On the heels of private security attacking peaceful protestors, the Dakota Access Pipeline project, a 1,172 mile pipeline set to carry crude oil from North Dakota to refineries in southern Illinois, has become a major source of political controversy. The protests surrounding the construction reflect a wide range of interests opposed to the pipeline, but the really crude thing about the Dakota Access project is the disregard for property rights.
The largest group of protestors is comprised of Native American tribes coalescing around injustices against their ancestral lands, which includes representatives of more than 200 other tribes. The Sioux of the Standing Rock Sioux Reservation, among the other tribes, have identified the negative side effects of the pipeline construction to be both cultural and environmental, in the contested area near the reservation, but still under the jurisdiction of the United States Army Corp of Engineers (USACE). Nonetheless, the USACE acknowledged that no easement had been granted to Dakota Access, the company overseeing the construction of the Dakota Access Pipeline, at the time construction began.
The pipeline is also slated to run through land owned by Midwestern farmers, many of which accepted the Dakota Access agreement. But, as Jack Healy points out, “In Iowa, one of the four states that the pipeline would traverse, some farmers have gone to court to keep it off their land. They say that Iowa regulators were wrong to grant the pipeline company the power of eminent domain to force its way through their farms.” Equipped with this government granted power to use force, it is no wonder that most property owners ended up signing easements.
Dakota Access and s
ome of the beneficiaries of the pipeline argue for the construction on the grounds of its economic benefits. Among the benefits the company lists are, “an estimated $156 million in state and local revenues”, “8,000-12,000 construction jobs” which would be temporary, and “up to 40 permanent operating jobs.” However, the costs of the pipeline, depending on the size of a potential accident, are unknown. With the severe environmental costs to negligence and government mismanagement over natural resources in Flint, Michigan still fresh for many Americans, the Sioux protests are understandable.
A report from the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) notes that there have been over $7.5 billion dollars in damages from pollution caused by pipeline accidents and ruptures. Even those costs, however, might be a low estimate. Non-point source pollution, which is pollution whose origin cannot be traced, may account for further damages that are difficult to estimate. Should a pipe along the Dakota Access pipeline rupture, it could leech into the ground and contaminate crops or drinking water, the cost of which would not necessarily be immediately calculable and would be difficult to relate back to the ruptured pipe.
Between poorly defined property rights over natural resources and the widespread use of eminent domain, the Sioux aren’t just protesting the Dakota Access Pipeline, but the cronyism that enabled it. The values the Standing Rock Sioux are protesting for are not rooted solely in culture or the environment, but in property rights. The multitude of overlapping groups standing up against this construction project have one thing in common: people should be free to use their justly acquired property as they please. The government agencies and companies imposing their pipeline on peaceful property owners stand squarely opposed to this freedom.
This piece solely expresses the opinion of the author and not necessarily the organization as a whole. Students For Liberty is committed to facilitating a broad dialogue for liberty, representing a variety of opinions. If you’re a student interested in presenting your perspective on this blog, visit our guest submissions page.