken production by reducing reliance on rail and truck transport, which had higher per-barrel incident rates prior to activation.^[1] Federal oversight by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers confirmed compliance with easement conditions during startup, with no immediate disruptions from ongoing litigation; a subsequent court ruling in October 2017 allowed continued operation pending environmental review.^[2]^[130] Monitoring systems, including in-line inspection tools and leak detection protocols, were activated from day one, logging zero significant anomalies in the inaugural phase amid claims from advocacy groups of inadequate risk assessment.^[129]

Long-Term Outcomes

Environmental Monitoring and Incident Record

The Dakota Access Pipeline (DAPL) has been subject to continuous environmental monitoring since its activation on June 1, 2017, primarily through operator-led integrity assessments, federal regulatory oversight by the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), and periodic reviews by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) under its permitting authority.^[12]^[131] Energy Transfer, the pipeline's operator, employs automated leak detection systems, pressure monitoring, and aerial patrols along the 1,168-mile route, with mandatory reporting of any anomalies exceeding PHMSA thresholds to federal authorities.^[129] USACE's ongoing environmental impact statement (EIS) process, initiated following 2020 court orders, incorporates post-operational data on water quality, wildlife, and soil conditions near sensitive crossings like Lake Oahe, concluding in its 2023 draft that the risk of a major spill impacting the Missouri River remains "remote to unlikely" based on engineering redundancies and historical performance.^[132] Incident records from PHMSA and operator disclosures indicate 13 reportable accidents on DAPL from June 2017 through early 2025, involving a total spilled volume of approximately 1,282 gallons of crude oil—predominantly minor leaks at pump stations or welds, contained without off-site environmental release.^[133] Notable events include a 21-gallon leak on November 14, 2017, due to excessive vibration at a pump station weld, and several other small-volume releases addressed via immediate shutdown and recovery protocols.^[134] None of these incidents resulted in detectable impacts to surface water, groundwater, or the Missouri River system, as verified by post-event sampling and regulatory inspections.^[135] Broader operator history, including Energy Transfer's pre-DAPL spills on other lines, has fueled scrutiny, with PHMSA issuing notices of violations and compliance orders for DAPL-related maintenance lapses, such as inadequate corrosion control.^[131]^[136] However, empirical data from over eight years of operation show no major ruptures or ecological disruptions attributable to DAPL, contrasting with protesters' pre-construction warnings of catastrophic risks to the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe's water sources.^[29] Federal monitoring continues amid litigation, with USACE required to finalize the EIS incorporating updated spill modeling and tribal consultations, though courts have upheld operations pending completion.^[137]

Economic Impacts on North Dakota and Beyond

The Dakota Access Pipeline protests imposed significant direct costs on North Dakota, primarily through law enforcement and emergency response expenditures. Morton County alone incurred nearly $40 million in expenses related to protest management, with the state covering a substantial portion initially.^[138] In April 2025, a federal judge ruled that the U.S. government owed North Dakota approximately $28 million to reimburse costs for responding to the protests, stemming from a lawsuit over federal responsibility for damages caused by demonstrators.^[139] These outlays strained local budgets, diverting resources from other public services during the 2016-2017 encampment period. Delays induced by the protests and subsequent legal challenges amplified economic losses for North Dakota's oil sector. The Bakken region's producers faced higher transportation costs via rail alternatives, reducing net revenues and discouraging investment; a potential pipeline shutdown today could result in over $1.6 billion in annual regional losses from elevated production costs and reduced output.^[140] Energy Transfer Partners, the pipeline's operator, reported monthly delay costs of $4.5 million during construction halts, contributing to broader project overruns estimated in the hundreds of millions.^[141] These disruptions postponed benefits from efficient crude transport, which carries up to 570,000 barrels per day from the Bakken to refineries, stabilizing local markets amid volatile oil prices.^[80] Following activation in June 2017, the pipeline generated substantial long-term economic gains for North Dakota. It has delivered over $222 million in property taxes to state and local governments from 2017 to 2023, funding infrastructure, schools, and emergency services.^[1] Producer savings from lower transportation costs—replacing riskier and more expensive rail shipments—have added at least $750 million to state coffers since operations began, through heightened oil extraction and associated taxes.^[78] These efficiencies supported sustained Bakken production, preserving thousands of jobs in extraction, refining, and support industries despite national energy market fluctuations. Beyond North Dakota, the pipeline enhanced U.S. energy security by enabling domestic crude to reach Gulf Coast refineries more reliably, reducing import dependence and mitigating price spikes during global disruptions.^[142] By lowering Bakken shipping costs by approximately $3-5 per barrel compared to rail, it boosted producer revenues nationwide, indirectly benefiting consumers through stabilized fuel prices and fostering investment in shale resources that now comprise over 60% of U.S. oil output.^[80] Ongoing litigation threats, such as potential shutdowns, underscore risks to these gains, with analyses projecting multi-billion-dollar ripple effects on federal and state economies tied to energy exports.^[143]

Ongoing Tribal and Legal Challenges

Following the pipeline's activation in June 2017, the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe and allied indigenous groups have pursued multiple legal actions asserting violations of federal environmental laws, treaty rights, and protections for sacred sites, primarily targeting the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' approvals and the absence of a valid easement for the Lake Oahe crossing under the Missouri River.^[72] In October 2024, the tribe filed a federal lawsuit claiming the pipeline's operation without a renewed easement contravenes the Clean Water Act, National Environmental Policy Act, National Historic Preservation Act, and the 1868 Treaty of Fort Laramie, which the tribe interprets as guaranteeing unceded territorial rights downstream of the crossing, with potential risks to water supplies and cultural resources.^[15]^[72] U.S. District Judge James Boasberg dismissed the suit on March 31, 2025, ruling it premature due to an ongoing environmental impact statement (EIS) review by the Army Corps, which had not yet finalized decisions on easement renewal or operational conditions, thereby depriving the court of a ripe claim for injunctive relief to shut down the pipeline.^[89] The Standing Rock Sioux Tribe appealed this dismissal to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals on June 2, 2025, reiterating arguments that interim operation without authorization endangers the tribe's primary water source and sacred sites, while contending the Corps' delays in completing the EIS—initiated after a 2020 court vacatur of prior approvals—represent regulatory non-compliance.^[90]^[144] Parallel tribal challenges include invocations of the Fort Laramie Treaty's Article II, which reserves hunting and fishing rights in unceded lands, with the tribe alleging the pipeline's route encroaches on these without adequate consultation or mitigation, though federal courts have previously upheld the Corps' compliance with consultation requirements under prior easements.^[25] The EIS process, mandated by a 2021 appellate remand, remains incomplete as of mid-2025, incorporating data on spill risks, hydrological modeling, and cultural surveys, but critics from tribal perspectives argue it insufficiently addresses cumulative impacts from the pipeline's 570,000 barrels-per-day capacity.^[145]^[15] No major oil spills have occurred at the crossing since operations began, a point raised in counterarguments by pipeline operator Energy Transfer Partners, which maintains the route's safety based on engineering redundancies and monitoring.^[29] These efforts persist amid broader indigenous advocacy for treaty enforcement, though appellate outcomes have historically favored continued operations pending administrative finality.^[31]

