As I described in my last post, we have now finally arrived at the public comment period regarding the DAPL pipeline. This was supposed to be done before the pipeline was built. The water protectors brought us to this moment. Now we can all play a role.

Here is the comment I am emailing to NWO-DAPL-EIS@usace.army.mil.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

September 30, 2023

Attn: Brent Cossette
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
CENWO-ODT-N
1616 Capitol Avenue
Omaha, NE 68102

Dear Mr. Cossette,

I encourage you to review the DAPL Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) as if it was 2014, before a route was selected. This is when, according to judicial rulings, the EIS should have been prepared.

It is no surprise that judges ruled that an EIS is required. This project – a massive oil pipeline crossing many states and major rivers – meets many criteria for an EIS, far exceeding those required for a much smaller Environmental Assessment (EA).

In this context, I recommend Alternative 2: cancelling the pipeline but allowing it to stay in place. Ideally, the right thing to do is Alternative 1, removing the pipeline and restoring the land. However, such an effort would require considerable earth moving and could lead to additional disturbance of sacred sites. Additionally, an empty pipeline could prove useful in the future as a place to sequester carbon. Ultimately, the decision between Alternatives 1 and 2 should be done in consultation with the affected tribes.

I make this recommendation for the following reasons:

1. If considered in 2014, a full analysis of the original northern route and the current route would have considered Native sites and natural resources at risk, and likely rejected the current route. They rejected the northern route and came to the current route by avoiding tribal consultation and an EIS.
2. The current pipeline was finished in 2017 after a race to complete the pipeline before a judge could rule on it. Allowing this practice – akin to highspeed chase to the county line – is a threat to the rule of law and should be punished by refusing to give precedent to an illegal action.
3. The construction of the current pipeline violated Executive Orders 12898 (Environmental Justice) and 13175 (Tribal Consultation), as well as Section 106 regarding tribal resources.
4. The pipeline continues to pose an unacceptable risk to downstream communities, such as those at Standing Rock Sioux Reservation. I defer to many other comments about this.
5. Current production in the Bakken formation is falling and will soon be less than it was before the pipeline was created.
6. In a world where we must reduce our carbon emissions quickly, new infrastructure for oil production and consumption should no longer be approved.

Sincerely,

Stephen Carr Hampton

Former Deputy Administrator, California Office of Spill Prevention and Response (retired)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~