Kudos to the water protectors, who convinced the Army Corps to deny a crucial permit to the Dakota Access Pipeline. The Corps also announced it would require preparation of a full Environmental Impact Statement for rerouting of the pipeline.
Since 1970, a new law obligated Agencies to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement, or EIS for large projects. The EIS process also includes allowing public comment on new projects like pipelines and dams at public hearings.The disastrous oil well blowout near Santa Barbara in 1969 spurred the new law.
An EIS must comprehensively describe a proposed project and its likely impacts, and review potential project alternatives. Previously, developments like large dams or refineries would often obtain their permits while providing only scanty details about the project’s safety.
The EIS process can be cumbersome. Some refer to an EIS as a “paper monkeywrench” to delay projects, referencing the Edward Abbey tome, but in a good way.
With any luck DAPL could be delayed for another two years, as they slog through the EIS morass, hounded by thousands of objections at massive public hearings, and harassed by legions of environmental attorneys.
However, Congress has intervened at least twice in the past to overrule the full EIS process; both times for crude oil pipelines.
Most folks know the KXL tar sands pipeline from Canada was cancelled. But Congress had actually passed special legislation that would have given it blanket approvals, but for President Obama’s veto. Here is some of the language approving the KXL EIS, from the KXL legislation:
Deems the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement regarding the pipeline issued by the Secretary of State in January 2014 to fully satisfy the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and any law that requires federal agency consultation or review, including the Endangered Species Act of 1973.
www.congress.gov/...
In other words, Congress said Enough environmental review already!
Congress also bypassed the EIS process with 1973 legislation to enable construction of the Alaska crude oil pipeline. That legislation stated:
(d) National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 bypassed; issuance of authorizations for construction and operation shall be taken without further action under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 [42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.].
(www.gpo.gov/…
Since it’s happened twice before, it could happen again with this Congress.