Key Controversies

Exaggeration of Spill Risks Versus Empirical Safety Data

Opponents of the Dakota Access Pipeline, including the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe and environmental organizations, contended that the pipeline posed an unacceptable risk of oil spills contaminating the Missouri River and Lake Oahe, which serve as primary drinking water sources for the tribe and millions downstream.^[77]^[146] They frequently invoked historical spills on pipelines owned by Energy Transfer Partners, such as the 2014 Mid-Valley Pipeline rupture that released approximately 21,000 gallons of crude oil into fields and waterways in North Dakota and Montana, to argue that a similar event under the river crossing could result in catastrophic pollution.^[29] These claims emphasized worst-case scenarios, projecting potential releases of up to 15.3 million gallons based on the pipeline's daily capacity of 570,000 barrels, without routinely contextualizing the low statistical probability of such failures in modern infrastructure.^[147] In contrast, data from the U.S. Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) demonstrate that hazardous liquid pipelines, including those transporting crude oil like the Dakota Access Pipeline, maintain a low rate of serious incidents—defined as those involving fatalities, significant property damage exceeding $50,000, or releases over 50 barrels—averaging 0.58 per billion ton-miles transported from 2000 to 2012, with trends showing further declines due to enhanced regulations and technology.^[148]^[149] Comparative analyses indicate pipelines are substantially safer than alternative transport modes: rail incurs about twice the leak probability per billion ton-miles (approximately 2 incidents), while trucking faces roughly 20 times the risk, often resulting in smaller but more frequent releases due to the decentralized nature of road transport.^[150]^[151] These metrics account for volume spilled, environmental impact, and safety outcomes, underscoring that blocking pipelines shifts oil movement to riskier methods without eliminating spills entirely. Since entering full commercial service on June 1, 2017, the 1,172-mile Dakota Access Pipeline has operated without a major rupture or spill affecting the Missouri River or Lake Oahe, despite carrying an average of 500,000 to 600,000 barrels per day of Bakken crude.^[145] PHMSA records show no significant incidents reported for the pipeline through 2023 that match the scale of protester concerns, with any minor equipment-related releases—such as contained drips during maintenance—promptly mitigated under federal oversight.^[149] The pipeline's design incorporates safety enhancements beyond PHMSA requirements, including automated shutoff valves every 8-10 miles, high-resolution fiber-optic leak detection capable of identifying anomalies within minutes, and steel pipe walls 0.625 inches thick—80% thicker than minimum standards—to minimize rupture potential from corrosion or external damage.^[122]^[15] Critics' focus on hypothetical risks, often amplified by advocacy groups with records of opposing fossil fuel infrastructure regardless of site-specific mitigations, overlooks this empirical track record and the causal trade-offs of alternatives like rail, which spilled over 1.15 million gallons in a single 2013 Lac-Mégantic derailment in Canada and contributed to 800,000 gallons released nationwide from 1975 to 2012.^[152]^[153] PHMSA's ongoing monitoring and the absence of prophesied environmental disasters after seven years of operation validate assessments that spill probabilities, while non-zero, were overstated relative to engineering controls and comparative data.

Economic Costs of Delays and Protest Enforcement

The protests and associated legal actions delayed the Dakota Access Pipeline's completion from its targeted late-2016 operational date to June 2017, imposing direct construction and financing costs on Energy Transfer Partners exceeding $450 million by December 2016, as stated in the company's federal court filings.^[154] Protest-induced work stoppages alone accounted for at least $100 million in losses by mid-November 2016, according to Energy Transfer estimates reported contemporaneously.^[155] Broader controversy-related impacts, including investor withdrawals and stock volatility, contributed to minimum losses of $7.5 billion across pipeline developers and financing banks, per a University of Colorado Boulder case analysis of market data and account closures.^[156] Law enforcement expenditures for protest management and camp clearances totaled over $38 million for North Dakota state and local agencies, covering overtime, equipment, and National Guard mobilization from 2016 through early 2017.^[157] In April 2025, a U.S. District Court ruled the federal government liable for nearly $28 million of these costs, citing Army Corps of Engineers decisions—such as denying an easement and inviting prolonged occupation—that exacerbated disruptions and shifted financial burdens to state taxpayers.^[158]^[159] These delays also amplified upstream economic effects in the Bakken oil region, where reliance on costlier rail transport persisted longer than anticipated, adding roughly $7 per barrel in shipping expenses compared to pipeline rates and deferring revenue from 470,000 barrels per day of capacity.^[160] Delayed job creation and tax revenues further strained North Dakota's economy, with the state forgoing millions in annual property and sales taxes from operational infrastructure until mid-2017.^[80]

Rule of Law Versus Civil Disobedience Debates

The Dakota Access Pipeline protests, particularly at Standing Rock, involved widespread acts of civil disobedience, including trespassing on private and federal lands, blocking construction equipment, and establishing unauthorized encampments, resulting in over 800 arrests by North Dakota authorities, with more than 140 facing felony charges such as inciting riots and criminal trespass.^[161]^[162] These actions sparked debates over whether such tactics justified bypassing legal processes in pursuit of environmental and tribal concerns, or if they undermined the rule of law by disregarding permits issued by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers following environmental reviews under the National Environmental Policy Act.^[128] Proponents of civil disobedience, including some activists and legal scholars, argued that the protests represented a moral necessity defense against perceived government failures to adequately consult tribes or assess spill risks, drawing parallels to historical nonviolent resistance and claiming that standard legal channels had proven insufficient to halt construction perceived as an existential threat to water sources and sacred sites.^[163]^[164] Critics of this view, including North Dakota officials and federal judges, countered that the pipeline's approvals adhered to statutory requirements and court oversight, rendering disobedience not only unlawful but counterproductive, as it escalated to property damage, bridge fires, and confrontations requiring militarized responses, thereby imposing undue burdens on public resources without altering the legal outcome.^[165]^[91] The enforcement costs underscored the rule-of-law perspective: North Dakota incurred approximately $40-50 million in expenses for law enforcement, National Guard deployment, and cleanup, much of which stemmed from federal delays in evicting camps, prompting a 2025 federal court ruling that the U.S. government "abandoned the rule of law" by prolonging the standoff and ordering nearly $28 million in reimbursements to the state.^[138]^[159] Advocates for disobedience maintained that such tactics amplified indigenous voices and influenced temporary permit revocations in 2017 and 2020, yet empirical results showed limited long-term success, as courts ultimately upheld operations after supplemental reviews found no verified treaty violations or disproportionate risks compared to alternative routes.^[166]^[128] This tension highlighted broader philosophical divides: civil disobedience framed as a check on institutional inertia versus the imperative of legal finality to prevent anarchy, with post-protest convictions and the pipeline's activation on June 1, 2017, demonstrating that while protests delayed timelines by months and amplified discourse, they did not override administrative and judicial determinations grounded in engineering assessments and risk data.^[167]^[106]

