4 ms·

So, I'm curious -- why are there protests here to begin with? What is the proper bar for adding a pipeline across the landscape? When your land is traversed aga

So, I'm curious -- why are there protests here to begin with? What is the proper bar for adding a pipeline across the landscape? When your land is traversed against your will, what exact rights to you have to protect it?

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
whatshisface 5y ago
Pipelines leak after being in place for a while and what they leak is usually toxic to the ground near where they are built. Hypothetically leaks can be kept to low levels by proactive maintenance, but in practice managers want to cut costs to a minimum, and have no incentives to spend their company's money to keep up the value of someone else's land.
dekken_ 5y ago
depends https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/eminent_domain https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/eminent_domain
glasss 5y ago
I was curious whose land it is based on your comment, found this document that helped me understand the circumstances: https://www.sierraclub.org/sites/www.sierraclub.org/files/sce/north-star-chapter/pdf/TreatRightsFactSheet.pdf https://www.sierraclub.org/sites/www.sierraclub.org/files/sc... The Anishinaabe people did cede all of this land the pipeline is on to the US Government in the 1800's. However it came with the requirement that they retain the rights to hunt, fish, and gather wild rice there. So while it is technically the government's land to do whatever they want with, I can understand the argument that building a pipeline across the land and rivers could impact their ability to hunt, fish, or gather on the lands.
- loeg 5y ago
  Also keep in mind that the land was ceded to the USG under significant coercion.
  - mrkstu 5y ago
    inter-govermental government land transfers happening under coercion approach nearly 100% (things like Seward's Folly being the rare exception.)
    - klyrs 5y ago
      Alaska, Florida, and Louisiana purchases were contracts between colonial powers, not the indigenous peoples of the respective lands. Not quite comparable.
vkou 5y ago
The proper bar for adding a pipeline across a landscape is putting enough money in a cleanup trust to handle any and all spill costs and compensation, up to the most catastrophic outcome, as well as EOL decommissioning. This trust must be controlled by the communities across whose lands this pipeline runs. No pipeline in the United States currently meets this bar.
googlryas 5y ago
There are protests because there isn't a legal way to stop the build. No one can have a pipeline traverse your land against your will. If the right of way already exists, then it isn't just "your land", it is "your land with caveats, one caveat being a pipeline can be built here". If the land is seized via eminent domain, then it is not your land any more.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

whatshisface 5y ago

Pipelines leak after being in place for a while and what they leak is usually toxic to the ground near where they are built. Hypothetically leaks can be kept to low levels by proactive maintenance, but in practice managers want to cut costs to a minimum, and have no incentives to spend their company's money to keep up the value of someone else's land.

dekken_ 5y ago

depends https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/eminent_domain https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/eminent_domain

glasss 5y ago

I was curious whose land it is based on your comment, found this document that helped me understand the circumstances: https://www.sierraclub.org/sites/www.sierraclub.org/files/sce/north-star-chapter/pdf/TreatRightsFactSheet.pdf https://www.sierraclub.org/sites/www.sierraclub.org/files/sc... The Anishinaabe people did cede all of this land the pipeline is on to the US Government in the 1800's. However it came with the requirement that they retain the rights to hunt, fish, and gather wild rice there. So while it is technically the government's land to do whatever they want with, I can understand the argument that building a pipeline across the land and rivers could impact their ability to hunt, fish, or gather on the lands.

loeg 5y ago
Also keep in mind that the land was ceded to the USG under significant coercion.
- mrkstu 5y ago
  inter-govermental government land transfers happening under coercion approach nearly 100% (things like Seward's Folly being the rare exception.)
  - klyrs 5y ago
    Alaska, Florida, and Louisiana purchases were contracts between colonial powers, not the indigenous peoples of the respective lands. Not quite comparable.

vkou 5y ago

The proper bar for adding a pipeline across a landscape is putting enough money in a cleanup trust to handle any and all spill costs and compensation, up to the most catastrophic outcome, as well as EOL decommissioning. This trust must be controlled by the communities across whose lands this pipeline runs. No pipeline in the United States currently meets this bar.

googlryas 5y ago

There are protests because there isn't a legal way to stop the build. No one can have a pipeline traverse your land against your will. If the right of way already exists, then it isn't just "your land", it is "your land with caveats, one caveat being a pipeline can be built here". If the land is seized via eminent domain, then it is not your land any more.