DaPL

[Ronster]

Can someone explain to me why you wouldn't make it a point to steer a pipeline clear of water reservoirs? I can see the need for the pipeline based on a researched and anticipated need basis for the pipeline, but why on earth take what has to be the most inconsiderate route? If someone in the administration was looking for an occasion to be compromising this would be the best place to start.

[Phoebe]

They rejected the original route proposed, which only crossed the river one time at a narrower place, as opposed to four crossings including one under the lake, because - get this - they were worried about the potential hazards to the water supply in Bismarck. The humor is that I was surprised they cared - must be that some of the people involved in the company actually live and work in North Dakota. The Canadians have no such compunctions when it comes to their pipeline! If U.S. people with private property rights get in the way, screw 'em, and by that I mean, sue 'em!

By the way, since you are a conservative I have a question about this: does it bother you when projects like this affect private property rights? Kelo v. City of New London was one of those earth-shattering moments when not only did I renew my love for Sandra Day O'Connor but I realized, my God, I am more of a libertarian than I would have realized. Long story short, I have spent a lot of time since then investigating this ideological development and am toying with writing a book about libertarian feminism (now is not the moment). I work closely with and have hung out with some Libertarians and found My People in a place called the Niskanen Center, which is a place I never, ever would have expected to find my people. Yet there they are.

So I'm curious - I take private property rights to be, along with habeas corpus and the collection of free expression rights - one of the three pillars of democracy and also any just system of collective government whatsoever. I am puzzled by the way that Republicans, in the zeal to protect their private property right as investors, are so eager to trample upon the private property rights of land owners, because I figured that's the only one of the basic rights they care much about.

[Tahlvin]

Related to that is the idea of . In a meeting yesterday with law enforcement officials, when one sheriff complained about a state senator trying to reform the asset forfeiture laws, Trump threatened to destroy the state senator's career.

I understand the need to acquire some land for the public benefit, such as for military bases, interstate highways, etc. I'm strongly opposed to the idea of the government using that right to benefit a privately held corporation.

[Phoebe]

So true! Apparently this also happens to people with respect to things like parking tickets. Suppose you don't pay on time because you can't afford it, and instead of putting you on some kind of payment plan and increasing the fine, sometimes people end up in jail and then having to pay for court costs, which they don't have money for, so then they have more jail and more court costs, and obviously they're losing whatever crap job they may have had that didn't allow them to have enough money for such things, so it becomes a whole vicious cycle.

Anyway, if things like pipelines were a public utility following normal legal processes of public review and approval, then I could understand why private property owners would be affected. But to do these things to benefit a private company - or even worse, a non-U.S. private company - for something that provides no public utility to anyone else?! The mind boggles. We aren't a "free country" when that can happen, any more than we are free when journalists are jailed or everyone is spied upon illegally or people can be jailed without due process.

[Ronster]

Legality aside, what a horrible choice for a pipeline location. Those aquifers are enormous and any leak would be disastrous in scale.

[bralbovsky]

Have we checked whether oil companies are buying up water purification technology, water transport and water rights?

[Phoebe]

The people living on the reservation are just going to be S.O.L. if this happens. And it always happens, so the hope is for small leaks on land. Cf. what happened in Arkansas, Michigan, Montana, Iowa, and so on. If everyone was getting better access to fuel out of the deal this Might make sense, but of course, that is not what happens. The labor leaders who supported these pipelines on the theory that twenty temporary low paid jobs might be added have totally lost my respect. Yes, what a boon to labor!

[Ronster]

The initial route passed to the north of the reservoir crossing only the river, not the enormous body of standing water. A pipeline should never be in or aound a body of standing water. This is a horrible scenario for an eco-disaster. If I assume that the amount of petroleum delivered will not be affected by the distance it travels, then it could be argues that having the pipeline is more important fiscally than having the shortest cheapest route. It's like solar panels...they will pay for themselves, but some sooner than others. I cannot accept this as a reasonable route for a pipeline.

[Phoebe]

Yep, the route change due to concerns about poisoning the Bismarck drinking water is a crystal clear affirmation that they know leaks happen and can go undetected a long time, and that it is A-OK to poison the Sioux. What's new?

In other similarly amusing news, large beer manufacturers and distributors want laws in the same area to limit microbreweries, because who are those uppity small business owners to make better beer and try to sell more of it?! But of course we cannot limit the volume of alcohol (mostly from the same large manufacturers) sold next door to the reservations, because freedom!!! It's one of the worst ongoing violences, how the US treats native tribes.