References

[1]
Home | Dakota Access Pipeline Facts
Safely operating since June of 2017, the Dakota Access Pipeline is a 1,172-mile underground 30" pipeline transporting crude oil from the Bakken/Three Forks ...Safety · The Facts · About · Community
[2]
Dakota Access Pipeline - USACE Omaha District
The approximately 1,172-mile pipeline connects the Bakken and Three Forks oil production areas in North Dakota to an existing crude oil market near Patoka, ...
[3]
Dakota Access Pipeline - Army Corps of Engineers
Q: According to the group, Energy Transfer Partners has a “questionable” safety record. What is your response to that, and has the Army Corps taken the ...
[4]
Private Security Officers Ambushed and Assaulted by Protestors
Sep 3, 2016 · According to numerous witnesses within five minutes the crowd of protestors, estimated to be a few hundred people became violent. They stampeded ...Missing: DAPL | Show results with:DAPL
[5]
Timeline of the Dakota Access Pipeline Protests - ABC News
Sept. 3, 2016. Protesters and private security workers hired by Dakota Access clashed on this day. Witnesses say private security workers unleashed pepper spray ...
[6]
New Mexico Man Sentenced for Civil Disorder During the Dakota ...
May 31, 2018 · New Mexico Man Sentenced for Civil Disorder During the Dakota Access Pipeline (DAPL) Project Protest ... Violence Against Women Act. November 14, ...
[7]
Dakota Access Pipeline Environmental Assessment
Dec 9, 2015 · An environmental assessment has been prepared to evaluate potential environmental impacts from construction and operation of a crude oil ...
[8]
Corps chose not to publicize environmental damage by DAPL ...
Feb 27, 2024 · The protests, which took place in 2016 and early 2017, sought to halt construction of the pipeline, often referred to as DAPL. Thousands of ...
[9]
Week Two Wrap Up of Historic Dakota Access Pipeline Trial
Feb 23, 2024 · These protests spanned nearly eight months and inflicted more than $38 million in damages on North Dakota. “The whole reason for the trial is to ...Missing: key facts
[10]
Burgum testifies in trial seeking reimbursement from U.S. ...
Feb 26, 2024 · From the Corps land, protesters launched often combative and violent protests, which North Dakota was left to deal with on its own, spending ...
[11]
Trains vs. pipelines: safely transporting materials in North Dakota
Feb 28, 2023 · “As it relates to transporting crude oil, pipelines are by far the safest, most environmentally sound way, so having less crude by rail is a ...Missing: Access | Show results with:Access
[12]
[PDF] SAFELY MOVING AMERICA'S ENERGY
Dec 8, 2020 · The Dakota Access Pipeline is a 1,172-mile underground 30″ pipeline transporting light sweet crude oil from the Bakken/Three Forks production.
[13]
About | Dakota Access Pipeline Facts
The Dakota Access Pipeline can transport up to 750,000 barrels of oil per day. Operated by Energy Transfer, the Dakota Access Pipeline is a critical link ...
[14]
Energy Transfer Statement On Dakota Access Pipeline
Jul 6, 2020 · Energy Transfer believes the ruling is not supported by law, will pursue legal action, and the pipeline is the safest way to transport oil, ...Missing: protests | Show results with:protests
[15]
The Dakota Access Pipeline (DAPL)
Jan 28, 2025 · Timeline · Sep. 8, 2023 · Jan. 27, 2022 · July 23, 2021 The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) issued a notice of ...
[16]
[PDF] Environmental Assessment Dakota Access Pipeline Project ...
impacts associated with the Project and the Dakota Access Project as a whole). Possible temporary, short- term impacts on wildlife as result of the Project ...
[17]
[PDF] DAKOTA ACCESS PIPELINE PROJECT U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE ...
During initial routing and through the alternatives evaluation process, Dakota Access has worked and to avoid and minimize impacts to wetlands. Where ...
[18]
FAQ | ND Response
The pipeline route is on private land, except water crossings. The river crossing is below the lake bottom, and the route was altered to protect cultural ...
[19]
Dakota Access Pipeline FAQs - Army Corps of Engineers
Dakota Access requested the Corps verify water crossings, grant permissions for flowage easements, and modify Oahe Dam, and drill under the Mississippi River.
[20]
[PDF] Oct. 27, 2016 Stacy Eberl, (701) 328-4082 Consumer Affairs/Public ...
Oct 27, 2016 · Routing alternatives are discussed on pages 20-23. According to the company's application, Dakota Access's preference for route selection is to.
[21]
[PDF] DAKOTA ACCESS PIPELINE PROJECT ENERGY TRANSMISSION ...
ROUTE SELECTION ... During initial routing and through the alternatives evaluation process, Dakota Access has.
[22]
[PDF] Dakota Access Pipeline – Frequently Asked Questions
What was the timeline for the PSC's siting (permitting) process? Dec. 22, 2014 – Application submitted to the PSC. May 28, June 15, June 26, 2015 – Public ...
[23]
A timeline of the Dakota Access oil pipeline | AP News
Pipeline opponents rally in Washington, D.C., demonstrating outside the White House and Trump's Washington hotel.
[24]
Corps grants easement to Dakota Access, LLC
Feb 8, 2017 · The US Army Corps of Engineers granted an easement to Dakota Access, LLC allowing the installation of a thirty-inch diameter light crude oil pipeline.
[25]
Standing Rock Sioux and Dakota Access Pipeline | Teacher Resource
The position of the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe is that the Dakota Access Pipeline violates Article II of the Fort Laramie Treaty, which guarantees the ...
[26]
[PDF] historic lawsuit - Standing Rock Sioux Tribe
Oct 14, 2024 · The Dakota Access Pipeline crosses into unceded treaty lands guaranteed by the 1851 Treaty of Fort Laramie to the Oceti Sakowin Oyate ("Seven.
[27]
[PDF] Horse Creek Treaty 1851 - National Museum of the American Indian
TREATY OF FORT LARAMIE WITH SIOUX, ETC., 1851. ARTICLE 2. The aforesaid nations do hereby recognize the right of the Fnited States Gornrnment to establish ...
[28]
Treaty of Fort Laramie (1868) | National Archives
Jun 30, 2025 · The goal of the treaty was to bring peace between White settlers and the tribes, who agreed to relocate to the Black Hills in the Dakota ...
[29]
The Dakota Access Pipeline: What You Need to Know - NRDC
Jun 12, 2024 · The controversy began escalating back in 2016, when DAPL received its first permits for construction. Soon after, large-scale, grassroots ...
[30]
