#dapl

It's time to take action and stop the Dakota Access pipeline (DAPL)! It's been over six years since DAPL began carrying oil and nearly a year and a half since the U.S. Supreme Court rejected the pipeline operator Energy Transfer's attempt to avoid producing a required Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). Today, in violation of a separate court order, DAPL continues to operate illegally, without a federal easement. Finally, after interminable delay, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has finally released an extremely problematic draft EIS for public input.

That's where you come in. You now have just a few weeks to submit your public comment demanding the Corps shut this pipeline down and require a new, valid EIS. Please stand with Standing Rock in this critical moment and write to the Army Corps right now.

Now that the EIS has been released, we can confirm what we already suspected. Prepared by a member of the American Petroleum Institute -- clear conflict of interest -- the EIS addresses none of Standing Rock's many grave concerns about DAPL. Those include DAPL's imminent threat to the Missouri River, big problems with Energy Transfer's emergency response plans, Energy Transfer's horrendous safety track record, continued lack of transparency with Standing Rock throughout the environmental review process, inaccurate characterizations of tribal consultation, and sensitive habitat and sacred burial sites along the riverbank.

Earlier this year, four U.S. senators including Bernie Sanders submitted a letter to the Corps seeking an explanation. The reply from Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works Michael Connor did not adequately or honestly address the tribe's complaints. Standing Rock replied, pointing out the flaws in approach and demanding redress.

A panel of three Trump-appointed judges this week upheld an excessive eight-year prison sentence handed down to climate activist Jessica Reznicek, ruling that a terrorism enhancement attached to her sentence was “harmless.”

The terror enhancement, which dramatically increased Reznicek’s sentence from its original recommended range, set a troubling precedent. Decided by a lower court in 2021, it contends that Reznicek’s acts against private property were “calculated to influence or affect the conduct of government.” The appellate justices’ decision to uphold her sentence, callously dismissing the challenge to her terrorism enhancement, doubles down on a chilling message: Those who take direct action against rapacious energy corporations can be treated as enemies of the state.

Reznicek, an Iowa-based member of the Catholic Worker Movement and a participant in the Indigenous-led climate struggle, engaged in acts of property damage in an attempt to stop the completion of the Dakota Access pipeline in 2016 and 2017. Along with fellow activist Ruby Montoya, Reznicek took credit for various acts of sabotage, which harmed no humans or animals but burnt a bulldozer and damaged valves of the pipeline. The damaged equipment was property not of the U.S. government, but of private pipeline and energy companies.

Following Reznicek’s guilty plea to a single charge of conspiracy to damage an energy facility — which brought a recommended sentencing range of 37 to 46 months — Judge Rebecca Goodgame Ebinger, in allegiance with prosecutors, added the terrorism enhancement. This increased her sentencing range to 210 to 240 months, making the eight-year sentence Reznicek ultimately received fit comfortably below the accepted range, though it’s more than double the previous recommendation. (Montoya, who also pleaded guilty, has filed a motion to withdraw her plea, claiming that it was coerced.)

Both courts’ decisions on Reznicek’s sentence reflect unsurprising but deeply troubling priorities in our criminal legal system. It would be unempirical to the point of foolishness to expect the courts, stacked as they are with right-wing justices, to side with individuals taking risks to stop environmental devastation rather than those corporations making millions on the back of it. Yet Reznicek’s appeal was on a point of law: Terrorism enhancements are only supposed to be applicable to crimes that target governmental conduct; Reznicek’s targets were private corporations.

The collapsing of government and corporate interests signified by Reznicek’s terrorism enhancement is worthy of profound challenge, but the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals judges did not even address the substance of the activist’s appeal. In a short, unsigned opinion, the court wrote that even if there had been an “error” in applying a terrorism enhancement, it was “harmless,” because Ebinger had stated on the record that she would have imposed an eight-year sentence with or without the terrorism enhancement.

It is a cynical move indeed to sidestep the chilling effect of labeling such acts as “terrorism,” as if it carries no material consequences for the future of water and Indigenous land protection and other social movements. As Reznicek’s support team wrote in a statement Monday, “Federal prosecutors only pursued terrorism enhancements against Reznicek after 84 Congressional representatives wrote a letter in 2017 to Attorney General Jeff Sessions requesting that Reznicek and other protesters who tamper with pipelines be prosecuted as domestic terrorists.” These members of Congress, note Reznicek’s supporters, have together received a combined $36 million in campaign contributions from the oil and gas industry.

Determinations over which actions are labeled “terrorism” are always political, and in this case nakedly so given the clear pressure applied on prosecutors by politicians and their industry backers. Ebinger’s claim — that she would have imposed the excessive eight-year sentence with or without the terror enhancement triggered — cannot be considered the final word here. Reporting on Reznicek’s case, ABC News — an outlet hardly aligned with the environmental left — noted that neither white supremacist murderer Dylann Roof or avowed neo-Nazi James Fields, who plowed his car into anti-fascist protesters in Charlottesville, Virginia, received a terrorism enhancement when sentenced.

Reznicek’s legal team will continue to challenge her sentence in court, especially since the question of the misapplication of a terrorism enhancement remains open, despite the judges’ decision this week. A full court hearing by the 8th Circuit, an appeal to the far-right Supreme Court, or a request for clemency from President Joe Biden are all technical options, but hardly are any of these sites of optimism.

(9 June 2021) You may have heard that the Keystone XL pipeline project, which environmentalist and First Nations protestors have been fighting for years, has been cancelled by developer TC Energy after Biden revoked its permit (in January 2021).

Despite this victory, First Nations/Sioux water protecters High Elk and Jasilyn Charger are still facing criminal charges for protesting the construction of this pipeline. High Elk faces 23 years and Jasilyn faces a year of jail time after their arrest in January 2021.

You can sign a petition to drop the charges against them (dated Jan 2021, updated March 25 2021) here (and watch this space for updates and requests for protesters to attend court dates). There is also a GoFundMe campaign to support Roots Camp (which was set up on the Cheyenne River Sioux Reservation in protest of the Keystone XL Pipeline, and will remain as the pipes are removed) and to help fight the charges against High Elk and Jasilyn (updated 23 January 2021). See here for more ways to help (including joining the camp and donating supplies).

This victory is not a permanent one. The Keystone pipeline has been cancelled and reinstated in the past.

“We know they'll be back, the oil companies," said Harold Frazier, the chairman of the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe in northern South Dakota. "We could have another president just four years from now. So it's kind of a temporary relief.”

As long as the U.S. president has the authority to issue cross-border permits for piplines (such as the permit that Trump issued for Keystone XL), any president (including Biden) could reinstate approval for it without warning. The pipeline was revoked solely on presidential authority and not for any reason that references First Nations sovereignty or the project's illegality. That's why there is currently (as of 2 June 2021) a lawsuit challenging the president's authority to do this.

You can read more about the history of this pipline here.

The Dakota Access Pipeline (DAPL) is not being shut down, having been allowed by the Biden administration to continue running (article dated 21 May 2021).

"It's not about canceling one extractive project or another. It's about ignoring our sovereignty," said Angeline Cheek, an Indigenous justice organizer for the American Civil Liberties Union of Montana, who is from the Fort Peck Reservation.

"Keystone was canceled, but DAPL still exists. What is the logic in that?" Cheek said.

This overturns a decision last year (July 2020) to halt the running of the pipeline pending an environmental review. You can read updates on the Standing Rock Sioux litigation against the pipeline here.

Given the ever-evolving nature of the situation involving these pipelines, it seems irresponsible to share news about Keystone XL's cancellation without history, action items, or things to keep an eye on.