[PDF] Standing Rock Sioux Tribe Report to the U.S. Army Corps of ...
Nov 24, 2020 · The Dakota Access Pipeline violates the Fort Laramie Treaty of September 17,. 1851 and the Fort Laramie Treaty of April 29, 1868. This must ...
[31]
Standing Rock Sioux Tribe v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Apr 11, 2022 · In June 2014, Dakota Access Pipeline, LLC (Dakota Access) applied to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for an easement to construct an oil ...
[32]
Does the Dakota Access Pipeline Violate Treaty Law?
Nov 2, 2016 · The Standing Rock Sioux allege violations of the Pipeline Safety Act, Clean Water Act and National Environmental Policy Act, as well as a handful of executive ...
[33]
North Dakota Field Production of Crude Oil (Thousand Barrels per ...
North Dakota Field Production of Crude Oil (Thousand Barrels per Day) ... 2016, 1,114, 1,112, 1,104, 1,035, 1,040, 1,020, 1,023, 976, 965, 1,037, 1,026, 935. 2017 ...
[34]
[PDF] ND Monthly Bakken* Oil Production Statistics
ND Monthly Bakken* Oil Production Statistics. Year. Month. BBLS Oil. Daily Oil ... 2016. 4232. 141. 2010. 12. 8488083. 273809. 2064. 4112. 133. 2011. 1. 8499040.
[35]
Bakken Crude Oil and the Changing Logistics of the American Oil ...
Before 2008, North American oil was carried primarily via pipeline from source regions to refineries along the Gulf Coast or to metropolitan areas close to ...<|separator|>
[36]
Massive 2013 oil spill in North Dakota still not cleaned up
Dec 18, 2016 · Both the Tesoro break and the Belfield break occurred on 6-inch steel pipelines – part of a large network of pipelines that crisscross western ...
[37]
The Bakken Oil Patch | Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis
Jul 22, 2025 · The Bakken oil boom of the 2010s dwarfed previous oil production expansions in Montana and North Dakota. Explore a range of economic, ...
[38]
[PDF] Tesoro Black Slough Pipeline Spill Site
Approximately 35 acres are tied up in remediation. • This is (one of) the largest oil spills in continental U.S. history. Page 3 ...
[39]
Massive 2013 oil spill in North Dakota finally cleaned up | AP News
Sep 19, 2018 · The spill by Tesoro, now known as Andeavor, was found by a Tioga farmer in September 2013. Crews had been working around the clock to clean ...
[40]
Tesoro oil spill: over 20000 barrels seep into North Dakota wheat field
Oct 10, 2013 · Officials say the seven-acre spill, allegedly from a quarter-inch hole in the pipeline, has not contaminated any water sources.
[41]
More than three years later, N.D. Tesoro oil spill still not cleaned up
Dec 19, 2016 · Workers in 2013 attempt to clean up at the site of a Tesoro Corp. pipeline break that spilled more than 20,000 barrels of oil into a Tioga, N.D. ...
[42]
Fight Over Dakota Pipeline Shines Light on Nation's Oil Networks
Dec 9, 2016 · The $3.7 billion conduit would transport crude oil from North Dakota's booming Bakken shale-oil region, through South Dakota and Iowa, and ...
[43]
[PDF] Beyond Dakota Access Pipeline: Energy Development and the ...
support that the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe received from other tribes. Damming the Missouri River nearly six decades ago to fill the Lake Oahe reservoir, which ...
[44]
Standing Rock Sioux Tribe v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
More specifically, the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe has sued the United States Army Corps of Engineers to block the operation of Corps permitting for the Dakota ...
[45]
Dakota Access Pipeline, Standing Rock Sioux Tribe v. U. S. Army ...
Jan 17, 2018 · The selected route follows, where possible, existing utility corridors and pipelines and sought to avoid previously identified cultural and ...
[46]
Resolution Regarding Dakota Access Pipeline
This document is a portion of the Standing Rock Sioux tribal nation's resolution in opposition to the pipeline. In April 2016, young people from Standing Rock, ...
[47]
At The Sacred Stone Camp, Tribes And Activists Join Forces ... - NPR
Sep 10, 2016 · The camp was started in early April by Ladonna Brave Bull Allard, who was joined back then by a handful of other tribal members. Over the past ...
[48]
History in the Making: Standing Rock - Institute on the Environment
Nov 12, 2016 · The camp was started on April 1st by “Standing Rock Lakota Nation and ally Lakota, Nakota, & Dakota citizens, under the group name “Chante tin' ...
[49]
20 Photos: My Seven Months of Living at Standing Rock
Dec 28, 2016 · By late July, Oceti Sakowin Camp was established, beginning as the overflow camp for Sacred Stone. The camps seemed to balloon with visitors ...
[50]
Standing Rock: A New Fire Has Been Lit - Native Hope Blog
Dec 19, 2016 · On April 1, 2016, the Sacred Stone Camp was established as a spiritual camp to block the DAPL. ... Standing Rock Sioux Tribe (Hunkpapa ...
[51]
Protector Camps Are Full Of Spirituality - Lakota Times
Oct 13, 2016 · This camp was established after DAPL workers bulldozed an area said to contain cultural artifacts. The people staying in that area are camped in ...
[52]
North Dakota oil pipeline protesters stand their ground - The Guardian
Aug 29, 2016 · The first protest camp, named Sacred Stone for the perfectly round stones that were formed by a whirlpool where the two rivers met, was erected ...Missing: DAPL | Show results with:DAPL
[53]
Standing Rock Sioux Chairman: Dakota Access Pipeline “Is ...
Aug 23, 2016 · AMY GOODMAN: I want to go back to Debra White Plume, an Oglala Lakota water rights activist, speaking at the Sacred Stone camp. ... April of 2016 ...
[54]
Occupying the Prairie: Tensions Rise as Tribes Move to Block a ...
Aug 23, 2016 · More than 20 people have been arrested on charges including disorderly conduct and trespassing onto the construction site. The pipeline company ...Missing: blockade | Show results with:blockade
[55]
Key Moments In The Dakota Access Pipeline Fight - NPR
Feb 22, 2017 · An overview of multiple legal challenges and protests since the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers considered approving a section of the pipeline ...
[56]
The Surveillance State Descends on the Dakota Access Pipeline ...
Oct 10, 2016 · The Sacred Stone camp started and maintains itself as a spirit camp. Prayer is the starting point for all opposition to the pipeline, and ...Missing: blockade | Show results with:blockade
[57]
Police, Protesters Clash Near Dakota Access Pipeline Route - NPR
Nov 21, 2016 · Police and demonstrators opposed to the Dakota Access Pipeline clashed overnight on a bridge that has been a flashpoint in the ongoing protests.Missing: incident | Show results with:incident
[58]
Dakota Access pipeline: 300 protesters injured after police use ...
Nov 21, 2016 · Twenty-six people were hospitalized and more than 300 injured after North Dakota law enforcement officers trained water cannons, teargas, and other “less-than- ...Missing: Backwater | Show results with:Backwater
[59]
Police deploy water hoses, tear gas against Standing Rock protesters
Nov 21, 2016 · Video of the clash between police and unarmed protesters at Backwater Bridge, not far from the Standing Rock encampments, emerged on social ...
[60]
Tension Between Police and Standing Rock Protesters Reaches ...
Oct 28, 2016 · A Curfew to Curb Violent Crime?: In Greenville, Miss., leaders imposed a strict curfew to curb gun violence. So far, the approach is working, ...
[61]
In Victory For Protesters, Obama Administration Halts North Dakota ...
Sep 10, 2016 · An Obama administration decision to suspend construction on a controversial oil pipeline in North Dakota is a game changer for efforts to protect tribal lands.
[62]
In Victory For Protesters, Army Halts Construction Of Dakota Pipeline
Dec 4, 2016 · The Army Corps of Engineers has denied a permit for the construction of a key section of the Dakota Access Pipeline, granting a major victory to protesters.
[63]
Obama administration blocks Dakota pipeline, angering Trump allies
Dec 4, 2016 · The decision, a clear victory for the protesters, is likely to be reversed by the Trump administration.
[64]
Dakota Pipeline Protesters Told To Leave Camp Or Face Arrest - NPR
Nov 25, 2016 · The agency on Friday ordered anyone in the encampments north of the Cannonball River in North Dakota to immediately leave.
[65]
North Dakota governor orders evacuation of Standing Rock protest site
Nov 28, 2016 · Governor orders thousands of activists to leave the encampment, citing 'harsh winter conditions', but does not authorize police to carry out ...
[66]
Standing Rock: Are pipeline protest camp days numbered? - BBC
Dec 2, 2016 · Winter is descending upon thousands of Native Americans camped out in North Dakota. For months, they have been protesting against the Dakota Access oil ...Missing: formation DAPL
[67]
Standing Rock protesters refuse to bow to frigid weather, evacuation ...
Dec 1, 2016 · For the hundreds of people camping near the Standing Rock Sioux Reservation in opposition of the Dakota Access pipeline, winter has arrived in full force.
[68]
[PDF] Administration of Donald J. Trump, 2017 Memorandum on ... - GovInfo
Jan 24, 2017 · This approximately 1,100-mile pipeline is designed to carry approximately. 500,000 barrels per day of crude oil from the Bakken and Three Forks ...
[69]
Trump administration to approve final permit for Dakota Access ...
Feb 7, 2017 · The deputy secretary of the Army will grant the final permit needed for completion of the Dakota Access Pipeline, it declared in a court ...
[70]
More than 220 Scientists Say Dakota Access Pipeline Threatens ...
The DAPL is a proposed 30-inch diameter pipeline spanning approximately 1,150 miles to transport crude oil in the United States.
[71]
Pipeline Expert: Government Underestimated Risk of an Oil Spill ...
Nov 3, 2016 · Shoddy pipeline construction; The risks posed by landslides were underestimated; Lack of proper safety constructions to contain spills; Failure ...<|separator|>
[72]
SRST Files #NODAPL FED LAWSUIT SEEKING IMMEDIATE ...
Oct 16, 2024 · The Tribe claims the operation of DAPL violates the federal Clean Water Act, the National Historic Preservation Act, and the 1868 Treaty of Fort ...Missing: arguments | Show results with:arguments
[73]
Archeologists denounce Dakota Access pipeline for destroying ...
Sep 22, 2016 · The letter states that the construction work destroyed “ancient burial sites, places of prayer and other significant cultural artifacts sacred ...
[74]
Did the Dakota Access Pipeline Company Deliberately Destroy ...
Sep 6, 2016 · As bulldozers cleared earth, hundreds of Native Americans from many different tribes rushed onto the construction site to protect the sacred ...
[75]
[PDF] The Dakota Access Pipeline and the Destruction of Cultural Heritage
Nov 5, 2018 · pipeline, would destroy burial grounds, sacred sites, and historically significant areas on either side of Lake Oahe.”191 The cultural and ...
[76]
Construction of the Dakota Access Pipeline - Federal Register
Jan 30, 2017 · This approximately 1,100-mile pipeline is designed to carry approximately 500,000 barrels per day of crude oil from the Bakken and Three Forks ...Missing: length capacity
[77]
Five things to know about the North Dakota Access Pipeline debate
Sep 14, 2016 · Even though pipeline accidents happen less frequently than train ... safer than rail—they can be larger and more difficult to clean up.
[78]
DAPL-related savings for oil producers adding up to millions more ...
Sep 12, 2025 · Since the pipeline came online, the savings for producers have led to an additional $750 million or more for the state.Missing: capacity | Show results with:capacity
[79]
Dakota Access Pipeline Pros | YIP Institute
Jun 21, 2021 · A pipeline is also the safest and most efficient method of oil transportation (as opposed to other methods such as trucks or rails). More oil ...
[80]
Economic Impacts of a Dakota Access Pipeline Shutdown - API.org
ICF analyzed the economic impacts of shutting down the Dakota Access Pipeline (DAPL) on the Bakken Shale region, including impacts to producer revenues, ...Missing: benefits | Show results with:benefits
[81]
The Dakota Access Pipeline - Earthjustice
Jul 28, 2016 · The Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, represented by Earthjustice from 2016 to 2022, sued the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for violating the National ...
[82]
Standing Rock Sioux Tribe v. United States Army Corps of Engineers
The Tribe, represented by Earthjustice, sued the US Army Corps of Engineers to block the Corps' actions related to the Dakota Access Pipeline.
[83]
Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe, et al., Plaintiff-Intervenors, v. LLC (2020)
This case involves efforts by several American Indian Tribes to enjoin Defendant United States Army Corps of Engineers from permitting Defendant-Intervenor ...
[84]
STANDING ROCK SIOUX TRIBE v. UNITED STATES ARMY CORPS ...
DAKOTA ACCESS HOLDINGS, LLC, Intervenor Defendant DAKOTA ACCESS LLC ... U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, Intervenor Defendant CHEYENNE RIVER SIOUX TRIBE ...
[85]
Standing Rock Sioux Tribe v. United States Army Corps ... - Justia Law
Jan 26, 2021 · The DC Circuit held that the Corps violated the National Environmental Policy Act (EPA) by issuing an easement allowing the Dakota Access Pipeline to transport ...
[86]
On the U.S. Army Corps' Aug. 31 Decision on the Dakota Access ...
Aug 31, 2018 · The Corps released a review of its original decision to grant permits to the Dakota Access pipeline to cross the Missouri River just upstream of ...Missing: approval | Show results with:approval
[87]
Court Rules Dakota Access Pipeline Needs Further Environmental ...
Feb 1, 2021 · " Based on this precedent, the court concluded that "the significant public protests near Lake Oahe do not transform the pipeline's approval ...Missing: key | Show results with:key
[88]
Court Halts Dakota Access Pipeline Shutdown As Legal Fight Goes ...
Jul 15, 2020 · On July 6, U.S. District Judge James Boasberg ordered Energy Transfer to halt oil flow and empty the pipeline within 30 days. Boasberg ruled in ...Missing: timeline | Show results with:timeline
[89]
Federal judge dismisses Standing Rock's latest lawsuit over Dakota ...
Mar 31, 2025 · A federal judge dismissed the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe's lawsuit against the US Army Corps of Engineers seeking to shutter the Dakota Access Pipeline.
[90]
Standing Rock appeals dismissal of latest Dakota Access Pipeline ...
Jun 2, 2025 · In her statement, Alkire said the tribe fears the Army Corps' study will “whitewash” the pipeline's risk to the surrounding environment. The ...
[91]
Judge blasts Army Corps for pipeline protests, orders $28M in ...
Apr 24, 2025 · Thousands came to south-central North Dakota to protest the construction of the crude oil pipeline in solidarity with the Standing Rock Sioux ...
[92]
Standing Rock Sioux Tribe v. US Army Corps of Engineers
Mar 19, 2018 · Plaintiffs additionally move for summary judgment on their claim that, by failing to obtain the Tribe's free and informed consent prior to ...<|control11|><|separator|>
[93]
An oil pipeline company is suing Greenpeace after protests - NPR
Feb 24, 2025 · The company behind the controversial Dakota Access Pipeline is suing Greenpeace for at least $300 million for damages the oil pipeline ...
[94]
Jury finds Greenpeace at fault for protest damages, awards pipeline ...
Mar 19, 2025 · A North Dakota jury ordered Greenpeace to pay hundreds of millions of dollars to the developer of the Dakota Access Pipeline.
[95]
Most jurors in US pipeline case against Greenpeace have fossil fuel ...
Feb 27, 2025 · Trial-monitoring committee in Dakota Access lawsuit have shared concerns of judicial bias and due-process violations.
[96]
Standing Rock Sioux Tribe files new lawsuit over DAPL
Oct 14, 2024 · The Army Corps approved the easement in 2017, but a federal judge later revoked it in 2020, finding that the Corps violated environmental law by ...
[97]
OCETI SAKOWIN: Lighting the Sacred Fire at Standing Rock
As in past Indian wars, the spiritual foundation of ceremony and prayer guided many peaceful actions and strategic decisions at Standing Rock. Horse Medicine.
[98]
Oceti Sakowin Camp's post - Facebook
Dec 18, 2016 · For Clarification Oceti Oyate is the name of the New Sacred Fire On December 11th, 2016 the Sacred Fire lit in the Spring of this year was ...Missing: date | Show results with:date
[99]
The Power of Prayer at Standing Rock. - Elephant Journal
Dec 2, 2016 · Prayer is powerful because it does not contribute to the problem we are trying to eradicate, as violent or destructive action would. Prayer ...
[100]
We Are Not Protestors, We Are Protectors: Peace, Prayer, Love and ...
“We come with peace and we want to teach the world, not just Natives, that we don't have to be violent. The reason we ran to Washington, D.C. is to bring ...
[101]
In Their Own Words: The 'Water Protectors' Of Standing Rock - NPR
Dec 11, 2016 · Standing Rock Protesters Remain At Dakota Access Pipeline Site, Despite Warnings. ... That's what water means to us: it means life, it means ...
[102]
Why is water sacred to Native Americans? | Open Rivers Journal
Water is sacred to Native Americans because it is seen as "life," home to divine beings, and a sacred place, like "holy ground."
[103]
My Time at Standing Rock - Greenpeace
Dec 16, 2016 · Orientation to camp became crucial. As part of that orientation, I helped IP3 run daily non-violent direct action trainings, which saw ...
[104]
As North Dakota Pipeline Is Blocked, Veterans at Standing Rock ...
Dec 5, 2016 · ... acts of violence. Tribal leaders and protesters say they are nonviolent and have no weapons. Several of the veterans who lined up wore caps ...
[105]
Standing Rock protests | Summary, Violence, & Outcome - Britannica
The protests culminated in numerous acts of violence, with security workers siccing attack dogs on the demonstrators and police shooting them with rubber ...
[106]
[PDF] The Untold Story of the Dakota Access Pipeline: How Politics Almost ...
39. All State and local permits, as well as necessary rights-of-ways, had been obtained or were in the process of being obtained.<|separator|>
[107]
Dakota Access protesters set fires, lob Molotov cocktails, fire shots in ...
Oct 27, 2016 · Activists threw rocks, burned tires, set blazes, lobbed Molotov cocktails and even fired gunshots as officers in riot gear moved to clear ...
[108]
More than 100 arrested as pipeline protesters ousted from camp
Oct 27, 2016 · At least 141 protesters were arrested as of midnight Thursday (1 am ET) after law enforcement slowly closed in and tensions escalated.Local · Featured · More From Nbc<|separator|>
[109]
Standing Rock protest: hundreds clash with police over Dakota ...
Nov 21, 2016 · Standing Rock protest: hundreds clash with police over Dakota Access Pipeline ... Law enforcement officials in North Dakota have deployed tear gas ...
[110]
Documenting conflict, solidarity and snow at Standing Rock
Dec 22, 2016 · ... sacred fire at the Oceti Sakowin camp on Saturday, Sept. 10, 2016 ... Car headlights illuminate fog surrounding a tepee at the Oceti Sakowin Camp ...Missing: date | Show results with:date
[111]
Standing Rock Protesters Learn that Violence Yields Results
Dec 7, 2016 · In addition to bullets, law-enforcement officials have dodged protesters' other projectiles, which have ranged from Molotov cocktails to wood ...
[112]
Dakota Access Pipeline: Protester nearly loses arm after explosion
Nov 23, 2016 · One protester, a 21-year-old New York resident named Sophia Wilansky, nearly lost her arm after an explosion. How did it happen? Both sides have ...
[113]
Dakota Access protesters claim responsibility for pipeline sabotage
Jul 24, 2017 · Leaders of anti-pipeline organizations had mixed reactions Monday to the women's arrests and claims of responsiblity for the sabotage. Sierra ...
[114]
Meet the Two Catholic Workers Who Secretly Sabotaged the Dakota ...
Jul 28, 2017 · Two Iowa-based Catholic Worker activists revealed they secretly carried out multiple acts of sabotage and arson in order to stop ...
[115]
Why two women sacrificed everything to stop the Dakota Access ...
May 26, 2021 · Much of Catholic Worker activism sits firmly within the tradition of nonviolent protest, but those who identify as Plowshares activists go ...
[116]
U.S. Army Corps Gives Eviction Notice to Dakota Access Protest Camp
Feb 3, 2017 · U.S. Army Corps Gives Eviction Notice to Dakota Access Protest Camp. The Army Corps of Engineers cited the potential for flooding at the Oceti ...
[117]
Police remove last Standing Rock protesters in military-style takeover
Feb 23, 2017 · Dozens of national guard and law enforcement officers marched into the Dakota Access pipeline protest encampment on Thursday in a military-style takeover.<|separator|>
[118]
Dakota Access pipeline protest site cleared after police in riot gear ...
The protest site for the Dakota Access pipeline has been cleared after some demonstrators refused to leave Wednesday, when a deadline for evacuation passed.
[119]
Dakota Pipeline Protesters Burn Camp Ahead of Evacuation
Feb 22, 2017 · The deadline to evacuate is today, February 22, at 2 pm. Just ahead of the deadline, some protesters set fire to several tents and other ...Missing: details | Show results with:details
[120]
Cleaning Out The Dakota Access Protest Camp - Inside Energy
Feb 18, 2017 · A massive cleanup effort is underway where thousands of people once lived in a makeshift village on the North Dakota prairie.<|control11|><|separator|>
[121]
Dakota Access protest camp: Crews haul off 48 million pounds of ...
Mar 1, 2017 · “Cleanup at the former #Dapl protest site is nearly complete. As of today, 48,000,000 pounds of garbage has been removed from this location,” ...
[122]
The Facts - Dakota Access Pipeline
The Dakota Access Pipeline (DAPL) is the safest and most environmentally sensitive way to transport crude oil from domestic wells to American consumers.Missing: blockade | Show results with:blockade
[123]
Cleanup resumes at DAPL protest camp after demonstrators cleared ...
Feb 23, 2017 · Removing protesters from the main Dakota Access Pipeline protest camp is now complete after Wednesday's eviction deadline, and Thursday ...Missing: facts | Show results with:facts
[124]
Feb. 1-4 2017 Sacred Stone Wrongful Eviction Archive
2-2-2017: Several Federal Agents & Tribal Council Member Trespass into Sacred Stone Camp without a Warrant. 2-3-2016: Sacred Stone Camp given Demand Letter ...
[125]
Dakota Access Pipeline protest costs debated during federal trial
Feb 16, 2024 · North Dakota is seeking to recoup $38 million it claims it spent policing the protest camps north of the Standing Rock Sioux Reservation in rural Morton County.
[126]
Dakota Access Oil Pipeline (DAPL) - Global Energy Monitor - GEM.wiki
Though in August 2021 it was reportedly completed, adding 180,000 bpd capacity in North Dakota, South Dakota, Iowa, and Illinois. Expansion Project Details.
[127]
Crude Oil Begins To Flow Through Controversial Dakota Access ...
Jun 1, 2017 · Dakota Access Pipeline Court Challenge Denied, Oil Could Flow As Soon As Next Week ... A lawsuit from the tribe is still pending in federal court.Missing: activation initial
[128]
[PDF] The Untold Story of the Dakota Access Pipeline
Jun 6, 2018 · On March 27, 2017, the Dakota Access Pipeline, LLC (Dakota. Access) notified the Federal District Court for the District of Columbia.
[129]
[PDF] Emergency Response Action Plan (ERAP) Dakota Access Pipeline ...
May 1, 2018 · All Company responders designated in this Plan must have 24 hours of initial spill response training in accordance with 29 CFR Part 1910, as ...
[130]
Dakota Access Pipeline to Remain Operational, For Now - Earthjustice
Oct 11, 2017 · Today, a federal judge ruled that the Dakota Access pipeline (DAPL) can continue operating pending an environmental review by the U.S. Army ...Missing: details | Show results with:details
[131]
PHMSA Notice of Proposed Violation, Proposed Civil Penalty, and ...
Jul 23, 2021 · PHMSA Notice of Proposed Violation, Proposed Civil Penalty, and Proposed Compliance Order to Energy Transfer LP - Dakota Access Pipeline.
[132]
Seven Years Later, an Environmental Impact Statement for the ...
Dec 7, 2023 · The US Army Corps of Engineers closes the comment period on its draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Dakota Access Pipeline.
[133]
Keystone Pipeline's 28th Spill Pushes Lifetime Leak Volume to 1.2 ...
Apr 10, 2025 · DAPL experienced 13 accidents and spilled 1,282 gallons between June 2017 and the present. Keystone experienced 16 accidents and spilled a ...
[134]
DAPL Track Record Highlights Ugly Reality: Pipelines Leak
Jan 9, 2018 · On November 14, “excessive vibration” caused 21 gallons of crude to leak out of a crack in a weld connection at one of the pump stations, which ...
[135]
This little-known pipeline could spell trouble for Dakota Access
Dec 6, 2023 · Dakota Access has had 12 leaks and other issues that met PHMSA's reporting threshold. The company and the DEIS both emphasize that those ...
[136]
[PDF] Trail of spills haunts Dakota Access developer - Department of Energy
Nov 2, 2023 · It was one of 349 leaks, spills and other accidents since 2012 on pipelines operated by Energy Transfer and its subsidiaries. That record could ...
[137]
Federal judge dismisses Standing Rock's latest lawsuit over Dakota ...
Mar 28, 2025 · The tribe also claimed that the Corps failed to properly study the environmental impacts of the Dakota Access Pipeline or require its developer ...Missing: assessment | Show results with:assessment
[138]
2 Years After Standing Rock Protests, Tensions Remain But Oil ...
Nov 29, 2018 · One was filed by protesters who police sprayed with water in freezing temperatures. Another, filed by the company that built the pipeline, ...
[139]
U.S. government owes nearly $28M to North Dakota for pipeline ...
Apr 25, 2025 · A federal judge on Wednesday found the state of North Dakota entitled to nearly $28 million for responding to protests of the Dakota Access oil pipeline in ...
[140]
Burgum submits state's official comments urging Army Corps of ...
Dec 14, 2023 · Three of the five alternatives considered in the Draft EIS would effectively force DAPL to shut down, which Burgum has said would cause ...
[141]
Standing Rock activists eye pipeline finances to cement Dakota ...
Dec 29, 2016 · ... DAPL's funding. The corporation claimed in court that each month of delay cost the company $4.5m and that a failure to launch on time would ...
[142]
[PDF] ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF A DAKOTA ACCESS PIPELINE ... - API.org
Sep 1, 2020 · Costs to Washington State were not estimated, since this capacity is likely to be utilized first and it will not represent the last barrel of ...
[143]
[PDF] North Dakota Revenue Outlook
Jan 14, 2025 · The low case also assumes the potential shut down of the Dakota Access Pipeline (DAPL), which is currently being litigated. Figure 3-10: Low ...
[144]
Standing Rock renews legal fight to stop Dakota Access Pipeline ...
Jun 3, 2025 · The tribe contends that allowing the pipeline to operate without proper authorization violates federal law and threatens its water supply and ...
[145]
Dakota Access pipeline U.S. environmental decision still not final
Sep 8, 2023 · Federal officials on Friday released a draft environmental review of the Dakota Access oil pipeline, but said they're waiting for more input before deciding ...Missing: major | Show results with:major
[146]
Dakota Access Pipeline Protests Put Right to Water at Center Stage
Nov 2, 2016 · Since August, over 400 people have been arrested protesting the Dakota Access Pipeline – 140 in the last week alone.<|separator|>
[147]
[PDF] SPECIAL REPORT | NDN Collective
Technical and Safety Assessment, Routing, Construction, and Operation of the Dakota Access Pipeline in North Dakota. Report prepared for the Cheyenne River ...
[148]
[PDF] Pipelines Are Safest for Transportation of Oil and Gas
Jun 23, 2013 · Hazardous liquid pipelines were the safest, with 0.58 serious incidents per billion ton miles. Data in Table 7 include all hazmat, not just.
[149]
Pipeline Incident 20 Year Trends | PHMSA
Aug 27, 2025 · PHMSA has collected pipeline incident reports since 1970. The reporting regulations and incident report formats have changed several times over the years.Missing: Dakota | Show results with:Dakota
[150]
Data shows where real risks lie in moving oil by pipeline or rail
Oct 30, 2013 · The risk of a leak by rail is twice as high, at two likely incidents per billion ton-mile. And trucks are 10 times higher still, with 20 ...
[151]
[PDF] Report to Congress on Shipping Crude Oil by Truck, Rail, and Pipeline
Mar 19, 2019 · The Report on Shipping Crude Oil by Truck, Rail, and Pipeline compiles crude oil transportation and incident data to show the volume of crude ...
[152]
Company Behind Controversial Dakota Access Pipeline Has Record ...
along with their human and financial costs ...
[153]
Gas & Oil Transportation: Pipeline Vs Rail - ACTS
Aug 29, 2018 · Another revealing statistic is that from 1975 to 2012, transportation by way of rail resulted in approximately 800,000 gallons of spilled oil.
[154]
Pipeline Delays Cost Builder Millions, Risking Contract Loss
Dec 6, 2016 · Delays have already cost Energy Transfer Partners more than $450 million, the company said in court documents last month, and continued ...Missing: DAPL | Show results with:DAPL
[155]
Delays from Protests Cost Dakota Access Pipeline Company $100 ...
Nov 16, 2016 · Delays from Protests Cost Dakota Access Pipeline Company $100 Million · More Headlines fromNovember 16, 2016 · Worldwide Protests Demand U.S. Army ...
[156]
Dakota Access Pipeline controversy cost companies at least $7.5 ...
Nov 26, 2018 · Companies involved in constructing the Dakota Access Pipeline lost at least $7.5 billion, according to a new CU Boulder case study.
[157]
Dakota Access Pipeline protest costs debated during federal trial
Feb 21, 2024 · North Dakota is seeking to recoup $38 million it claims it spent policing the protest camps north of the Standing Rock Sioux Reservation in rural Morton County.
[158]
Judge rules federal government owes nearly $28 million to North ...
Apr 24, 2025 · The state filed the lawsuit in 2019, seeking $38 million for policing the protests. The sometimes-chaotic demonstrations drew international ...
[159]
Judge blasts Army Corps for pipeline protests, orders $28M in ...
Apr 23, 2025 · The judge vacated the easement and ordered the pipeline to be drained of oil until the Army Corps could complete an environmental impact study.
[160]
The twisted economics of the Dakota Access Pipeline
Dec 12, 2016 · Therefore the pipeline will not create more oilfield jobs or result in higher severance tax revenues to North Dakota;Missing: benefits | Show results with:benefits
[161]
'He's a political prisoner': Standing Rock activists face years in jail
Jun 22, 2018 · “They feel like their security, their wellbeing was threatened by the so-called violent protesters, which was not the case at all.” Michael ...
[162]
Stand with Standing Rock | American Civil Liberties Union
Oct 9, 2025 · ACLU of North Dakota Files Open Record Requests Regarding Policing Practices at the Site of DAPL Protests - ACLU of North Dakota ... abuse, as ...
[163]
Oil pipeline opponent uses 'necessity defense' - MPR News
Oct 25, 2017 · Iron Eyes, a member of the Standing Rock Sioux tribe, says he hopes to show that civil disobedience was his only option to resist a pipeline's ...<|control11|><|separator|>
[164]
Standing Rock: A Case Study in Civil Disobedience
May 1, 2018 · The protest against a pipeline adjacent to the Standing Rock Sioux Reservation signals a new paradigm for civil disobedience.
[165]
https://www.wsj.com/articles/paying-for-standing-rock-1506725383
[166]
What Standing Rock Tells Us About Civil Disobedience
Nov 15, 2016 · The militarized response to communities of color signals a possible double standard in law enforcement's acceptance of civil disobedience.
[167]
Why activists are embracing civil disobedience | Peril & Promise - PBS
Dec 17, 2018 · Activists are increasingly engaging in civil disobedience. In response, elected officials with ties to fossil fuel companies are trying to make it harder to ...